Bran_son

> No physical evidence linked Glossip, the motel’s live-in manager, to the crime. Instead, the case against him was built almost exclusively on the testimony of a 19-year-old maintenance man named Justin Sneed, who admitted to bludgeoning Van Treese to death but said it was all Glossip’s idea. In exchange for testifying against Glossip, Sneed avoided the death penalty and was sentenced to life without parole. Glossip has always insisted on his innocence, and, over the last decade, evidence that he was wrongly convicted has steadily mounted.

> Much of this evidence supports Glossip’s contention that Sneed — a chronic drug user who demonstrated unpredictable bouts of violence — carried out the crime and only later set up Glossip as the mastermind. New witnesses have come forward to counter the state’s portrayal of Sneed as a hapless dolt who took direction from Glossip, testifying that Sneed was cunning, manipulative, and quite capable of killing a man on his own.

> To those saying "Oh I can tell it's fake, obviously!", consider: will your parents/grandparents?

Doesn't matter. The best propaganda isn't fake, but truthful. It emphasizes true stories that further its goal, and de-emphasizes or buries stories that hinder it. E.g. https://ifamericansknew.org/media/nyt-report.html

Could you explain how 2) is controversial? I'm not from the US myself - is the amount of immigration not a product of political policy? At least legal immigration, which I believe is significantly larger than illegal.

As for 3) part 1 ("by Democrats"), that's more than controversial - it's outright false, at least the implication that it's only Democrats. Dig up any graph of yearly legal immigration to the US, and there's no significant reduction during Republican administrations.

> The controversial part of the Great Replacement Theory is the claim that Democrats are deliberately engineering demographic change for the purpose of changing the electorate so they can gain more power. Of course no Democrat has ever suggested that.

I'm confused. So is the article claiming that demographic change 1) is happening, and 2) is deliberate (i.e. immigration policy and (lack of) border protection aren't acts of God that politicians have no sway over), and the theory only fails 3) is done by Democrats to win elections?

If so, would that really give comfort to someone afraid of replacement? Presumably they consider the replacement itself bad, regardless of the motives or identity of those pushing it.

Please read my post more carefully, I wrote (emphasis added) "Social-economic systems that cause below-replacement fertility are in this way much like parasites"

The system is the parasite, not the immigrants themselves. They are, in fact, its victims, as they will fall under the same below-replacement-fertility trap. Again, as I wrote in my post: "giving the parasite economic system a new host to feed on" - the new host being the immigrants.

It's both, and it boggles my mind how so many can (claim to) be so deluded as to say it's entirely the latter. Notably, their culture has changed dramatically over the last ~300 years (as it has for most nations), yet one wouldn't claim they are no longer Japanese on that basis.

And the Japanese themselves consider Japanese-ness genetic, so who are you to tell them otherwise?

> Immigrants eventually become Japanese citizens though when they themselves settle in Japan

That's great if you want to preserve Japanese paperwork and populate Japan's geography, but doesn't help the Japanese people themselves.

> the latter in the absurdly skewed prison population the US is known for.

Are you sure? Since most homicides are intra-racial [1] (despite the impression one gets from those the media choose to focus on), we can use victim race as proxy for offender race (I'd use offender race directly, but then you'd just blame it on police racism). Since it's hard to manufacture a corpse, or fake its race, we can further assume that data is largely free of police bias.

So white+Hispanic are 50% of homicide victims [2] (which we use as proxy for perpetrators), and 58% of the prison population [3]. For blacks, its 44% and 37%, respectively. Doesn't look particularly skewed to me. There is some anti-white+Hispanic bias, but since we're looking only at homicide to avoid police bias, we're not seeing the whole picture, which may explain the disparity.

[1] In approximately ninety percent of all murders committed in the U.S. over the years, the victim and perpetrator are of the same race - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201602/...

[2] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-... (for some reason the FBI groups whites with Hispanics)

[3] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/incarceration-rates-by-r... (white and Hispanic are again grouped)

Perhaps a graph of police resources used by race, per capita, could substantiate that claim. Because the article doesn't even make the claim (except perhaps implicitly), let alone offer proof of it.

> Conservative policymakers and a cautious public mean Japan is much more likely to look for internal, rather than external, solutions to the demographic crunch, despite projections pointing to the inevitability of more immigration.

Suppose they choose to "solve" it with immigration - what will happen? It will enable their current fertility-destroying system to persist, shrinking their population indefinitely, while supplementing it with immigrants.

Social-economic systems that cause below-replacement fertility are in this way much like parasites, feeding off the host nation. Without immigration, eventually this will cause enough of a crisis, or a high enough fever, to continue the analogy, that will allow the nation to shake off the parasite and change their system to something sustainable.

But immigration functions as anesthetic and immunosuppressant - keeping the host population just comfortable enough that they go gentle into that good night, and giving the parasite economic system a new host to feed on.

Is "race baiting" really a sufficiently specific description? How often does NPR/NYTimes/Washington Post/CNN/.. highlight the race of white victims, as opposed to PoC?

> The big question for the G.O.P. during the Biden era is whether the legacy of Carlson’s culture wars adds up to a viable platform for a major political party.

Translation: please retreat to complaining about regulation and taxes (and starting the occasional war - we won't complain too much about that one, like we didn't hold Trump's assassination of Qasem Soleimani against him), and let us decide how culture and the country will evolve by inserting propaganda into even math class [1].

They try to put it in the most generic, inoffensive terms, like "learn about race", but what they mean is learn about race from people who agree with them on every racial issue. I guarantee that if, say, it was American Renaissance putting together and administering the coursework to children, even if every question of fact in that coursework was accurate and beyond dispute, the author would very quickly realize the wisdom of sticking to just math.

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-math-becam...

You either accept that terrorists and pedophiles will also use your platform, or you relinquish your freedom and retreat to sanitized, corporate- and government- monitored and censored places.

> and was now suing the state.

On what grounds? This sounds like a problem with the legal system, not medical transparency. Though I can empathize with medical professionals having to work in the legal system that we have, not a hypothetical perfect one, I'm very apprehensive of restricting transparency on the grounds that, if people saw what was going on, they may take legal action. It may have been frivolous in this case, but...

> If you goal to maximize adoption

What's the point in maximizing adoption if it requires forsaking your primary goal, which is user freedoms?

> The merchants of doubt dominate media. And spend billions of dollars shaping discourse.

Then let them sow doubt. If the case is "we're not sure but it's very possible that continued CO2 emissions will cook the Earth", what should we do? Continue emitting CO2, or stop until we're sure that it won't cook the Earth?

It's the precautionary principle - if the science isn't settled, given the catastrophic risks, we should limit CO2 as much as possible until it is settled that emitting it is safe.

Could the deranged British legal system then be turned against those two, with equally vexatious retaliatory lawsuits? Fight fire with fire, as it were.

To the person spamming threats: Do you think your message is persuasive? If you received such messages, but instead of Scott Wiener, it was someone you knew little about, would you be persuaded?

Edit as reply: I'm curious - what makes you read my post as protecting Wiener? I didn't express any kind of opinion on Wiener, merely on the effectiveness of your messaging. You want your messaging to be effective, so you should welcome feedback, no?

Or are you just a hired spammer conducting a false flag to score victim points for those you claim to oppose?

> The broken thing is that anyone can send any unsolicited traffic anywhere, making Cloudflare a requirement for hosting a website.

If a Cloudflare-like service is a required part of internet infrastructure, then each ISP and hosting provider should offer their own, equivalent service. By law, if necessary, if the economics don't work out otherwise. Because having a single company be the arbiter and monitor of who may visit any website is, well, bad.

> Well, until you have an algo that can mind read, "I'm not a spammer guys, gosh!" isn't good enough, I'm afraid.

Yet read-only access to websites, which by definition can't be used for spam, is also locked behind Cloudflare. The same old excuse every time - they're given a legitimate inch for security, but take a mile.

Most telling is that you don't even get heavily rate-limited access to a website without passing Cloudflare's filter. Because then your actual behavior could be used to determine if/how much of a DDoS threat you are. But that would take away Cloudflare's excuse to monitor users, so they prefer to use absolutes.

> I just never really understood why these tracked math programs were a good idea?

Because by sabotaging "tracked" programs as you described, they can claim that "Middle- and high-performing students performed equally as well in both environments.", thus discrediting concerns that dumbing down math education to the lowest common denominator is harming high achievers.

> In addition to suggesting de-tracked math offerings, the draft framework also proposes to incorporate social-justice lessons into math, and to orient lessons toward seeing how math could advance social justice.

And this is controversial? I thought we all agreed state education should be used to create the New Soviet Man. "We'll get you through your children" is a proven effective method, the only problem is resistance by backwards parents.

> In my next column, I’ll be writing about why it’s so difficult to figure out how to teach math and a new billion-dollar push to improve curriculum and classroom materials

Is it so difficult? There are many countries in the world, why not look at what they tried and what works, such as e.g. Singapore math: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35717121

Systemic racial discrimination in academia (despite Democrats outnumbering Republicans 10 to 1 in faculty [1] - curiously few studies look at whether that might be due to discrimination) is a perfectly analogous conspiracy, yet it is accepted by default.

However, you are correct - cherry-picking which parts of an article to believe is not very convincing. So let me substantiate my claim:

The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. [2]

That was in 1985. Nowadays, it is done openly: Nature publicly stated they will not publish studies that may "harm" (broadly defined) various groups [3], regardless of validity, and commitments to diversity are officially required by one fifth of academic jobs [4].

Of course, if we're talking about discrimination in academia, we skipped a step: as your own quotation implies ("it does not follow that disparities in IQ between groups have a genetic basis"), there are group IQ disparities. Since IQ is a useful (if imperfect) measure of academic ability, from that alone we would expect disparate outcomes, even in a perfect meritocracy. It does not matter if the IQ disparities are genetic, cultural, or socio-economic in origin (or some combination thereof).

Though it is strange. Bizarre even. Nearly every other heritable human trait - height, skin pigmentation, lactose tolerance, eye and hair color, bone density, sickle cell trait, muscle composition, high altitude adaptation [5], alcohol metabolism [6], etc., is unevenly distributed among human groups. Yet even though IQ and personality are both heritable [7] and variable, they're the rare exception, perfectly equally distributed among all human groups? Nature truly works in mysterious ways.

[1] https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/homogenous_the_p...

[2] https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...

[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-022-01443-2

[4] https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_adaptation_in_hu...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_flush_reaction

[7] https://www.nature.com/articles/tp201596

> Why does it rub me wrong?

Because "your" car is betraying you and obeying a different master. Once you cross the bright line of "items should be loyal only to their owner", things get dystopian very quickly - subscription seat warmers, DVD players that won't let you skip commercials, TVs that embed ads and spy on you, printers that secretly embed tracking dots on your documents...

It all adds up, until you find yourself living in a cage, with little control over your environment. And trying to take back that control is not only technically difficult, but thanks to anti-circumvention legislation, often outright illegal.

A different perspective:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. - President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address, 1961

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwigh...

Of course of course. Now let's look at what happens to researchers who claim otherwise, to see if there might be publication bias...

The video is about Amazon Ring cameras taking away promised functionality post-purchase, and demanding a subscription fee to enable it. You also cannot tell the cameras to connect to your own server to self-host that functionality.

> I have a hard time believing that genetics being a dominating factor for outcome would not be an obvious/major/easily discovered and proven finding.

IQ is 57-80% heritable [1]. It's not the same as probability of getting a PhD, but it's hard to argue it wouldn't be a significant (it doesn't have to be "dominating", as you put it) factor.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

The USA has 15.4% foreign-born population. Compared to Asian tech powerhouses, Japan has 2%, South Korea 2.3%, and China 0.1%. And they don't grant citizenship to children of immigrants.

And just eyeballing it, you'll notice most countries demographics don't radically change in the span of a generation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...

They did not "fall" for the sham - they were willing participants, and are only upset because their collaboration via negligence was exposed.

How many stories did the NY Times, WaPo, NPR, CNN and other "venerable" media institutions get so badly wrong in the other direction? Or not even wrong, just truthfully and extensively reporting on some crime or abuse perpetrated by non-whites against whites? And blaming it on anti-white racism?

E.g. the recent shooting of a 6-year old white girl and her parents, after a basketball rolled into their black neighbor's yard [1], got only a brief mention in one opinion piece in the Times (the gist being we should blame guns, not race), while Ralph Yarl got at least nine separate articles.

It seems that which incidents become part of the national conversation on racism, and which are just "random", is heavily filtered. Seeing this filter, how much should we still trust them?

[1] https://breaking911.com/6-year-old-girl-2-adults-shot-after-...