Of course, if we speak out too hysterically and are wrong, you argue we'll have wasted our voices. That is also wrong. We can protest the next Nazi just as well, even if we're wrong about this one.
No, you can't. That's the whole point of the fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. People don't tend to always respond the same way to the same stimuli; they learn and adapt.
In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that that's a big part of why Trump is President today. The hardest of the hard-line Democrats have been crying wolf over false racism for so long that everyone else is sick of it, and when Hillary made the ridiculously tone-deaf mistake of doubling down on it, essentially calling half the country racists and "a basket of deplorables" for disagreeing with her policies, it backfired tremendously.
People who knew they weren't racists bristled at being lumped together with the KKK and the Nazis, and they turned "we are The Deplorables" into a rallying cry, to symbolically reject this nonsense once and for all by rejecting the person at the forefront of it. If she hadn't said that, a lot of people who ended up voting for Trump would have probably stayed home.
It's kind of sad to see that Democrats still have not learned their lesson from that! They've wasted the last few months flailing uselessly, tilting at racist windmills instead of working to accomplish anything actually productive in this time when they need to be productive and effective more than ever!
I've heard it said that every organization works to perpetuate the problem to which it is the solution. Might I suggest two corollaries to this observation?
First, an organization that solves a real problem is (as a general rule of thumb at least) a good organization that is doing good in the world. So this observation applies to "the good ones" too.
Second, civil rights groups are good organizations.
Unfortunately, they're still run by people. People who have a great deal of their personal identity and social status bound up in being valiant crusaders who fight racism. They've become victims of their own success now, and the one thing they can't do, because it would make them redundant, is admit the simple truth that's obvious to almost everyone else: that they've won! They won decades ago!
Racism in the USA is as dead as disco. Now, lest you misunderstand, remember that disco is not 100% extinct. There are still a few people around with horrible taste who think it's cool, but that doesn't mean it's not something that everyone knows is a relic of the past. And so it is also with racism.
Keep in mind that the guy you're accusing is 70 years old! Even if it's true, biologically speaking, he's on his way out, and most likely sooner rather than later. (I wonder if anyone has actuarial data on former Presidents, BTW; it wouldn't surprise me to hear that the stress of the job takes several years off your lifespan.)
Please stop obsessing over something that hasn't been a real problem in a long, long time, so we can focus on the issues of today and actually accomplish something in spite of all the headwinds. If we're going to prevent the Trump administration from wrecking what little prosperity we have left after the last two Presidents, we need to stop wasting our energy and focus!
Read the article I linked to, where the author looks at actual hard data and facts (as opposed to emotionally-charged rhetoric) that shows over and over again that there is no evidence of racism going on here.
Based on the data available, he estimates that around 3% of voters have racist political leanings. After pointing out how suicidal it would be to throw away the support of voters that outnumber them by an order of magnitude, he follows up with this:
But doesn’t this still mean there are some white supremacists? Isn’t this still really important?
I mean, kind of. But remember that 4% of Americans believe that lizardmen control all major governments. And 5% of Obama voters believe that Obama is the Antichrist. The white supremacist vote is about the same as the lizardmen-control-everything vote, or the Obama-is-the-Antichrist-but-I-support-him-anyway vote.
(and most of these people are in Solid South red states and don’t matter in the electoral calculus anyway.)
Other interesting things that the data shows: compared to the voting demographics of the last two Republican candidates...
Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population.
So you kinda have to ask yourself, what do all those minorities know that you don't?
You really should read the article I linked to. The author (a journalist who endorsed Hillary, for the record) completely demolishes the racism-ist nonsense that far too many people are hysterically screaming about lately, specifically because he doesn't want it accusations of racism to be devalued into worthlessness for when an actual racist comes along.
As is almost always the case these days, solid data demonstrates quite clearly that racism is simply not a factor here.
Please stop crying wolf. One of these days a real racist candidate is going to show up, and warning about him won't do any good because people like you have spent decades wasting the relevant terms and stripping them of any and all actual meaning.
On the campaign trail, Trump promised to not only block AT&T's $100 billion acquisition of Time Warner, but even went so far as to claim he'd somehow break up the already completed Comcast NBC merger, completed back in 2011.
Hey, if he manages to pull this off, I'll vote to reelect him. That merger should never have happened in the first place and everyone knows it.
As the article from the Irish Times explains, the US is not alone: also keen to see the framework upheld are the British, Dutch, and French governments, as well as Microsoft and the Business Software Alliance, all of whom have applied separately to join the action.
They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. I say it's not just men. If Microsoft and the BSA (a notorious Microsoft front group whose main purpose in life is promoting the progress of copyright abuse, particularly by Microsoft) think it's such a good idea, that's at the very least, a good reason to wonder if we might not be better off without it.
Just because a patent is acquired does not mean the company obtaining it has the means to put it to use. Nor does it indicate it ever plans to put the patent to use. It's an exclusionary process meant to keep others locked out for a certain period of time more than a leading indicator of any company's immediate plans for the future.
And that's the biggest problem in all this. How does it make any sense to grant a patent to an applicant in the first place if they don't have an actual working model?
> [M]ontgomery’s defiant mayor announced that the city would continue to operate the program. Curiously, he asserted that to stop issuing tickets would breach the city’s contract with American Traffic Solutions.
If complying with a contractual obligation would place you in violation of the law, doesn't that make the contract itself legally indefensible and therefore void?
It doesn't seem like he's trying to say "the Obama administration actively encouraged the Washington Post to trip over its own shoelaces and perform an epic, journalistic face-plant" in this particular case, but rather that because of the Obama administration pushing the "Russian hacking" narrative so hard, with so little evidence, they created the climate where the Washington Post had a strong incentive to want to put out a story like this. And in that, he's absolutely right.
Sing it with me, folks: correlation is not causation. After all, the number of works of visual art copyrighted in the US similarly has an inverse correlation to the number of females in NY who slipped or tripped to their death (really!). It doesn't mean it's a causal relationship where more of one means less of the other.
In this particular case, though, there absolutely is a causal relationship. Technology companies are out-competing them by having a better product, and are ending up eating their lunch.
Thing is, that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. Sucks to be the guys who failed to compete, but that's their problem. They have no right to make it Google's problem.
These guys have been blatantly disregarding any and every law they find inconvenient from the very beginning, and now they're running red lights, making hook turns through bike lanes, and completely disregarding requirements for proper registration of their autonomous vehicles.
I really hope this case gives some agency an excuse to shut them down completely, because this just raised the stakes. Before, their lawless attitude only screwed people out of money and dignity. Now, they could kill someone.
Yet, Susan has focused not just on understanding what kind of speech precedes violence, but also what works in counteracting that -- and she argues (and we agree!) that censorship is rarely does.
Yet, Susan has focused not just on understanding what kind of speech precedes violence, but also on what works in counteracting that -- and she argues (and we agree!) that censorship -->is rarely does.