Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
whanhee's comments
whanhee  ·  844 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Reddit is still in Turmoil

    the article claims that reddit as a site is racist/sexist

Well everything is sexist (you have to point it all out), so yeah, that's true.

    I don't think anyone was claiming, or trying to claim that women or minorities leave at a higher rate due to not being able to deal with stress

No, they're just claiming that everything is oppressive to women and minorities. Except those that do succeed, they've internalized the oppression.

bioemerl  ·  844 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Tired talking points from subreddits that breed and repeat those points until those commonly going to them can do nothing but repeat those talking points rather than learning and thinking on their own.

Anita saying "everything is sexist" was a reference to her past self where she constantly acted like that and lost friends, learning to be a more decent person in the meantime. She was not literally saying "everything is sexist" she was saying that is how she felt after taking her first "womens studies" classes.

And they are not claiming everything is oppressive to women and minorities, they are claiming that male dominated areas like tech are, and/or that sites like reddit which DO have a lot of sexism in them have resulted in people leaving reddit.

If you want to talk down these people, if you want to appear inteligent and change minds, stop going to places that recycle these points over and over, or at least suppliment them with some sources from places like /r/gamerghazi. Even if you don't agree with them, you should at least take the time to read and understand their views.

whanhee  ·  862 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: 182nd Weekly "Share Some Music You've Been Into Lately" Thread

Went to Digital Dreams (EDM festival) this weekend. I especially enjoyed the sets by Delta Heavy and BassNectar.

whanhee  ·  862 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Nigel Farage resigns as Ukip leader after 'achieving political ambition' of Brexit

It's important to remember that Farage is an MEP and has no power in London.

whanhee  ·  870 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Europe's most hopeful Guardian comment

Another victory for European democracy!

whanhee  ·  871 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Brexit looks likely.

1534: Britain tells continental Catholic Church to go fuck itself.

1618: Thirty year war begins as Northern European countries seek religious/political autonomy.

1648: Peace of Westphalia establishes the concept of sovereign states.

2016: Britain tells continental European Union to go fuck itself.

20XX: Thirty year referendum begins as Northern European countries seek economic/political autonomy.

21XX: Peace of Westphalia 2 reaffirms concept of sovereign states?

whanhee  ·  872 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Britain Votes to Leave EU

Reestablishment of the empire and dissolution of colonial parliaments. Rip Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Deltron_0  ·  872 days ago  ·  link  ·  

australia is fine - they have real wealth assets.

whanhee  ·  873 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: European Plan: Robots Are ‘Electronic Persons,’ Should Pay Taxes

Tax them on what exactly? Property? Income? Labour? I'm baffled.

whanhee  ·  876 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Ask Hubski - What's the Saddest Word? (and also a new song for the music club)

Loneliness. Humans are social creatures and can survive great adversity if they have a supportive community. Deprive a person of their community and you get a shell that collapses at the slightest touch.

whanhee  ·  876 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Donald Trump and the Seven Broken Guardrails of Democracy

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

    With respect, you're expressing a very us-and-them mentality, by comparing Sanders and Trump as outsiders to their respective establishments, as if either of them would be fine as long as Clinton doesn't win.

The fact of the matter is that a vast swath of the country is destitute and have been neglected by the previous 2 administrations. Regardless of why, you have to admit that something drastic needs to change. In their own ways, both Sanders and Trump address the demands of the poor.

    For one, there's a difference between Trump's lack of corporate donations, and Sanders' lack of corporate donations.

Sanders is funded almost entirely by his supporters. Trump is funded entirely by supporters and himself. I expect them to advocate for the people in a way Clinton will be incapable of doing.

Furthermore, consider this study from Princeton which shows the disproportionate influence "economic elites" have on public policy. Skip to page 10 to see a graphical summary of the paper. I struggle to see how it is the result of anything but the influence of money in politics and how corporate funded Clinton could ever hope to address this.

    Their economic policies stretch a lot further than TPP.

The TPP is one of my primary issues, I'm highly concerned both by how it bypasses the democratic process. The other guy asked why I support both Sanders and Trump, and this is up near the top and I probably should have emphasized it.

    The jobs thing, I'm sorry, is absolutely bananas. What jobs are Americans competing for, exactly? Picking tomatoes for $2/hr? Are immigrants keeping Americans from taking those jobs?

Illegal immigration hurts the lowest classes the most. They are a drain on social services. They are a drain on police. They compete for those tomato picking jobs that perhaps would have paid more if there wasn't a huge oversupply of illegal labour. To be honest, I'm not sure why the left is so pro-illegal immigrant. It's impossible to have a welfare state without strong border controls.

Take a listen to this Vietnamese immigrant discuss the issue. A key point that he raises is that he has family that have been on the waiting immigration waiting list for years if not decades. In 2014, Obama legalized 3+ million illegal immigrants (not citizenship as the speaker suggests though). It's hard not to see that as a slap in the face of those immigrants that follow the rules.

    But one thing I'm aware of is a dissonance between what is really going on in an American's motivations that inclines one towards a candidate, and what arguments they use to justify that subconscious choice, simply a side to be on and adopt that us-and-them nonsense.

I get it. Clinton panders to some. Sanders to others. Trump still to another group. Each sees their support as rational and justified and sees the others as ignorant.

Anyways, I hope I've further clarified why I support Sanders and Trump.

whanhee  ·  878 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The new debt slaves

I've never heard of them. What are your criticisms?

lm  ·  878 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I click on an article and read it, then click on the articles it links to and read them, and before you know it I've spent the whole day on there.

So, uh, I guess my criticism is that the writing is too interesting?

whanhee  ·  889 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Donald Trump and the Seven Broken Guardrails of Democracy

Don't worry, I wouldn't have replied if I hadn't at least expected some kind of discussion about this :)

From my perspective, the political alignments in the current election are so skewed from what the population desires. At this point, the establishment of both parties are essentially all for big international business with a few ideological tokens to get the fanatic votes (eg. abortion, guns, trans shit, etc.). The vast majority are economically and politically neglected by both parties.

Given that, I see Trump and Sanders both as outsiders to the system that don't receive massive corporate donations. When they say something, it comes from them and I think that will make them both more effective leaders. In contrast Clinton is beholden to her backers and I can't trust her to do what is right for the American people. I think both will mark a decreased influence of money in politics.

On specific issues, both Trump and Sanders have been consistently against the TPP. They are both very anti-war while Clinton is consistently in favour of foreign expeditions. Both will reform the current health care system, this is more controversial, but I think the current system is fundamentally broken. Sanders would try for a single payer system, which I favour. But Trump would remove various market distortions and regulations which would also greatly improve service.

Additional points on Trump. I am against his abortion policy to defund planned parenthood. Trade reform is another thing that I support. I am for his wall, or at least stronger border controls. Illegal immigration is directly harmful to the most vulnerable Americans who must compete with them for jobs. I don't understand how the "left" can be so wishy washy on this, you can't have welfare without strong borders.

Lastly, I absolutely despise the "establishment" for making this the shittiest election I can remember. Never before have I seen such brazen attacks and outright lies from everyone. That John Oliver bit where he slanders Trump for being racist then insults him for his heritage? Disgusting. The entire superdelegate system from the Democrats? Horrible. The Republican party just skipped the Colorado primaries because they want Cruz. All this cuck nonsense. It's crazy.

Something fundamental has to change about American politics and in my opinion Clinton will lead only to more of the same shit.

nowaypablo  ·  887 days ago  ·  link  ·  

With respect, you're expressing a very us-and-them mentality, by comparing Sanders and Trump as outsiders to their respective establishments, as if either of them would be fine as long as Clinton doesn't win.

For one, there's a difference between Trump's lack of corporate donations, and Sanders' lack of corporate donations. Their economic policies stretch a lot further than TPP.

The jobs thing, I'm sorry, is absolutely bananas. What jobs are Americans competing for, exactly? Picking tomatoes for $2/hr? Are immigrants keeping Americans from taking those jobs?

I'm so so so inexperienced and immature when it comes to election processes as I'm a toddler compared to a lot of peoples' experience on this site. But one thing I'm aware of is a dissonance between what is really going on in an American's motivations that inclines one towards a candidate, and what arguments they use to justify that subconscious choice, simply a side to be on and adopt that us-and-them nonsense.

whanhee  ·  876 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

    With respect, you're expressing a very us-and-them mentality, by comparing Sanders and Trump as outsiders to their respective establishments, as if either of them would be fine as long as Clinton doesn't win.

The fact of the matter is that a vast swath of the country is destitute and have been neglected by the previous 2 administrations. Regardless of why, you have to admit that something drastic needs to change. In their own ways, both Sanders and Trump address the demands of the poor.

    For one, there's a difference between Trump's lack of corporate donations, and Sanders' lack of corporate donations.

Sanders is funded almost entirely by his supporters. Trump is funded entirely by supporters and himself. I expect them to advocate for the people in a way Clinton will be incapable of doing.

Furthermore, consider this study from Princeton which shows the disproportionate influence "economic elites" have on public policy. Skip to page 10 to see a graphical summary of the paper. I struggle to see how it is the result of anything but the influence of money in politics and how corporate funded Clinton could ever hope to address this.

    Their economic policies stretch a lot further than TPP.

The TPP is one of my primary issues, I'm highly concerned both by how it bypasses the democratic process. The other guy asked why I support both Sanders and Trump, and this is up near the top and I probably should have emphasized it.

    The jobs thing, I'm sorry, is absolutely bananas. What jobs are Americans competing for, exactly? Picking tomatoes for $2/hr? Are immigrants keeping Americans from taking those jobs?

Illegal immigration hurts the lowest classes the most. They are a drain on social services. They are a drain on police. They compete for those tomato picking jobs that perhaps would have paid more if there wasn't a huge oversupply of illegal labour. To be honest, I'm not sure why the left is so pro-illegal immigrant. It's impossible to have a welfare state without strong border controls.

Take a listen to this Vietnamese immigrant discuss the issue. A key point that he raises is that he has family that have been on the waiting immigration waiting list for years if not decades. In 2014, Obama legalized 3+ million illegal immigrants (not citizenship as the speaker suggests though). It's hard not to see that as a slap in the face of those immigrants that follow the rules.

    But one thing I'm aware of is a dissonance between what is really going on in an American's motivations that inclines one towards a candidate, and what arguments they use to justify that subconscious choice, simply a side to be on and adopt that us-and-them nonsense.

I get it. Clinton panders to some. Sanders to others. Trump still to another group. Each sees their support as rational and justified and sees the others as ignorant.

Anyways, I hope I've further clarified why I support Sanders and Trump.

I'm marginally more in favour of Sanders than Trump, but horrified by the prospect of Clinton. It seems like the democratic establishment is hellbent on her though, so barring some miracle, you can count me as a Trump supporter.

whanhee  ·  889 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Donald Trump and the Seven Broken Guardrails of Democracy

One thing that I almost never see talked about is how there's vast swaths of America that are destitute and crippled by the 2008 financial crash. The establishments of both parties have largely ignored them. In fact, one party has gone so far as to say caring for refugees and illegal immigrants is more important than them, villifying their "whiteness".

An outsider candidate comes and finally speaks to the issues that matter to them, jobs, rights and the economy and he is slandered. He's called racist, hateful, bigoted, etc. for things tangentially related to him. I still hear people criticising him for a KKK leader supporting him, as if he is to blame for this. Meanwhile, "protestors" directly linked to his opposition attack his supporters outside political rallies with minimal news coverage.

If anyone is to blame for Trumps supposedly terrible rise, it's the democratic party affiliated media. It's at the point where no one can tell if allegations against him are true because there are so many lies. On a smaller scale, Trump supporter is now used interchangeably with a slew of hate labels, you can see this in social networks and online content.

b_b  ·  889 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I don't mean to come at you, so please don't read this as me yelling; I'm genuinely curious.

Do you not see a huge cognitive dissonance in preferring Sanders as a first choice and Trump as a second? The only thing they have in common is an opponent. On policy they're so different as to not be from the same planet.

whanhee  ·  889 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Don't worry, I wouldn't have replied if I hadn't at least expected some kind of discussion about this :)

From my perspective, the political alignments in the current election are so skewed from what the population desires. At this point, the establishment of both parties are essentially all for big international business with a few ideological tokens to get the fanatic votes (eg. abortion, guns, trans shit, etc.). The vast majority are economically and politically neglected by both parties.

Given that, I see Trump and Sanders both as outsiders to the system that don't receive massive corporate donations. When they say something, it comes from them and I think that will make them both more effective leaders. In contrast Clinton is beholden to her backers and I can't trust her to do what is right for the American people. I think both will mark a decreased influence of money in politics.

On specific issues, both Trump and Sanders have been consistently against the TPP. They are both very anti-war while Clinton is consistently in favour of foreign expeditions. Both will reform the current health care system, this is more controversial, but I think the current system is fundamentally broken. Sanders would try for a single payer system, which I favour. But Trump would remove various market distortions and regulations which would also greatly improve service.

Additional points on Trump. I am against his abortion policy to defund planned parenthood. Trade reform is another thing that I support. I am for his wall, or at least stronger border controls. Illegal immigration is directly harmful to the most vulnerable Americans who must compete with them for jobs. I don't understand how the "left" can be so wishy washy on this, you can't have welfare without strong borders.

Lastly, I absolutely despise the "establishment" for making this the shittiest election I can remember. Never before have I seen such brazen attacks and outright lies from everyone. That John Oliver bit where he slanders Trump for being racist then insults him for his heritage? Disgusting. The entire superdelegate system from the Democrats? Horrible. The Republican party just skipped the Colorado primaries because they want Cruz. All this cuck nonsense. It's crazy.

Something fundamental has to change about American politics and in my opinion Clinton will lead only to more of the same shit.

nowaypablo  ·  887 days ago  ·  link  ·  

With respect, you're expressing a very us-and-them mentality, by comparing Sanders and Trump as outsiders to their respective establishments, as if either of them would be fine as long as Clinton doesn't win.

For one, there's a difference between Trump's lack of corporate donations, and Sanders' lack of corporate donations. Their economic policies stretch a lot further than TPP.

The jobs thing, I'm sorry, is absolutely bananas. What jobs are Americans competing for, exactly? Picking tomatoes for $2/hr? Are immigrants keeping Americans from taking those jobs?

I'm so so so inexperienced and immature when it comes to election processes as I'm a toddler compared to a lot of peoples' experience on this site. But one thing I'm aware of is a dissonance between what is really going on in an American's motivations that inclines one towards a candidate, and what arguments they use to justify that subconscious choice, simply a side to be on and adopt that us-and-them nonsense.

whanhee  ·  876 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

    With respect, you're expressing a very us-and-them mentality, by comparing Sanders and Trump as outsiders to their respective establishments, as if either of them would be fine as long as Clinton doesn't win.

The fact of the matter is that a vast swath of the country is destitute and have been neglected by the previous 2 administrations. Regardless of why, you have to admit that something drastic needs to change. In their own ways, both Sanders and Trump address the demands of the poor.

    For one, there's a difference between Trump's lack of corporate donations, and Sanders' lack of corporate donations.

Sanders is funded almost entirely by his supporters. Trump is funded entirely by supporters and himself. I expect them to advocate for the people in a way Clinton will be incapable of doing.

Furthermore, consider this study from Princeton which shows the disproportionate influence "economic elites" have on public policy. Skip to page 10 to see a graphical summary of the paper. I struggle to see how it is the result of anything but the influence of money in politics and how corporate funded Clinton could ever hope to address this.

    Their economic policies stretch a lot further than TPP.

The TPP is one of my primary issues, I'm highly concerned both by how it bypasses the democratic process. The other guy asked why I support both Sanders and Trump, and this is up near the top and I probably should have emphasized it.

    The jobs thing, I'm sorry, is absolutely bananas. What jobs are Americans competing for, exactly? Picking tomatoes for $2/hr? Are immigrants keeping Americans from taking those jobs?

Illegal immigration hurts the lowest classes the most. They are a drain on social services. They are a drain on police. They compete for those tomato picking jobs that perhaps would have paid more if there wasn't a huge oversupply of illegal labour. To be honest, I'm not sure why the left is so pro-illegal immigrant. It's impossible to have a welfare state without strong border controls.

Take a listen to this Vietnamese immigrant discuss the issue. A key point that he raises is that he has family that have been on the waiting immigration waiting list for years if not decades. In 2014, Obama legalized 3+ million illegal immigrants (not citizenship as the speaker suggests though). It's hard not to see that as a slap in the face of those immigrants that follow the rules.

    But one thing I'm aware of is a dissonance between what is really going on in an American's motivations that inclines one towards a candidate, and what arguments they use to justify that subconscious choice, simply a side to be on and adopt that us-and-them nonsense.

I get it. Clinton panders to some. Sanders to others. Trump still to another group. Each sees their support as rational and justified and sees the others as ignorant.

Anyways, I hope I've further clarified why I support Sanders and Trump.

I did not realize that DePaul, which just recently had a political discussion distrupted by Black Lives Matter "activists", was the same university that had a panic attack about Trump chalked on the sidewalk. Reading the words of the President from that past occurance and comparing it to last week's shows how deeprooted the rot of anti-speech goes.

It's disappointing that this article does not conclusively condemn the censorious behaviour of these people. However, given that this is probably more introductory to the audience, that's probably fine.

One thing that I strongly object to is the equivalence of "SJW"s to their opposition. It's very clear to me that there is one faction that is actively crying to abolish free speech. Listen to this feminist do the most fantastical mental gymnastics. "We are for freedom of speech for everyone and unfortunately that means we're going to have to get these guys to shut up for a while" (8:39). The renouned Trigglypuff and her associates in the audience shouting "Get your hate speech out of this campus" at a debate. Protestors at the University of Missouri obstructing reporters from a public space. Black Lives Matters distrupting the event at DePaul mentioned earlier, shouting and threatening violence, blowing whistles and finally shutting the event down.

I never see this behaviour from the "opposition". I never see this behaviour from "Trump supporters" or "mysogynists" or "men's rights activists" or whatever label they try to make stick. I never see the level of racism displayed by these "social justice warriors" from anyone they label a racist while they strut about insulting white people for being white. It's disgusting.

Another thing, as seen from the events at Universities of DePaul and Missouri, it's very often the University faculty that enables and encourages this horrible behaviour. Very often these universities have courses or entire departments of "social justice" which create these fanatics and tell them to do these things.

In many respects, it feels like we are on the cusp of a China style cultural revolution. Scientists are forced to prostrate themselves before the masses. Political rallies are distrupted, sometimes violently. One by one, institutions are brought to heel (rip American Humanist Association) while criminals with the right alignment are given free reign. I have hope that this too will pass, but the outlook's not great.

bioemerl  ·  897 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.
whanhee  ·  978 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: AlphaGo BEATS Go world champion Sedol in first game

The interesting thing about being good at something is that before you start, you have no idea what it means to be good, otherwise you'd already be good. For example, if I was looking at a Go board and could accurately predict what the next moves a player would make, then I'm already beyond his level because I make moves that anticipate theirs.

The "goodness" of a move is also in how you continue, since the only reason you would play a move you think is good is because you expect the opponent to make one of several good responses which lead to your own good follow ups. In theory, you could make some genius level move that only a deity could even conceive of, but unless you can carry it through to the end, how can you or anyone else know it's good?