If they're lower in cognitive ability they aren't similarly situated. And if they have a different major they certainly aren't.
How could that happen without massive disparate impact lawsuits? (Unless they're not really similarly situated--different cities, different professions chosen, etc.)
He would simply point out that there is no example in history, with the exception of the few brief periods in which Israel has existed as an insular sovereign political entity, in which Jewish people have had the power to openly privilege themselves as a dominant racial group at the expense of other groups. Whereas there was a period of several centuries wherein white people — conscious of their whiteness and the way it made them different/better than other people — had both the means and the willpower to travel around the world establishing states in which they were made the supreme/privileged race and others were treated as less-than as a result.
And even people who weren't white nationalists could look at that and say "motte and bailey".
He can claim that abolishing whiteness is a technical term that doesn't imply any racial hostility. But saying "I don't really mean X" when there are plenty of people in your coalition who do mean X is indistinguishable from giving them cover and encouraging them even if you pinky swear that that isn't really what you mean.
Compared to members of the minority population with similar credentials?
His argument is that the independence of US territories is unconstitutional because the Constitution denies some powers to the states and independence implies granting those powers, and because the Constitution applies to the states and making them independent denies the inhabitants their constitutional rights.
The former argument should fail because the Constitution actually says "state" and territories that are granted independence are not states. The latter argument wouldn't apply to the Phillippines because the inhabitants were not US citizens and not born in the US. He just handwaved away the Insular Cases and he claimed the inhabitants of the Phillippines were born in the US, which wasn't true.
Note that the argument isn't actually originalism.
The jobs feminine women perform don't care about three year resume gaps if there's a kid involved.
Wasn't one of the big complaints of feminism when it started that such jobs did care about the gap?
"Do not weakman in order to show how bad a group is."
You literally picked some random person from a group you don't like and told a shaggy dog story about her just so you can have a wall of text whose upshot is that this person and "people like" her are bad.
Minority outcomes have shifted very little in any positive directions.
I think "not being a slave" is pretty positive.
If you read my comment more carefully, you'd know the whole point was to contrast mainstream conservatives with the far-right, who I recognize as distinct groupings.
Then why do you claim that most of this site is far right?
Is it? Most people don't behave as if marriages are transactions (in a nontrivial sense). For that matter, they don't behave as if children are property. People who do treat marriages as transactions and children as property are frowned on and considered disturbed and even criminal. You can in some literal sense use those terms but that ignores the emotional attachments people have to spouses and children, which massively affects behavior.
Also, some of your conclusions don't seem to match the real world. The average woman in favor of abortion isn't more likely to be progressive because they have the least to offer other than sex and children. Being progressive is associated with having the most to offer--they're likely to have university degrees, journalist positions, etc. Housewifes are more likely to oppose abortion.
You also seem to think that the belief about whether fetuses count as people is for all practical purposes completely downstream from other considerations. But it's obvious in the real world that religious belief in the personhood of the fetuses is a huge source of opposition to abortion, not the effect of it.
That is a very noncentral use of the term "sex worker".
That's low IQ by mistake theory. By conflict theory their IQ is fine, but they're being disingenuous in a way that doesn't make sense.
I'd think that if the movement has changed enough that the bad faith from 40 years ago isn't relevant, then people in the present-day movement who are acting in good faith would say "I admit that happened 40 years ago, but we no longer want to do that." If they don't say that, then either they are acting in bad faith today or they have to appease people in the movement who are acting in bad faith today.
Ideally they should also add "... and here's what we're doing to make sure it doesn't happen again". But they haven't even gotten to the first step of admitting that it's a concern.
Every time I read one of these pathetic tough guy screeds, my first thought is to laugh at the absolute lack of self-awareness. 'Reee, my outgroup is full of animals who would never compromise or act in good faith! This justifies me never acting in good faith either.
Cool. Tell me about some relevant instances of your outgroup acting in good faith.
Illegal immigrants can't vote, so the "importing voters" theory doesn't hold up so well
But they add to how much the votes of people around them count. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evenwel_v._Abbott
"Not paid enough" and "doesn't have good working conditions" are in the same category and both can be improved. They could allow talking (especially if they pay by the bushel so talking wasting time won't hurt them), they just didn't.
Also, people think of family businesses too favorably. Family businesses are often inefficient, and their owners vary much more in pettiness than big businesses.
And Iran is not at war with China, so China can do this.
If Iran wants Israel to stop, they can negotiate peace.
I can count on one hand the number of minutes per month I'm delayed by a cyclist. On the other hand, every time the Penguins or Pirates play a weekday home game I'm treated to at least ten minutes of extra sitting in traffic so a bunch of suburbanites can treat themselves to a night of overpriced disappointment.
You need to figure out the amount of delay per cyclist and per driver, not the total amount of delay. The total amount is skewed by the much larger number of cars.
I would bet that if all those people went to the ball game on bicycles, your delays would not get any shorter.
If you say "it's okay for the AI to do as poorly as a poorly performing human", you'll end up concluding that even an Eliza program can do better than a drunk human who can barely type out words on a keyboard. And if you say "the AI only needs to exceed a top human at a few tasks", then a C64, which can run a simple calculator or chess program, would count as a general AI.
People are not cherrypicking. What they are doing is like the Turing test itself, but testing for intelligence instead of for "is like a human". People asking questions in a Turing test can't tell you in advance which questions would prove the target is a computer, but they have implicit knowledge that lets them dynamically change their questions to whatever is appropriate. Likewise, we don't know in advance exactly what things ChatGPT would have to do to prove it's a general intelligence, but we can use our implicit knowledge to dynamically impose new requirements based on how it succeeds at the previous requirements.
Saying "well, it can write, but can it code" is ultimately no different from saying "well, it can tell me its favorite food, but can it tell me something about recipes, and its favorite book, and what it did on Halloween". We don't complain that when someone does a Turing test and suddenly asks the computer what it did on Halloween, that he's cherrypicking criteria because he didn't write down that question ahead of time.
this would be too convenient since "genetics matter" is a known non-progressive moral precept.
That's all right, I'm not a progressive.
The other difference between this and defining "woman" is that people who disguise themselves as other races are not really an issue, and the equivalent for women is. If a lot of white people claimed to be black and tried to look black, the definition would no longer work.
If Argentina can cause inflation by mistake, and Japan wants inflation, why can't they copy Argentina?
how do you explain to the autist the difference between black people and white people?
-
if they look unambiguously black
-
if they look ambiguously black and at least one parent is black (recursively)
If the autist is not able to tell if someone looks unambiguously black, there is nothing you can do.
This fails if someone is wearing a good disguise. But that's a general problem with determining anything by sight. This problem also applies in obvious ways to the trans issue.
"Scientism" is itself a sneer, and insofar as it means anything, is usually a false accusation claiming that people worship science or use science when they should be using feelings instead. Of course since its actual meaning is vague, anyone who uses it can deny meaning what they are using it to to mean and there's no way to prove them wrong.
Do we do false dichotomies here, or do we do false dichotomies here?
- Prev
- Next
They're still not accurate. You snuck in there "enables Israel to finally solve the Gaza Question with ethnic cleansing" as a "successful" prediction. It's actually a failed prediction.
"Knowingly" and "will give Israel an excuse to" are not successful predictions either, unless you can read minds.
More options
Context Copy link