You say that as if the media sycophants would not be trumpeting such a connection 24/7 if Trump had one. That is my point. It does not matter if he claimed to have repented (you know, after filibustering the Civil Rights act of 1964), they would have spun it against him anyway. The fact that they haven't even mentioned Byrd is proof of bias.
edit for dang: Thank you for Correcting The Record. If you're going mark accusations of racism as off-topic, you should have done so a little further up-thread.
I'll give you props for not leaving an article like this flagged and dead for once. Too big to sweep under the rug?
>In case it's a concern: we don't care what your specific ideology is.
"We just cannot allow Donald Trump to become president. It would destroy this country." -- Paul Graham.
"I am contributing to both vote.org and voteplz.org, and probably two other get-out-the-vote non-profits. There are different approaches to this problem and I'm not sure which will work best, but unlike many for-profit startups it's non zero-sum–we have a long, long way to go to 100% voter turnout, and all the organizations working on this share the same fundamental goal. This feels like the most important US presidential election I've ever witnessed, and I want to do whatever I can to make sure we're all involved. -- Sam Altman
Hillary is far, far more deserving of that label than Trump. To campaign and donate millions of dollars on her behalf requires ignorance, a seriously twisted moral compass, or some financial and political incentives that you don't want to talk about.
>The reason I'm worried is that it's becoming increasingly clear why the GOP was so enthusiastic about blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. That never made any sense, except in a bizarro world where they were very sure they weren't going to lose the Presidency.
How does that not make sense? They've been blocking everything they can since they got the majority.
I think this is a big part of why the SV powerhouses are mobilizing against Trump. They rally the troops with hyperbole and accusations of racism and sexism, but in private they're afraid of losing their H1B wage slaves and tax havens.
They may not all be interested in it ("weeaboo trash") but I would hazard a guess that the vast majority would openly laugh at the idea that someone is offended by such things.
The people that write about games in the West have little in common with the average player. They project their bubble's academic norms of identity politics on an audience that they hold in undisguised contempt. I wouldn't trust them for critical analysis or social commentary on any group but other angsty liberal arts majors.
Meanwhile there is a picture of Hillary embracing a KKK member that the corrupt media refuses to mention. The kingmakers don't give a good goddamn about racism, except as a convenient narrative for purges. The 21st century equivalent of accusations of communism.
“It is almost impossible to imagine the United States Senate without Robert Byrd. He was not just its longest serving member, he was its heart and soul. From my first day in the Senate, I sought out his guidance, and he was always generous with his time and his wisdom.” -- Hillary Clinton
Is it? HN has a history of patently obvious shills and downvote brigades policing various topics. Paul Graham and Sam Altman are publicly supporting and creating various PACs with the aim of swinging the election in favor of Hillary, to say nothing of what their hyperbolic language reveals about their loyalties. Is it really so hard to believe that there could be paid political shills operating on here? CTR pays people to spam 4chan ffs, I think they can spare a few people for a tiny site with disproportionate influence like HN.
Peoples who have created anything remotely resembling a functioning society don't act with this brutality and frequency towards their own kin and tribes, no matter the circumstance. Either the Papua New Guineans and others like them have gone "backwards" from a common ancestor (insert pedantic comment about how there is no such thing as devolution), or the kin-killing irrationally violent genes were always there and the rest of us eliminated most of the people that carried them because they were preventing us from operating even the most primitive of villages.
>In 2014, the US executed 34 inmates. If you think that is enough to remove "the irrationally violent" from a country with a population of over 300 million, you might need to go back to a statistics class.
You're right, it isn't nearly enough. I am talking about the effect from the past when execution was an immediate and extremely common punishment, not an ordeal that costs millions of dollars and years of retrials and appeals.
I was not necessarily advocating for eugenic programs today; I think the problem is better solved for most countries by stricter boarder controls and ending the insane policies of unrestricted immigration of violent unassimilable men. But if I were, the death penalty is not the only way to go about it; mandatory sterilization for violent criminals would have the same effect, given time and the willingness to use it consistently.
>Not to mention that if any of those inmates had children, the irrationally violent gene would live on anyway.
Yes, but you will get many of the irrationally violent before they can sire any children. Over generations this compounds and you end up with Swedes instead of Somalians.
I cut this out from my original post, but I'll add it now. Every people came from nothing. Every people had their times of feast and their times of famine. Social capital does not come from wealth, wealth comes from social capital. From being able to trust that your neighbor is probably not going to murder you and your family in your sleep.
And so you see that some groups bounce back from crippling poverty and brutal wars. And others have merely found more advanced ways to kill their neighbors.
The main benefit of the death penalty is not deterrence, it is eugenic. Remove all of the irrationally violent from the gene pool for a few generations and you will soon have a population so much less prone to violent crime that you will forget why you had a death penalty in the first place. Until, that is, you start importing foreigners that have never had the violent culled from them, and all hell breaks loose in want of a solution that doesn't sound "racist."
To be blunt, this is one of the most fundamental differences between the most successful ethnic groups, and the least.
Indeed it is a flawed utopia. Give them a planet to explore, problems to solve, predators to avoid, kin to protect, goals that must be met to survive...
>NEETs may be caused by poor life prospects, not the presence of food, shelter, and internet.
I am intimately familiar with NEETs, having spent years interacting with them. The pattern I have noticed is of above average intelligence, many even brilliant, who would have thrived if the world had only given them a push, but left to their own devices commit slow, masturbatory suicides.
Some people can invent purpose from thin air. This is especially common amongst the kinds of elites and academics that most eloquently advocate basic income. But the vast majority of us cannot any more than a mouse. Most insidious is that even those for whom purpose is closest to grasp lose their drive. The artists lose the joy of painting and the programmers never begin their projects.
The true utopia is the harsh, cruel world of nature that provides purpose to every living thing.
This paints a dark picture, not only for urban life, but for basic income. What wondrous creativity will be unlocked when we no longer need to work to survive? A negative amount, if you judge by the NEETs of today. Give a man food, shelter, and internet, and he'll kill himself for you.
The FCC chairman case is just the tip of the iceberg, but I figured this headline would be the most likely to pass under the radar given recent revelations about YC's political affiliations.
Users that want the thinnest phone possible so they can wrap it in a Fisher Price box.
Users that want cheaper phones so they can pump more money into the accessory ecosystem the functionality back.
You have fun charging 2 or 3 things every few hours and having horrible device interop or none at all with your headphones and other accessories. I'll keep my headphones.
