The claim was that "we figured out how to handle Nazis 80 years ago", where the "we" that did the handling would be considered modern-day Nazis, and it is to people holding a mild version of their opinions that the modern "handling" is being applied.
I don't think I said anything that disagrees with your post. Except for one detail - the comic you linked writes (emphasis mine):
"It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door."
But as I think you'll agree, the problem is that "the people listening" often don't show the door (that's why hateful accounts gain such large followings), and it's up to the corporate owners to do the deplatforming.
But I agree it's better PR to describe it as "people" doing it. The manufacturing of consent necessary to maintain our democracy is much easier if we trick "the people listening" into thinking they are doing it, instead of it being done to them by 3rd parties.
You're right, credit also goes to the Russians that had just finished starving Ukraine into submission (and would go on to implement a system of brutal repression that killed tens of millions and consigned eastern Europe to dictatorships for decades), and the British colonial empire.
In other words, trying to claim any side of WWII had modern liberal anti-racist sensibilities is farcical, and that such claims so often meet no resistance only speaks to our utter historical ignorance.
But remember - Malthusianism was debunked, and the planet can support many more people. As long as you never think about environmentalism and population size at the same time - the only way to hold two conflicting ideas at once. I wonder if there's a succinct term for it..
Throughout the piece he cautions against abandoning friends, principles, and of striving for the inner circle for its own sake, and for greed. It is a very uncharitable reading to then recast this caution and awareness as a general prohibition against entering the inner ring for any purpose. Nothing in the piece gave me the impression he is cautioning against, e.g., an upstart entrepreneur entering various inner rings to grow his sales, or a general vying for political power to help his country. It is the inverse he warns of - a general staying silent, or becoming a yes-man against his better judgement, to gain social standing at the expense of his troops.
You're right, he spends few words extolling the usefulness of the inner ring [1] - presumably he thought it obvious, especially to his audience at King's College. Probably seeing greed and sycophancy as bigger dangers than lack of ambition or too much sincerity, he naturally warned against the former. Like an old captain warning against storms instead of giving encouraging words about how many fish there are to catch. I wouldn't begrudge him that.
[1] Few, but not none: It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.
It's very in line with the current zeitgeist to dismiss a thoughtful piece on the perils of compromising personal values and friendships for the sake of social climbing, as a mere defense of classism. Gone from public discussion are virtue, integrity, loyalty. There is only class struggle.
Did you get the impression he meant labour organizers or ambitious but honest entrepreneurs when he spoke of scoundrels? Or, given his emphasis on friendship, did he mean those who would sell-out their co-workers? Do you really mean to defend the "financial upward mobility" that comes from, say, withholding the health hazards of a product?
So it is your claim that Blacks still lie about their race on the census, in significant numbers, because they are afraid of... what, exactly? Except in rare cases, race is obvious on sight, so I don't see what they would gain by giving a different answer on the census.
Of course you presumably have a good source backing up your claim that Blacks are afraid to identify their race on the census, and trustworthy alternate statistics counting the racial makeup of the US?
> What is the better solution that retains the anti-theft capabilities of the device?
Include the unlock key in the box the device was sold in, and in Apple's database. Tech-savvy users can, possessing the key, change it. Tech-unsavvy users can behave the same as they have now, even if they lost the key, as long as they didn't change it. So long as they don't carry the key with the device, all the anti-theft remains.
The freedom-respecting solution is literally trivial. The only reason it is not implemented is because Apple likes owning your devices.
> Higher-income households reside in distinct neighborhoods and send their children to better schools than low-income households.
But state and federal funding supplements local tax school funding to achieve approximately equal funding per pupil, and the US is 4th in the world (behind only Luxembourg, Norway, and Iceland) in per-student primary education spending [1]. So what makes those schools "good"?
48% of the US, including 35% of those self-described as liberal, and 25% of those self-described as extremely liberal, are nazis? What a flexible (and useful!) term. I'm so glad it's only ever applied to my opponents.
I don't know why you're singling out the middle-aged or men, but in the 1950s the US was in fact 87.5% non-Hispanic White [1], so all other groups accounted for only 12.5%.
Much like the EU patent convention that also excludes computer programs as such, programs for generic computers routinely get patented. It seems it is the opinion of esteemed patent judges that "as such" means it only applies to programs that do nothing other than exist as computer programs, in some pure, Platonic sense. If they actually do anything, they are no longer "as such" (but if they do nothing, that is not a patentable invention anyway, software or not).
In other words, it is the learned and wise decision of the honored judiciary that the entire sentence excluding computer programs is there just for decoration. Like flavor text on a Magic card. As a layperson I naturally defer to their expert judgement.
> a lot of opposition from feminists for obvious reasons
They oppose financial aid to young families, flexible working hours, and the promotion of living in multigenerational/extended family homes, where relatives help care for children, and free schooling/kindergartens? There are many countries, past and present, with above-replacement fertility, so this is nothing but pretend-helplessness. Israel, for example, is a modern economy, yet has a 2.9 fertility rate [1]. France and Ireland are at 1.8 - just a small push away from the 2.1 replacement level.
From the point of view of the native population (and not "the economy"), immigration is the worst option - not only does it introduce a competing group, it allows the system that resulted in their sub-replacement fertility to persist, where otherwise some change would be forced to come about.
[1] And better gender equality than the US, as well as China. The latter has a 1.2 fertility rate, which, together with the high fertility of Islamic countries, shows there is no simple linear link between gender equality and fertility. Sources:
Interesting. The researcher correctly states that economic concerns are only an excuse. But he never asks why people object to reducing their homelands to mere economic zones. This is typical of such research - their goal (openly stated in this interview) is to undermine national identity and promote immigration. He does not ask or propose what we should do instead of mass immigration - he is only concerned how to continue immigration despite the people's objections, and how to silence those objections.
All running on the implicit assumption that "xenophobia" is simply incorrect (not just morally wrong) - that humans are unique in the animal kingdom in that they benefit from more competitors in the same territorial and ecological niche.