ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Hope this isn't against hate speech guidelines for this forum, as these are not my tweets. But the tweets of someone who was hired to the New York Times editorial board.

Did anyone else see this? The oddest part is, the New York Times released a statement defending her, saying it was okay for her to say these cruel, disgusting and racist statements because people have been mean to her on the internet a few times over the years.

[Removed by Support]

"

Manocean wrote:

Hope this isn't against hate speech guidelines for this forum, as these are not my tweets. But the tweets of someone who was hired to the New York Times editorial board.

Did anyone else see this? The oddest part is, the New York Times released a statement defending her, saying it was okay for her to say these cruel, disgusting and racist statements because people have been mean to her on the internet a few times over the years.

158 seconds later

"

Nick_GGG wrote:

[Removed by Support]

Sarah Jeong supporters BTFO

I haven’t looked too deep into it yet, but so far I haven’t found anything I find offensive. At face value, I accept her explanation. If I dig deeper, maybe there’s more that will change my mind, but so far my opinion is “if you’re offended, you might be a SJW.”

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

vmt80 wrote:

In my country, at least -I suppose there must be something similar to US- there is a mandatory requirement for younglings to finish their basic education (there has been some debate of extending it). If people think it's just their personal choice, they are not only useless but harmful to their community.

You really need to elaborate this point. I don't see how a highschool dropouts are inherently useless or harmful.

There are number of factors: low education indicates higher criminal rates, health problems and unemployment. I'd use socioeconomical status as an umbrella term here. To be honest, this seems like a no-brainer, though I might have phrased it poorly earlier on.

Maybe it is worthwhile to add that being harmful or useless individual doesn't necessarily equate a person being worthless as such. For educational purposes, for example treating prisoners in a punitative manner usually does more harm than any good. You can call me progressive, but I honestly believe to both ethical and practical considerations adding up in such cases.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

vmt80 wrote:

I'm not talking about formal titles but about raising civilized, aware citizens. Without knowledge their children will also be condemned to poverty and their communities to perpetual ignorance.

You're assuming that people in poverty are having children. Would you want people in poverty to be adopting children?

Generally speaking I wish poor people had less children, yes, though what I was referring earlier on as socioeconomical factors is purely statistical. It is by all means possible for an individual to be an excellent parent, regardless of any statistical socioeconomical factors. On a population level, however, poverty is a vicious phenomenon. It's harder to tackle even to more basic problems within an uneducated, underfunded community. Nowhere more glaringly it becomes clear than among many sub-saharan african communities and villages, where people can barely read or do simple arithmetics. Doing anything becomes a problem of finding skilled enough people to do it.

I'm not going in depth to what I'd consider a good population policy, because such complex issue would easily require a thread of its own. Let's just say globally it is looking very grim right now, and there should be an international program to control population growth somehow. And I'm not talking only about developing countries, I'm also talking about starting level in developed countries. There needs to be a limit to human population before it spells a more general ecological catastrophe.

Personally I find frustrating, how public debates are too often focused on quasi-problems rather than more pressing things. I don't think people are really that stupid, it's more about how neither general public nor news media doesn't have intellectual/moral focus to make an honest debate happen. One needs a firm knowledge of facts for it to happen. Sure, details matter, it just seems to be all about details and never about the bigger picture. I think that is one of the reasons why nothing gets done via public policies.

Of course the second one is, people have widely contradictory pictures of reality. The level of debate between american conservatives and progressives is a great example.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

You're worried about how well our society's anti-ignorance forces can do their jobs, when the bigger problem is whether they want to do their jobs at all, versus faking it. And these same problems apply to educators as well.

Fair enough. I'm not pretending to know american affairs closely enough, which is also why reading what more knowledgeable people think is quite intriguing.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The real question isn't how the poor are doing relevant to the contemporary rich. The real question is how the poor are doing relative to the historical poor. And by that standard, I actually just saw with my own eyes that El Paso, Texas -- if not the whole US, is doing better. I'm currently tapping on my phone standing outside a homeless shelter I stayed at 4 years ago, where I just volunteered to serve breakfast. There are so much fewer people here now, and they seem to be doing so much better, on average, than before.

The US is progressing. You just have trouble fitting that into your narrative.

I agree on historical level, there has been progress (and I personally have never bought that narrative of 'stupid americans', which is over-simplified and unfair in many ways). Although here is something interesting on epistemological terms: I think it is actually too easy to extrapolate progress for historical reasons. Not because there hasn't been progress. The whole of evolution can be understood broadly as 'progress', anyways. Instead, I consider it dangerous to see progress of history in deterministic terms, which was how many leading leninist-marxists understood historical materialism. When people start thinking history is on their side, they easily give place to a sort of self-deception. For cautionary reasons I am deeply agnostic about the future of human race.

These days, public managers seem to think any reform equals progress, therefore progress is good. In fact, our current government is all about reform, not giving any intellectually sound reasoning publicly at all. I wish they did nothing rather than what they are doing right now.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

vmt80 wrote:

donators

lul. Public education werks.

Well, I spend my childhood in public school system. It wasn't so bad and I got good grades, though consequently, being a talented individual my views might be inherently biased.

Uh, sorry for cumbersome expressions and/or lack of spelling. What you are reading is a result of public english education and individual studying of language, after all.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

my opinion is “if you’re offended, you might be a SJW.”

Are you offended by SJWs?

Yup, sure am.

No one can offend me or has ever. That shit is for ppl with low self esteem.;) I know everyone is born perfect by god I dont care if you have one leg, are retared or autism it's only when people pile shit/insucrities on u that makes u crooked and feel bad. (and usually a gov check just to reinforce your "disability")

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

No one can offend me or has ever. That shit is for ppl with low self esteem.;) I know everyone is born perfect by god I dont care if you have one leg, are retared or autism it's only when people pile shit/insucrities on u that makes u crooked and feel bad.

Being offended by emotionally pubescent demagogues is different from being offended by someone irrelevant privately making bad jokes.

I shouldn’t have said “if you’re offended,” but rather “if you feel compelled to express righteous indignance and moral outrage” but I was in a hurry.

Edit: Also, the second definition of pubescent is kinda funny. Emotionally downy. Heh.

Edit 2: Also, I guess that was more to Scrotie than you. Point I was getting at, is you are definitely far from free of being offended. You express it all the time just not about someone irrelevant’s private bad jokes.

Did anyone see the latest New York Times Drama? Phil DeFranco spoke about it in his video yesterday.

"

vmt80 wrote:

Generally speaking I wish poor people had less children, yes, though what I was referring earlier on as socioeconomical factors is purely statistical. It is by all means possible for an individual to be an excellent parent, regardless of any statistical socioeconomical factors. On a population level, however, poverty is a vicious phenomenon.

In a system where there is economic opportunity - available decent paying work - poverty declines. In a system where there is official corruption (crime or govt skimming too much money off the top) the economic system generally falters. If an area has too much violence, people try to leave that area, and it declines economically.

It isn't the population size that makes any of this happen. A good education in a field that has economic opportunity does usually lead to less poverty for the person. A Doctorate in a field with little job opportunities and/or low paying jobs doesn't help much. Vocational education is severely undervalued in many educational systems. Education for the sake of education is consistently overvalued in many systems.

As in all things, there is a balance. A person with nineteen heads could be really smart, but if they have no stomach, no legs, and no digestive system they probably aren't going to fare as well as the average person.

"

vmt80 wrote:

It's harder to tackle even to more basic problems within an uneducated, underfunded community. Nowhere more glaringly it becomes clear than among many sub-saharan african communities and villages, where people can barely read or do simple arithmetics. Doing anything becomes a problem of finding skilled enough people to do it.

Companies can train people for most jobs. Why would a company invest millions or billions of dollars in an area that is unstable? The risk outweighs any rewards. Corruption and violence are what is preventing many companies from investing. There is a huge financial opportunity in many places in the world. There are trillions of dollars that companies continually look to invest. It isn't the lack of an educational system that determines these decisions.

Ending the violence is paramount. Stability of government is the second goal. Ending wide scale corruption and money skimming (government/organized crime etc) is the third goal.

It is getting from goal 2 to goal 3 where many nations continually fail. If a nation can get past 3, the money will flow in and economic opportunities increase dramatically.

It isn't population or education that are the root of the problem. Once the primary problems are solved, then education and better employment will take care of the rest. Population rate increases naturally decline when people can see a lot of opportunity for waiting to have children.