nhchris

Yet Americans still divide themselves by race. The only reason they can all be called 'American' is because of the country's multiracial nature, not because they have abandoned in-group preference, as the many ethnic lobbies and general political climate attest to.

In contrast, Japan represents a small number of peoples, and it's laughable to suggest that someone can become Japanese or German by a mere act of bureaucracy.

And a raspberry Pi costs even less, made by a firm with negligible resources compared to Nokia, yet has far better software support.

> Until those ecosystem issues are fixed

Again, that is my point. No company has any incentive, or has made any moves to, fix the ecosystem. They're happy how there are no standards or documented APIs, how everything is a closed binary blob that changes from one insignificant version to the next. They don't demand any kind of support or openness from hardware suppliers, they don't form any standards or demand adherence to them, despite their massive market power (if Samsung wanted open or standards-compliant hardware, they'd get it), because they directly financially benefit from the broken status quo they created.

> concessions that a $800-1000 phone doesn't have to make

You can spend 2x that on an Android phone, and the software situation won't be any better. This is deliberate.

That's my point - it doesn't cost money on PC. I don't need "support" from my motherboard vendor to install the latest linux.

They're comparing them because software support shouldn't be a problem, regardless of market segment. You can run fully up to date linux on 15 year old computers, but in moving to phones, they destroyed what we took for granted. This is a manufactured problem, and it's no coincidence that it lines the pockets of smartphone makers.

> it's pretty drastic to base your ideology on one poll.

That may be so, but an honest journalist would report both justification and conclusion, not just the latter, and let their readers decide.

> To think one would disregard their real life experiences and all the individuals they have known

If their experiences are negative, disregarding them is celebrated:

The ideal white response to non-white predation came from the Tibbetts family. Mollie Tibbetts, an Iowa college student, was raped and murdered by an illegal alien in 2018. [..] [Her father] emphasized that his daughter would find anyone using her death to criticize illegal immigration as “profoundly racist.” The family was lionized by the press. - https://highlyrespected.substack.com/p/turn-the-other-cheek-...

> take the results of one poll

You think he should base his views on more comprehensive violent crime statistics instead?

> Adams said on his his Coffee with Scott Adams online video program that white people should “get the hell away from Black people,” labeling Blacks as a “hate group.”

And he said that for no reason at all? He didn't cite a recent survey [0] where nearly half of Black people did not agree with the statement "It's okay to be white" [1,2]?

He mustn't have, because if he had, then reporting only the most inflammatory conclusion, and omitting his justification, isn't journalism, but character assassination. And Deadline is highly rated by Media Bias [3] and considered generally reliable by Wikipedia [4], so they would surely not lie by omission and exclude relevant, easily obtainable and verifiable information.

[0] Timestamp in the video where he cites that survey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6TnAn7qV1s&t=802s

[1] BLACK AMERICANS ONLY: "It's okay to be white." 53% agree, 26% disagree, 21% not sure - https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/162846019293223731...

[2] By race, 81% of Whites, 53% of Blacks and 58% of other races at least somewhat agreed it’s alright to be white. - https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/poll-72-us-adul...

[3] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/deadline-hollywood/

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...

I have no idea which story you're talking about - can you provide a link or some more information?

Punishment as part of a secret investigation, that you're not notified of or have a chance to defend yourself against in court, sounds rather undemocratic*.

*This word is sadly misused to mean "any unjust system of government". E.g. it is perfectly possible to have a constitutional monarchy, the antithesis of democracy, that respects the right to a fair trial and to face your accuser. Conversely, things people vote for are routinely dismissed as "undemocratic" - in that case, it gets called "populism". As far as I can tell, the words, as (ab)used, have nothing to do with the method of government, and everything to do with the outcome.

If you feel the need to hide behind trolls to avoid agreeing with literally the mildest possible statement about whites, then I would say that no, you don't. That's like being pro-vivisection just because the Nazis made a point about banning it.

> The story isn't about the poll, it's about Scott Adams.

The story is about Scott Adams' rant, but tries to avoid the question of how much of his rant was based in fact.

> Adams said Black people are a hate group, citing a recent Rasmussen survey which, he said, shows nearly half of all Black people do not agree with the phrase “It’s okay to be white.”

Pay attention to this common trick, where journalists omit checking an easily verifiable fact, and choose to report it as if it were a mere unfounded statement by their target. "He said" it, because that is what the survey actually showed:

BLACK AMERICANS ONLY: "It's okay to be white." 53% agree, 26% disagree, 21% not sure - https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/162846019293223731...

The article itself is paywalled [1], but this somewhat dubious website reporting on it [2] claims it found that: By race, 81% of Whites, 53% of Blacks and 58% of other races at least somewhat agreed it’s alright to be white.

[1] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/ge...

[2] https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/poll-72-us-adul...

> immigrants are not going to replace the entire Japanese population in one click

Same thing, just gradual instead of instant.

> feminism told women they can have it all. Turns out work doesn't leave much time for having kids.

How many jobs are fulfilling enough one would want to sacrifice family time, or even just housework for? Doctors, scientists, architects, engineers, artists.. after that, the vast majority of jobs are just a way to make ends meet, not a means of self-fulfillment.

> it looks like the Japanese would rather die (slowly, and then perhaps very suddenly as the weight of their society can no longer be borne by the next generation) than change.

Countries that do have significant immigration rarely see an increase in the native fertility rate. So the Japanese will die regardless*, immigration just means someone else will also inhabit their country.

In other words, you're offering a solution for the Japanese landmass, not the Japanese people.

*Assuming current trends hold for centuries, which they surely won't.

Why do we go along with this journalist charade that semi-random strings generated by a language model are "dangerous"?

The article talks as if previously, everything turned up by search engines was 100% true and so people are completely unprepared for dealing with falsehoods on the internet, and as if the chat bot is going to break into your house at night and assault you if you make it angry:

Testers, including journalists, have found the bot can become aggressive, condescending, threatening, committed to political goals, clingy, creepy and a liar.

It's making privacy more expensive and rare, while making surveillance cheaper and more common. Do we have to wait until it is literally impossible to share a single word in private before we start to worry?

It is, because this used to apply to most conversations. Even when overheard, they would likely be forgotten by who heard them, not have heard everything, not known who was talking, etc. If the conversation became interesting for an investigation, simply finding a witness would take significant time from limited police officers, the witness may not wish to cooperate, their memory would be imperfect, and perhaps most importantly, it would quickly become common knowledge, via gossip, what the police is snooping for.

Now most conversations have moved online, and a secret record can be cheaply created of exactly who is talking to who, when, how often, and in the absence of encryption, even what they are saying. Phones we all carry, even without spyware apps, can be located through signal triangulation, before we even get to facial recognition and omnipresent cameras, smartphone or otherwise.

That, theoretically, we can recover some of the privacy we used to have (so long as we don't get targeted surveillance, which has become so effective defeating it is nearly hopeless), does not mean that, in practice, privacy has been massively eroded for the average person.

> encryption hinders efforts to combat online child abuse

So do opaque walls and the absence of surveillance cameras in cars and homes. Oh don't worry - the recordings will be securely stored, and only available with a court order, only issued for "serious" crime!

It's strange that as surveillance proliferates, the shrinking scraps of privacy we have left are deemed a growing problem, not a vanishing one.

The old "you have power/privileged/are the oppressor, so should not be allowed any means of defending yourself" trick. Also known as "punching up (good)/down (bad)". Quite popular these days.

> I find it fascinating that South Korea [..] is very religious. I thought [..] religion was supposed to raise [fertility].

South Korea: 1.1 fertility rate, 56% no religion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea

USA: 1.8 fertility rate, 29% no religion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Mexico: 2.1 fertility rate, 15% no religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico

Niger: 6.6 fertility rate, 0.1% no religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger

Granted these are randomly chosen countries. If you want to invest the effort and plot fertility rate vs. religion for all countries where data are available to see what correlation (!= causation) emerges, be my guest.

Source for fertility rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...

More than a goal, it is a prerequisite. Without it, a society sustains itself only as much as the robin sustains its family after a cuckoo kicks out her eggs, but the nest remains the same.

If platforms such as Reddit really wanted to protect their users, they would try to avoid placing themselves in the position where even they can deanonymize their users.

Otherwise it's like Apple crying they're only complying with the law when the CCP makes them censor apps, when it was Apple who placed themselves in the position of inescapable censor for their users.

> He rattles off a list of things that he claims Asian Americans are doing to assimilate: having stable families, not having kids out of wedlock, attaining education, not committing crime, etc.

Aren't those all habits most Asians brought with them? I.e. they're not changing their behavior to better fit in, they're doing the same things they'd be doing in their home countries.

> I’m arguing that free individuals in those societies with the power to choose otherwise, and access to information about the consequences of their choices, don’t get to blame those norms for their behaviour.

Fair enough, but I care less about how to apportion moral blame for society's collective failings, and more about how to fix it, into a society able to sustain itself and produce exceptional children.

> It would be racist to suggest all members of the same race have the same beliefs.

I'm not suggesting that. Only that they, on average, exhibit in-group preference, to a degree that correlates with how important they say their racial identity is.

> Why is a white minority a bad thing?

I addressed this question: "Or will that leave them as individualists in a country dominated by inter-group competition, as current polls suggest?"

Of course this is not guaranteed - once Whites are a minority (in the US, not just globally), other races in the US may also turn away from in-group preference, and the culture might turn away from harping on white privilege all the time. It's just that that hasn't happened yet.

The US cannot turn against immigration, period. "Afford" doesn't enter into it. The Latino voting bloc, growing every day, votes against immigration reduction (or even enforcement, via sanctuary cities) out of ethnic solidarity. Indians likewise lobby for more immigration from India.

That's no surprise - while only 15% of Whites see their race as very or extremely important to their identity, that number is 56% for Asians, 59% for Hispanics, and 74% for Blacks [1].

The simple reality is Whites will become a minority [2] in what was an 84% White country as recently as 1970 [3]. Will they be treated with gratitude for sharing their country, and so can afford to act colorblind, forsaking racial solidarity? Is gratitude what they're being shown now?

Or will that leave them as individualists in a country dominated by inter-group competition, as current polls suggest?

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/04/09/race-in...

[2] It’s official: Minority babies are the majority among the nation’s infants, but only just - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/23/its-officia...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_d...

This is analogous to alleging a company is complicit in an MS13 murder committed by an illegal immigrant, because the company wasn't strict enough in checking the immigration status of their employees. Or, ignoring sovereign immunity, alleging permissive immigration policy and lax border enforcement render the state culpable for crimes committed by immigrants, legal or illegal, that would otherwise not be in the country in the first place.

It's significantly curtailing freedom, mostly of innocents, for the sake of alleged safety. One is freedom of movement, the other of speech.

Presumably the family petitioning the Supreme Court wouldn't ask the US to sacrifice immigration for the (alleged) sake of a handful of murders, so what makes freedom of speech a more legitimate sacrifice?

We can talk about "choice" for an individual. But when it's hundreds of millions of people in a society overwhelmingly "choosing" the same thing, it becomes more useful to talk about causes, about how society is structured to reward some choices and punish others.

For example, do you think the US has an obesity problem and Japan doesn't because, by pure chance, there are far more people who "choose" to eat unhealthy in the US?