@sarker's banner p

sarker

It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:50:08 UTC

				

User ID: 636

sarker

It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:50:08 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 636

As far as I can tell, the primary beneficiaries of "disproportionate impact" policies and hiring of "marginalized people" are black people. The people advocating and voting for these policies are white people.

How and when did this come about? Well, affirmative action dates back to the sixties, and was well underway in the nineties. As for where all these black people came from, if I remember your family history correctly, I am afraid you will have to blame your ancestors.

Okay, let's see the clustering.

I hope it considers that all Mexicans are white (as a federal court did in in re Rodriguez), that people who are half white and a quarter Japanese and a quarter chinese are not white (in re Knight), Syrians are white (in re Najour), Afghans are white (in re Dolla), Armenians are white (in re Halladjian), Indians are white (United States v. Balsara), Syrians are not white (Ex parte Shahid), Indians are not white (In re Sadar Bhagwab Singh), Afghans are not white (In re Feroz Din), Arabs are white (In re Ahmed Hassan) and that arabs are not white (In re Ahmed Hassan).

If it conflicts with the above in some way, it would seem that the term "white" used in ordinary language and society doesn't always conform to what you might see on a multidimensional genetic chart. That you can define "white" in a way to be defensible via the chart doesn't mean that's how it's always or even typically used. Hence, "socially constructed".

Is there anything to this post beyond sneering at a member of the outgroup?

It's not a surprise that people don't ride bikes anywhere when you have to share the road with people who essentially have carte blanche to kill you with impunity The lack of consequences for killing or injuring bikers casts serious doubt on the claim that cyclists are the "favoured children".

Why post on this forum if you don't want to abide by the rules around inflammatory language and speaking clearly? There are many other fora where you can describe in great detail what needs to be done to the homeless (in Minecraft).

You are highlighting one passing sentence of his out of a ~100-sentence post about something else.

This is a poor response - if making a dig about Jews is not the point of the post, why is it there? Would you be dismayed if someone wrote a 100 sentence post, included a dig at straight white men in the middle, and someone bristled?

The safetyists say that you should wear a seatbelt, you agree, and yet claim.they are wrong about everything.

20% of Israelis are Arabs and have full equality. Some ethnic cleansing.

All that wealth they generate seems to mostly circulate within their own community or get sent back home.

I don't know why you think that the wealth circulates in their own community - they buy goods and services like any other Americans. Cognizant H1Bs aren't getting haircuts from other Cognizant employees.

They do send remittances, but what's wrong with that? Taking money out of circulation in America reduces the price level.

Moreover, when your own refutations are called into question or proven incorrect, you simply ignore and move on instead of defending your position.

This couldn't be more incorrect. If anything, I probably respond way past the point of zero marginal returns (example: this very comment).

Stop being the critic, and be the man in the arena. Tell us something good.

I made a poast about psychopaths a few months ago, but nothing good has come to mind recently. Writer's block, what are you going to do?

Pay attention kids, that's how a pro traps his prior.

I don't really believe you have any firsthand knowledge of Somali rumors.

That's not really answering the question.

Edit since you edited after I responded:

Why would I not post

I'm not saying you shouldn't post here. I'm just wondering why you post obviously rule breaking stuff, then get huffy when you get (predictably) moderated when you could post that stuff elsewhere and get a round of applause.

And you? You post an awful lot of one line angry complaints about people, and don't seem to like being downvoted for them.

I don't believe I've ever complained about my comments being downvoted, and I don't even think that my comments are angry. I'd even say it's a little ironic that I'm being accused of being angry in this particular thread.

Preboonking: I don't vouch that I've never ever complained about being downvoted, but if it does happen, it's rare.

What keeps you coming back?

Force of habit, I guess. I've been here since the /r/ssc days, and sometimes there really is something interesting posted here.

Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

There are other forums without this rule.

Either you don't know, or you want to equivocate.

[The government] condescends to "advise" me about what languages I can or cannot use

There has been no advising on what languages you can or cannot use. This event has not taken place.

It's crazy to blame inflation on Biden when the deficit and money printing happened under Trump, and justify it with a Biden policy that never happened.

"Statistics show things are not bad" -> "believe the anecdotes around you!"

"People are doing well around me" -> "no, not those anecdotes!"

But we're getting it both ways. They're pushing for "discouraging" activities they oppose while forcing us to subsidize the health risks of activities they support.

This doesn't sound like you're getting it both ways. It sounds like it's just one way - that you can engage in just about any activity (except smoking I guess, although I have never revealed my smoking status to my insurer) without insurers taking action.

The hypotheticals are closer to a persecution fantasy than reality.

If they are being flagrantly misused to spread proven lies and undermine the public which owns them, why shouldn't the license get pulled?

Completely agree. Anyone broadcasting vaccine misinformation or transphobia contradicting consensus public health science on public airwaves should be shut down.

I admit I put my foot in it re: Afghanistan but I don't think Lebanon is a slam dunk. We're talking about ethnic differences here, so we have to look beyond "well Israel is 75% Jewish so it's homogenous". Those Jews come from all kinds of places with all kinds of ethnic backgrounds.

Not only are "they" not interested in taking the wilderness away from you, "they" make billions of dollars a year thanks to you visiting the wilderness. This post is just doomporn.

It's not a gotcha to expect beliefs to interface with reality in an observable way.

The government has not told you that you can or cannot use any languages. It has simply pointed out that using C is related to vulnerabilities.

Memory safety vulnerabilities are a class of vulnerability affecting how memory can be accessed, written, allocated, or deallocated in unintended ways.iii Experts have identified a few programming languages that both lack traits associated with memory safety and also have high proliferation across critical systems, such as C and C++.iv Choosing to use memory safe programming languages at the outset, as recommended by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) Open-Source Software Security Roadmap is one example of developing software in a secure-by- design manner.v

It's possible that the government has been taken over by the rust evangelism strike force, but it's unlikely. Hence, the path and motivation from "C is unsafe" to taking your freedoms continues to elude me.

What, exactly, is the harm? The benefit is, as I said, a reduction in the price level.

Note that remittances are 0.7% of GDP and so any effect (good or bad) is probably indistinguishable from zero.

Let's not do the thing where the poster is directionally correct, but we're nitpicking the details. Yeah, it's not 100 shots, but it's a lot, and it's a lot more than before.

Wait a second. There is no "directionally correct" here - the poster said not 100 but "hundreds" and the true number is around 30. It's "directionally correct" in the sense that the sign is right, but that's about it. If he said "thousands", would that still be "directionally correct"?

And it's not a semantic nit, because we can mostly all agree that the ideal number of vaccines is greater than 0 and less than "hundreds". So where exactly we are on that spectrum is basically the entire discussion.

Let's flip it. Why should an infant be receiving Hep B and Covid vaccines? Why should they receive any vaccines that they didn't in 1990 (or whenever the Chicken Pox vaccine came out).

I don't think there's a good reason to vaccinate infants against COVID.

I don't know why infants are vaccinated against hep B but it's been recommended for newborns since the 1991 (and patented in 1972), so by your heuristic that one seems pretty safe.

The post-1990s vaccines to have vanishingly little benefit and unquantified risk.

It's not clear to me that this is the case, but I'd be curious to see if anyone has actually looked at this rigorously. I don't know off the top of my head which ones are post 1990s.