Ah the old "that's not really whistleblowing" trick.
By discounting what was revealed we can decide who is or isn't a whistleblower thereby denying protections to someone who tried to reveal corruption and sedition to the public.
That way doubt is instilled in other potential whistleblowers as to whether or not their revelations will be regarded as whistleblowey enough to be worthy of protection from those entities who were embarrassed and will seek to retaliate.
That should chill them off and keep them in their proper place.
Sadly, the step-up-the-torture candidate is still strong in the polls.
I am ashamed of my nation and species to say that yes, there are too many people too shortsighted to understand why condoning torture is a bad thing. They even endorse it on the notion that bad guys are easily delineable.
When will they ever learn / The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.
This reminds me of a bit in Bill, The Galactic Hero by Harry Harrison
Bill is at one point in isolated lockup and he notices his room has a hook on the ceiling, that and his flimsy disposable (paper) prison jumper came with a robust belt, giving him the clear option to hang himself.
And Bill smiled to himself because that meant he still had options, because someone would rather he just snuffed it. If he did, it would be tidier mess than some other he could still make while alive. Bill just needed to figure out what that mess was, and he'd have some collateral with which to negotiate his way out.
"they would only kill a small number of Americans."
That is what we generally expect from any demographic, including the local ones. Any sufficiently large population is going to contain some people who are murderous enough or clumsy enough or drunk enough to destroy someone else.
In fact, first generation immigrants tend to have a lower rate of violent crime, whether they are Syrian or Mexican or Italian.
Unless you're looking at the English colonials. They were particularly harsh on the native population when they moved in. And the societies they've erected haven't yet properly apologized to the nations they displaced.
...both together would be ridiculously cheap. I bet if we scuppered the CIA drone strike program (which is useless except for massacring civilians) we'd have enough for both relief programs and to send some officials on a junket to Vegas.
We could apply the skittles analogy to so many other situations.
For instance, whenever a company wants to create a big project to dig up some minerals or pump oil from the ground, if we were to give a serious assessment something will go disastrously wrong, and we'll have the next Chernobyl / Exxon Valdez / Deepwater Horizon, then there'd be an awful lot of bad Skittles. The Bakken Pipeline after the mercs with dogs and the bulldozers screams of Skittle cyanide.
The notion is that even small risk makes things not worth it. Whenever you buy a literal pack of Skittles, there's always a slim chance those skittles will mean your downfall. The same goes true with m&ms or tap water or pencils or your next phone upgrade. The same is true with your next crosswalk crossing, your next car refueling. Your next light-bulb change.
In the case of our Syrian refugee Skittles the dangerous skittles are rarer than in our than home-brew Skittles.
The problem with the analogy is that it suggests the risk of a given action is inflated, and it also assumes that not taking action (or taking different action) bears no risk when it doesn't.
Wow, yours is a response that exemplifies exactly what I was warning against. It really could be satire. Or it could be completely unironic.
I really cannot tell.
For starters, do be specific where I indicate I don't want a true polyglot culture. I suspect that in my history of comments on this site you can find something.
Secondly, it doesn't matter. Whether or not I want to live in a pluralist society is irrelevant to the notion that large societies pretty much cannot help but be pluralist. Heck, any ideological group that gets large enough (organized or otherwise) will become diverse enough so that any generalization of them will poorly represent who they are. (Case in point, how often Roman Catholics fully agree with and abide by the Holy See, id est, never.)
As a people, we don't need to like our polyglot culture or participate in it fully, we just need to tolerate it enough that to allow our civilization to grow large and facilitate all the cool infrastructures we like (highway systems, libraries, space programs, the internet).
But as a species we're terrible at doing even that. We really want to throw rocks at the people who are not enough like us. We recognize that racism or religious bigotry or sexual bigotry are wrong and counter productive, but we do it anyway, often appealing to tradition to justify it.
I don't know how to change that. But if we're going to do it, we're going to do it despite ourselves.
Case in point, your response, whether or not it is satire.
To be specific it was Nixon's Southern Strategy which was an appeal to negrophobia (hatred of blacks) among white male voters to which I was referring, though by Karl Rove and his anger points strategy, the same notion was generalized to recognized and utilize a range of issues that widely stirred strong emotions.
So I was referring to specific incidents in history. I wasn't saying that conservatives universally appeal to demagoguery. I could the GOP has been using such strategies for long enough that they've drawn a voting base of emotion-susceptible voters. But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now to say that some of them just like lower taxes for the wealthy, or to keep their guns, or an astronomical military budget.
Though, at the point you're trying to label me as hypocritical, it looks like you're just eager to find a way to categorize me so that you can dismiss my arguments.
If that's what you need to do, you're not able to separate me from my point, in which case forget it. I'd rather you understood my point and decided for yourself whether or not it makes sense, rather than you agreed or disagreed based on how truthy it feels.
Maybe find a fellow conservative to explain it to you how large ideological or religious parties are too diverse to have a consistent position, and that you can't make a large society without more diversity than is humanly comfortable.
Whether or not I prejudge others personally is irrelevant to my argument that prejudging others adversely affects civilization. Bigotry is a non-point source problem, which means it's not enough just to say don't do it. We have to encourage people to want to develop pluralistic perspective, despite their desire to live in small hyper-conformist gated communities. We need them to realize that there's value in polyglot culture that they want.