No, the worst part of Left Forum is the crackpots, the paranoiacs, the hysterics, and all the other truly dysfunctional personalities attracted by the conference’s most infamous policy: no panel submission will be rejected.

So yea, no vetting whatsoever.

It is fairly well documented that different demographic groups prioritize different issues and want different policies, the most thorough investigation of this is "Affluence and Influence", which the article obliquely references (the Gilens data). I don't know, off the top of my head, anything that looks just at how preferences differ across racial lines, but I would be surprised if they didn't.

Also, you say that "policies that help everyone flourish, like access to education and universal health care," but the problem is that not everyone agrees that access to education or healthcare is a governmental problem and even among the subset that do they don't agree on how to accomplish this.

Well it is interesting, I assume that the phrasing is important "the first black ball". So if you say the 2nd draw, and they've already drawn one on the first one then you lose.

Your probability of drawing a black ball in the first draw is 2/10 = .20 The probability of drawing your first black ball on the second draw is the probability of drawing a white ball first and then a black ball = (8/10)(2/9) = 0.178 Probability of drawing your first black ball on the third turn = (8/10)(7/9)*(2/8) = 0.156

Antwon is some weird shit. Should check out Michael Christmas as well.

Also, Flying Lotus's rap persona is Captain Murphy. This video is NSFW:

I agree, doesn't make it right though.

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but I don't see how it cannot be an ad hominen attack.

ignore the person who lives the reality as opposed to the cis woman with privilege

What she says is "you can't not believe what this author is writing because of who she is" which is an ad hominen attack. She did not engage with the author's argument in anyway, and only dismisses it based on who the author is.

Which is too bad since I would think, perhaps wrongly, that laurelai would appreciate a book about intersectionality, and how interest organizations constantly try to frame advantaged group issues as being universal, while ignoring disadvantaged group issues.

Nope.

That is not what I was saying at all.

I was just suggesting another item to read, that attacked the point from a different direction.

What you wrote is only a call to action, perhaps I was harsh in saying this, but I clicked on it assuming it would be a critique and it wasn't.

And please continue with your ad hominem attacks.

omg, I didn't know that laurelai had a website.

This article though is entirely uninteresting. It is full of ad hoc attacks, barely makes a point, and just demands to be right.

If you'd like to read something that actually makes a compelling case that interest groups for the disadvantaged only represent the least disadvantaged disadvantaged (for example, women's groups represent white middle class women, black groups represent middle class male blacks, etc), I highly recommend *Affirmative Advocacy* by Dara Strolovitch.

FYI, you have a typo.

Also can you at least cite a source for the quote if you are going to use it as a title. Just because something is a title doesn't make it true, but people like to pretend it is. Without some sort of cite, which gives some context to what this article might be about, this whole thing just seems like a setup for more circlejerking.

Also, bitcoins have recently been offered as an awesome investment. If it is going to be framed as such, it will be taxed as such. Especially when its value explodes.

Haven't you heard? Internet is serious business.

I love the regular commenters here, but when I joined hubski it was for the articles. I like to read articles on stuff I don't know about.

I ran into flagamuffin on reddit yesterday, and was asked why I hadn't been on hubski recently. The truth of matter is that A) I'm busy and B) hubski doesn't give me what I want. When I cam here I wanted interesting articles that I wouldn't find on my google reader (RIP) but it seems that hubski is just a smaller version of /r/askreddit at times, which induces more signal to noise.

I am not sure where I am going with this at this point. All I really want is somewhere on the internet where I can discuss the news of the world in a more intelligent (read less pun filled) way.

I mean...that is a large increase in only a year. Of course two data points don't necessarily make a trend, but I don't think this is insane overblown outrage. The CDC is trying to position themselves ahead of this, by perhaps being a bit alarmists.

Jesus man, I was not trying to attack you as a person, nor am I trying to call you opposed to unions. In fact I acknowledge that your comment seemed strange, so perhaps I was just not understanding you.

My initial point stands though, there is nothing special about a 40 hour work week, it is an arbitrary standard created by historical process. And yes you do imply there is something special about 40 hours a week. Or else all these statements are the same:

The problem is working 10 hours a week doing something that isn't fulfilling that doesn't compensate you adequately and provides no safety net.

The problem is working 40 hours a week doing something that isn't fulfilling that doesn't compensate you adequately and provides no safety net.

The problem is working 80 hours a week doing something that isn't fulfilling that doesn't compensate you adequately and provides no safety net.

You reference that the French rebelled against a 32 hour work week, but the Netherlands averages a 29 hour work week

Also, screw this idea that I was just trying to win internet points, what internet points are you talking about? I've also been involved in union action, including one of the largest industrial action of the last 10 years.

The work week is, at a basic level, tied to productivity

No, the work week as it currently stands is only a result of union fighting and corporations giving in. There has been some evidence to show that 40 hours seems like a fairly good amount of time, but we didn't get there because people were aiming for productivity. Which you seem to acknowledge, so I don't really understand why you lead with this.

That said, technology most likely could allow people to work less, but capitalist and social pressures really make it hard. The trade-off would mean that some people make less overall, but would mean that more people are making a decent wage.

What you say could just as easily apply to a 60 hour work day, or an 80 hour work day. There is nothing magical about 40 hours.

I just started a PhD program (in political science).

I will be opting out from reading this article.

hehehehe

I add nothing to this conversation.

There is something wrong. Checking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barney_&_Friends_ep... shows almost no edits. According to their method, found in this paper http://journal.webscience.org/523/1/58_paper.pdf they define controversial using a metric around mutual reverts by pairs of editors (each one reverting the others work).

I think the market is getting played out for so bad they are good movies.

I find it so interesting that it is Secretary Kerry pushing this. At some point today I want to sit down and watch his entire testimony on Vietnam War as a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War

I have to say that what I find really off putting about "Pressy" is the idea of having to constantly unplug it and replug it back in when I am using headphones. I would definitely lose it within a month after plugging in my headphones, putting it down on my desk, and it disappearing under papers.

And to skip to what really matters:

According to the Chicago Tribune, a police spokesman said the Grand Crossing police station received an anonymous phone call about the posting. Cops searched Jackson Park and turned up nothing, said the spokesman, but passed on the information to Chicago detectives.

I stopped following postsecret years ago, when it created the forum. It seemed to change the whole idea of it when there was the ability to respond to postcards. You were no longer releasing a secret into nothingness, you were releasing it anonymously into a crowd. This I think made people less likely to share dark secrets (I remember a few animal related posts that had intense backlashes) while also making people want to do it for attention (or well more likely to do it for attention).

I'd like to remind you that Congress did approve the Iraq invasion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Agreed, it is a fantastic book, but it isn't as great by itself.

I have to vote for the Wheel of Time series. Can't pick anything else, I grew up with that series and it will forever have a mark on me.

If you really want just a single book, I guess I'll pick the first four books from the Wheel of Time series.

Interesting and well written, but I sort of lost it when I got to the bottom and saw the requisite NYT bio: "Anna Gunn is an actress."

It seems rather unnecessary and also really simple. They could have at least written "Anna Gunn is an actress best known for her role as Skyler White"

Oh shit. Aziz is crowdsurfing in it? Now I definitely have to figure out a time to watch it.

FYI. Shut Up and Play the Hits is on Netflix now.

My point was not that it is right or wrong, but that people ignore what polls really say.

Give me one example of people revolting over a privacy issue also.

fuck. this. article. This is why I hate vice. I can't read this article because it is so over the top and ridiculously written. That and he calls the fed the "world's central bank".