If you just want to block javascript and you use Chrome, you can use the dev tools. Open dev tools, click the three-bullets menu icon, click settings, then in General click Disable Javascript. You don't get a whitelist, but it's something.
I didn't live in a house with books, but my mother took me and my sisters to the library very often when we were kids. For me personally, I believe that access to books gave me much of my motivation to learn, particularly with regards to astronomy. It was early reading of astronomy books that got me really interested in science. Growing up, I didn't do particularly well in language and literature, mainly because I just wasn't interested. If I hadn't been allowed to develop an innate interest in science through astronomy, I doubt I would have done as well in math and science classes as I did because I expect I would have found them uninteresting too. I credit that early interest in science as a big factor in me now having a well-paying programming career.
Intel is doing a lot of layoffs. I'm sure many of them will be in the US, of American workers in high-tech. Granted, they're not as cheap as H1B workers, but still...
I didn't get that from the article. The author's friend was 31 when she joined the company, not much older than her 28 year old manager. To me it illustrates the churn at the company. The 28-year old manager will probably be fired - excuse me I mean "graduated" - by a 20-something manager after a few years.
Property investors aren't the ones building properties. It's the property developers. I read this in an article explaining Miami's development boom, in spite of the possibility that rising sea levels could inundate much of the new construction in the next century. The property developer's only concern is selling the property. Once it's out of their hands, they are no longer exposed to risk on that property. As long as they can continue convincing property investors that the boom will continue, developers will continue building right up till the moment that property values come crashing down.
The major examples the article raises at the start are all major race outrages that quickly fizzled out. Moral outrage is not a sustainable foundation on which to build a movement to the left.
It's simply that old non sequitur: it's 2016 and you shouldn't do X anymore. That's really their main argument. Stop using a 200 year old technology, even if it still works fine.
It will be a while still before you can actually party. As long as a measurable percentage of your users are still on these browsers, you're missing out on money of you don't support them.
I can definitely appreciate #3, having faced many incredulous questions when I refuse drinks at social events, but I think most of the author's claims are greatly exaggerated. Your mileage may vary.
Why would they surround themselves with such people? They're already wealthy, they have nothing to gain by talking to someone who will attack their character.
To offer another sci-fi example, it's how two pilots of an experimental spacecraft in the TV series Stargate SG-1 were rescued when the spacecraft rapidly traveled away from Earth and locked them out of pretty much everything except ejecting from the craft. Their rescuers were waiting in a nearby spaceship to scoop them out of the vacuum of space.
The questions have been raised. They are actually covered in the FAQ you linked to:
"Limitations on inherent tribal powers of self-government are few, but do include the same limitations applicable to states, e.g., neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or print and issue currency."
I'm not sure if this would prohibit raising an army per se, but what good is raising an army if you don't have the power to make war? Building bases is wholly out of the question, though, since that would involve engaging in foreign relations.
Unquestionably, threats should absolutely be forbidden, and they are. Threatening another person is already a federal crime and anyone receiving threats online should report it to law enforcement so the person making those threats can be dealt with and so that person can't continue to terrorize other people online.
We should feel secure for our lives. Indeed it's one of the inalienable rights defined in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
What many people now know as safe places, however, overreach their stated goal of providing security for minorities. They sacrifice liberty for life. You can put someone in jail for threatening your life, but you can't put someone in jail (or fire them or ruin their livelihood otherwise) for saying something you don't agree with. If you force someoen to empathize, they aren't truly empathizing, they are remaining quiet for fear of being called a bigot and getting their reputation ruined. They shouldn't have the right to make you fall behind at work because of harassment. Then again, no one should have the right to do that on anyone, no exceptions based on arbitrary classes/categories.