611–620 of 646 posts
Btw, how can this 383 (currently) points article, posted 1 hour ago be below a 34 point article of 16 hours ago. This feels like a multi-hour front-page article to me... Edit: Ah flags, just reading about what they are. We have to be protected from ourselves then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moldbug believes that white people are the intellectual superiors of black people. That's supremacy. It's on his blog and in the medium post you linked. He isn't fooling anybody with his explanation of how that belief isn't racist or supremacist.
He also believes that Asians and Jews are on average the intellectual superiors of "white" people, so it's not clear to me how that's "white" supremacy. He's very clear that he separates the scientific question from the moral one. The belief that intelligence is largely genetic is fairly mainstream and supported by a large body of evidence. If he is committed to treating all groups of people with equal respect, that…
but it is the literal definition of racism...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been thinking about what bothers me about Clinton and here's an example: In 2008, Clinton declares she's opposed to gay marriage. Now it's 2016, and the majority of the American people are in favor of gay marriage. And guess what, Clinton is in favor of gay marriage. The battle has been won and now Mrs. Clinton proudly jumps on the barricade. Now you may say this is just the reality of politics, but at some poin…
Hillary's team states that she is still very opposed to gay marriage. She is simply lying now.
There is no evidence to suggest she opposes it now, and a little evidence to suggest she was lying in 2008.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but presidents (on average) get a remarkable percentage of their policies passed in some form. Maybe you don't support 90% of what Donald or Hillary say, but you have to be careful: it's almost guaranteed that at least something of that 90% is going to happen. Also, there are varying degrees of agree-ability. I do not agree with many of Hillary's policies, but there aren't any that I would take a firm stance ag…
But for these people that are still supporting Trump, they consider that avoiding 90% of Hillary's platform worth the cost of Trump. Bear in mind, when Nate Silver pointed out that Trump would win if only men could vote, women (a small number, mind you) were tweeting they'd gladly give up their right to vote if it got Trump elected. You have to understand that that is how some people feel about Hillary. That losing t…
I think the problem is that's not true. From what I've read, people don't support a candidate because they agree or disagree with the opposition on real-terms. They support because of "fake terms."
I consider these fake terms to be one I hear a lot from Trump supporters: "Hillary Clinton wants to take our guns away."
> women (a small number, mind you) were tweeting they'd gladly give up their right to vote if it got Trump elected.
There are plenty of women that think women shouldn't vote, regardless of Trump! There are men who think men shouldn't vote, etc.. etc.. fortunately, the internet gives them a platform: unfortunately, sometimes these groups aren't keen on reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, Clinton's side is all rainbows and ponies. This whole post is about Clinton's side wanting to throw Thiel out because of his views! Like happened to Eich. That doesn't clear Trump in any way, but don't you see both sides are the same? That's the problem!
How could you possibly equate a private company disavowing a single billionaire with the president of the United States harassing and deporting millions of people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electoral reform is a hot topic, but what people usually mean by it is not a change in how the votes are counted. The most popular issue is campaign financing (with the current arrangement being that there's no practical limit a private party can pour into the elections, so long as they do the Super-PAC dance). Another big issue of concern is gerrymandering. For Democrats, the way their primaries function (superdeleg…
Interesting. I work in education in the UK and the way we assess pupils is a relatively complex calculation based on a number of factors. So schools, teachers, pupils and parents are all aware that attainment is a complex beast and requires an open, yet complex calculation. Which leads me onto STV and other ways of counting votes, none of these are as simple as first past the post, but these are all far simpler than…
Except Thiel is saying many of the repugnant things that made Trump popular. - Thiel is passionately against all forms of political correctness, just like Trump. - Thiel believes that the 19th amendment destroyed democracy, because women vote in favor for anti-libertarian welfare measures. When faced with the choice between saving democracy and capitalism, Thiel chooses capitalism. Trump shares this antidemocratic se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reason the two party system continues to exist is because so many people insist on there not being other options, despite there literally being other candidates on the ballot. No, it's because the mechanics of the voting rules themselves lead to a stable two party system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
And because people complain about the candidates each election, but never do anything about the system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm completely in favour of understanding why people think what they do - apart from anything else, it's almost impossible to persuade them of anything different if you don't start from a position of sympathy. In order to give you the opportunity of gaining a position of sympathy with me; one of the reasons I was asking about 'validity' is that it sounds formal and logical, but it doesn't seem to be being used in a f…
Thanks for the comments. Yes, this deserves more explanation. I mean "valid" essentially as a truism. It's a valid perspective because people are able to hold that perspective. What makes it important to point out, in my opinion, is that it doesn't matter how irrational or ugly or wrong that perspective is, it can't simply be dismissed because it is such. That makes us incapable of fostering an environment in which a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: many of the founding fathers were crazy sexist racists, yet we still hold their other opinions in quite high regard.
No "we" don't. Not all of us. Many of us hold the Founding Fathers in deep contempt. There is now DNA evidence showing that Thomas Jefferson raped Sally Hemings. That means that all of Thomas Jefferson's writings, including the Declaration Of Independence, needs to be re-evaluated and perhaps put aside.