pnako

You don't like mixing your information sources?

The justification for preemptive warfare was the security of Israel, not starting a war with a nuclear power.

And I'm sorry to make such a cynical point, but good luck selling a war to go save Muslim people to Western populations...

Can we make this thread a sticky?

Your source is the OECD, which is basically just Western, developed countries.

If you look at the entire world, the picture is different.

Because most countries don't have huge immigration programs like this in the first place.

A bigger threat to who?

They are unwilling to do it at certain wages, yes.

You always find one country better than others at anything. But the US is not doing that bad:

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

Should politicians campaigning on the basis "oil extraction is wrong" be allowed to do so, especially when using that line to enflame energy groups, with the sole purpose of securing votes?

And if in power, should they then be allowed to reintroduce high corporate tax rates, on the initial grounds of free speech?

In fact, her own definition is (from Wikipedia):

>White Fragility is a state in which even a minimal challenge to the white position becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves including: argumentation, invalidation, silence, withdrawal and claims of being attacked and misunderstood.

You could replace the world white by any other word. And you can replace the list of defensive moves by the equivalent statement : "refusal to unconditionally comply", since it's the only option left.

I would venture a guess that this covers about 75% of human interactions, and 99% of interactions when the discussion is about challenging someone's interests or position.

There are already good retrospective observational studies out, like [0]

[0] Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective analysis https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147789392...

I'm no fan of Soros but in this particular case I was imagining the process of emptying scientists indeed

>George Soros spent dozens of millions of his own money to empty a bunch of nuclear physicists

Is there anything this monster won't do?

This is just you choosing which part of right-wing ideas you like. I could make the exact same argument with the left.

"Yeah, saving trees and whales sounds fine, but they should stop it with all the LGBTQ, BLM, socialist stuff"

You can't have a civil discussion with those people either. In fact it's getting increasingly difficult to have civil discussions with anyone (HN is an exception because everyone is on their best behaviour, but to a large extent this results in self-censorship; you can see that the least politically correct comments are made with throw-away accounts).

There are conservatives outside the US (although some, or many, are also Trump fans).

Is there a difference between you asking a government to remove someone vs you asking the mob to remove someone?

This is typical libertarian logic, where you completely disregard outcomes provided they come from the market and not the government. It actually mimics socialist thought; "sure, we don't have a lot of food or stuff in general, but whatever we have was produced using the principles of scientific socialism!"

In reality, people care about having food, not being murdered or being allowed to express themselves. Whether it's the outcome of the institutions called "the government" or the ones called "the market", who are joined at the hip anyway, makes very little difference.

I'm trying to make sense of it all.

Social media is necessarily going to have racism, idiocy, profanity, conspiracy theories and everything else. If you start having editorial standards, it's not social media anymore.

Is Coca-Cola genuinely worried that their ads might appear alongside a rant about immigrants from your right-wing uncle? I think there is an ulterior motive but I'm not sure I can figure it out. Perhaps they sense that controlling the "woke" narrative works in their interests as long as it prevents people from going toward genuine radical and leftist, anti-corporation ideas that might question how Coca-Cola is addicting people to sugar and causing diabetes, how it treats trade unionists in Latin America, and things like that. So Black Lives Matter, as long as they drink coke, and we want to make sure they die of diabetes and not by police abuse.

I recently discovered Powershell, in a Windows context. It's weird, but has interesting ideas, and is better than bash for sure.

Supposedly it supports Linux, but I haven't actually tried.

The last such law in France was just cancelled for being unconstitutional.

And in practice they are impossible to enforce for a platform like Facebook, since in the end it's a judge who has to decide what is, and what is not hate speech.

In practice, enforcement is selective and the sentences are never formally enforced since it would create de-facto political prisoners, which gives a bad image to a democratic country.

So I'm not sure they're a good example.

Everything is being redefined as hate speech, so that's a moot point.

"White lives matter" and "it's OK to be white" are not remotely hate speech, yet those sentences are being treated as being "white supremacist" stuff now.

The laws in Europe are 1) not that great and 2) won't work in the US thanks to the 1st amendment.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

You might think there is some nuance because the areas with risk of Islamic separatism are not _necessarily_ the same as the high-crime areas where the police cannot easily go. But in practice they definitely are. It's not a pleasant situation, but it's the situation.

I can give more background if you are interested, but it is a well-studied problem with no solution in sight.

This is a speech on Islamic separatism in France, by current President Macron (in French, obviously):

https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2020/02/18/proteger-le...

He is using multiple times the expression "quartiers de reconquête républicaine" ("suburbs for the Republic to re-conquer").

If the President of a country considers he needs to reconquer parts of his own country, don't you think there is a bit of a problem, beyond whatever Fox News might say?

Why would it be propaganda? Is it inconceivable for you that such places could exist?

In France, there are definitely a few. There are places where even the fire brigade gets attacked. That's why they're called "no-go zones". The police can still go there but only with heavy means; you can't just send a random police car with two cops there, you need special units in riot gear.

The French term commonly used in the media is "zones de non droit" meaning "areas outside of the law" or sometimes, perhaps more politically charged, "territoire perdus de la république" (the republic's lost territories).

Officially they are known under various names that start with "zone". Currently the official term is "zones de sécurité prioritaire" (areas of priority security).

Those areas generally correspond to the areas that most countries warn about in their advice to travelers when it comes to France.

They exist in other European countries as well under similar names.

You don't understand the concept of being a people? Citizenship is not an award, it's not something one deserves. But it's not something you can give to anyone either.

How do you define yourself? Don't you have a people, a group or tribe (whatever you want to call it) you belong to? I know people who define themselves as "human" and "citizen of the world", but they are quite uncommon.

I don't know if I'm a world-class engineer, but I'm definitely a foreign engineer. Why should we all end up in Silicon Valley?

I'd rather have good engineers around the world than all competing in California just because it's a good way for the FANG companies to keep wages lower than they should be. The same companies that tell us that we're living in an interconnected world and so on. Fine, just open offices everywhere in the world, or promote remote work, instead of trying to get everyone in the same physical talent pool.

Ultimately it only benefits the shareholders of those companies, not engineers (American or foreign), nor the population of the areas where tech cash is driving all prices up.

Why would the EU complain about Trump ending the brain drain?

It's a good decision by Trump. It benefits American workers and non-American nations. Win/win.

The losers are the Gates and Bezos who are already extremely wealthy. I will find have to find a source but I think there is a gap between the share of profits captured by IT workers vs banking workers in the US, and those are industries with equivalent levels of workforce education and capital intensity.

Americans are entitled to American stuff more than the rest of the world, yes. That's the principle upon which the concept of nation operates.

That notion is disappearing in the US quickly, though, and soon the rest of the world will follow. It's going to be nice living in a giant global slum with a few extremely wealthy pockets with a de-facto segregation by IQ and wealth /s

I think it's better if each country tries to retain their elites to build their own nations, instead of having everyone end up in Silicon Valley to work on spying technology.

What about the American world-class engineers, though?

There are great universities in the US. Use them to train young American people. This could even benefit African Americans and other minorities.

I would be curious to see some research regarding the racial composition of the police and its incidence on police brutality. Would a more diverse and/or more black police force be less, same, or more inclined to do police brutality?

At least it would solve the issue of racism. Get white cops to police white neighborhoods and black cops to police black neighborhoods. I suspect it's what's going to happen regardless of any explicit policy change.