rvo

Also, 99 percent of the US military will defect to protect their own country against a rogue federal government. These are normal, good people who signed up to protect us.

I would still trust a PhD in any field over some commercialized "artist". At least he went through the rigorous process of obtaining that degree. It changes people for the good, in my opinion.

Yes, what you said -- you gave me two options, I gave you an answer.

Not sure why you thought I am sitting here waiting to "debate" you. This is just my opinion. Please don't take an abstract opinion so personally.

More like art isn't valuable, especially in the context of the hyper commercialized, capitalistic "art scene" in America. I mean, this is the Kim Kardashian country, Dr. Phil country. Where a reality TV star is president and mindless latenight shows pretend to be arbiters of morality. Donald Grover is no different, and people who see him are no different.

This is a country that worships celebrities. Kardashian, Trump, Donald Grover, etc. What one do about it...

There are a few good non celebrities we should be listening to. Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson's, etc. Highly educated, high signal to noise, experts in their fields and not fking celebrities (at least not originally).

I have nothing to gain by listening to a performers opinion about anything outside of what they perform in. I don't think these are smart people.

Trust me man, you haven't seen the ugly side of many liberal "pro immigration" folks. At least the guy you are responding to is being honest.

Have been thinking about it, honestly.

I came to this country for about 13 years. I know I dont have a right to live here. But after paying college fees, taxes, various visa fees, etc, I feel some entitlement. I have lived here longer than any other country in my life. Definitely consider is a home, but it is clear most people dont want us here.

Ah well, thats life.

Lawyer adviced the same. Told me it was almost impossible for me to do EB-1 and it was all about luck. I don't really want to do that. It's just frustrating seeing people I went to school with years ago from other countries become greencard holders so quickly without even doing grad school or STEM.

>I applied EB-1. They need 3 criteria. Accepted 2 criteria (extra ordinary contribution to my field and leading role in organizations). They rejected the media and press criteria because most of the press about my company's acquisition, while mentioned me by name, was about the company and not me. And BTW I was Founder of the company and built it from scratch.

That is such BS. I was gonna try (I have some publications and stuff) but that's about it. Now I feel like I am rotting away here.

Same here man. I'm getting sick and tired of immigration in this country. The whole country is worried about illegal aliens and no one cares about us.

And this is not new with trump. Been on h1b for years. It just got worse over time under obama. Americans dont care about indians. Either we don't get our voices heard too much, or we are just a slightly wrong shade of brown ("people of color" - ha!). Go care about illegals.... I'm just tired of dealing with immigration and then getting shat on by "pro immigration" people who dont care about Indians (and frankly Chinese).

To my american friends, you dont realize how racist the immigration system is currently. Forget refugees and "muslim bans". Those are really nothing compared to how Indians and Chinese are treated. I'll show you: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/v...

Do a search for "FINAL ACTION DATES FOR EMPLOYMENT-BASED PREFERENCE CASES"

See that table. There are a few salient points:

1. That table shows where the queue pointer is right now. "C" means at the head of the queue (no entries, everything being processed). If it is a date, that is the date that is currently being processed (for all intents and purposes).

2. Notice the special columns for the different nationalities. So they discriminate based on national origin. But, only 5 to 7 countries are special cased. Everyone else (including all refugee countries, muslim countries, etc) fall under "Rest of World" ("All chargeability areas..").

3. Now notice the INDIA column. The date is 01Jan07 for EB3. This means, for someone with a Bachelors degree, they have to process people who applied 11 years ago. Let that sink in. No other race has to face this discrimination. EB2 (masters or phd) is not much better either. You have to be a genius (EB1) to get a greencard 'now' without a queue ... at the same level as a Bachelors graduate from Iran, Saudi, Somalia, whereever. .

Anyway, hopefully you can empathize a little bit with Indians and Chinese who did things by the book and stop focussing so much on illegals.

Ah, good point. So this will be a generational clash...

This sounds similar to a real experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave_(experiment)

There is an amazing movie based on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(2008_film)

> While the adults are complacent, jaded, and disparaged, teenagers are ignited, spirited, and take no prisoners. ... Do not get in their way: they will crush you.

This is scary. Do we expect violence?

Also, aren't millennials more pro gun than others?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/12/are-mille...

According to Gallup’s version of the question in 2004, the notion that concealed guns made for safer spaces polled at 25 percent; 11 years later, it registered at 55 percent nationally. The greatest support came from those ages 18-29, at 66 percent, a full 10 points greater than the next highest scoring demographic.

Your bank is insured by the FDIC. Up to some amount.

Who will insure elections in case of hacks?

Also, more electronic voting means maybe more centralization which can increase the scale of hacks.

I am very well aware of the natural rights theory developed during the age of enlightenment.

We have given up our natural right to kill another person. I am suggesting we should give up our natrual right to bear arms.

The idea with natural rights has always been that we have unlimited rights (and actually enumerating them can be problematic) but we give some up to live in a society where we can pursue life liberty and happiness.

I am saying Americans via their representatives should give up their right to bear arms, remove it from being enumerated, and then allow strong legislation that outlaws weapons just like we have done with murder. If an amendment is needed then so be it "Congress HAS the right to strictly control guns in order to protect life".

Does that make sense?

I won't call it excellent. If they didn't have weapons, then the US government would have caused less destruction and would have fixed those countries much more quickly. Similarly, if America didn't have guns, the civil war would have been faster and less bloody.

I am precisely saying that Congress should be allowed to pass any type of gun laws. Right now, Congress cannot infringe on people's rights to bear arms due to 2A. I am saying Congress should be able to do that. They should be able to ban anything they want by passing laws. And if the people that they are representing want gun confiscations, Congress should pass laws for that too...

Right now they cannot because the constitution doesn't allow it. If you repeal 2A, then they (Congress) will be able to do much more about guns.

Yea but the civil war happened, which was super deadly.

I see what you are getting at. But honestly, if the gov wants to do a genocide, they have tanks and bombers to do it. No AR15 will help against that anyway.

Yea, I know. I am asking why not repeal this amendment, like the 21 amendment did for the 18th. Why have it as a "right"?

If its not a right, then the government can pass much stronger gun laws, including confiscations, etc. But still allows good citizens to own guns for hunting and stuff. Maybe even limit the number of guns per person, control the type of gun, etc. Just give enough so that country folks are happy with simple hunting rifles and cant do much damage.

Thats an interesting point. There is actual hatred for country folks.

I get it though. My folks are from a village in India. We sometimes get shit on by city folks too. Some country folks like guns. But its not a "right".

> Teaching gun culture and demanding gun safes (like it's done around here) would probably be a safer and more efficient route.

That can be done and the 2A can also be repealed (gun ownership doesnt need to be a "right"). Why not do both?

> We need to stop being okay with a culture that routinely gives people a reason to go postal.

why not start with eliminating the means of going "postal"? Why even have a "right" to AR15s or any guns at all.

> No, the school/community he was at had issues. They didn't take bullying seriously, did nothing to prevent it and did nothing to punish it when it went too far.

but that definitely has left some psychological issues in him/her and so its definitely worth talking to someone, a professional, about this. People with suicidal / homicidal tendencies should definitely seek out help.

I dont understand why. How can they see school shootings and see that toxic masculinity in the form of guns is so bad for society. Do they just value different things culturally?

I'm not too sure. Equality of opportunity doesn't help uplift marginalized populations. At least outcome can be measured and so that could be one way of guiding the uplifting of populations. Example, women earning equal to men. The phrasing there is not "women get the same opportunities as men for careers, etc". No one is stopping women from going into the same careers as men. But, apparently (according to people much "smarter" than me), that is not helping women. So, they look at the outcome : are women making the same as men? If not, lets try to optimize that objective function.

So west definitely seems to be quite heavy on outcomes. But maybe this is just semantics?

of course I wouldnt be too different. I'm just saying you should talk to someone about this.

Isn't it good that you didn't have access to guns? So why not just repeal the 2A?

> If I would have had access to a gun I would have tried to kill them.

you got issues, mate. maybe talk to someone?

> We need common sense gun control.

like what? anything short of repealing the 2A makes no sense to me frankly. Perhaps it's time to just repeal it and possibly confiscate guns across the board.

> Girls aren’t pulling the triggers. It’s boys. It’s almost always boys.

One could argue that it is the abundance of guns thats the issue. Why not consider repealing the 2nd Amendment? Do something like what Australia did. 2nd Amendment seems to be too masculine anyway.

> It’s no longer enough to “be a man” — we no longer even know what that means.

"Toxic masculinity" is a phrase that seems to be thrown around a bit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity). And it seems to be mostly applied to western (white) men. I would argue that western white males are more 'broken' compared to other males.

> Too many boys are trapped in the same suffocating, outdated model of masculinity, where manhood is measured in strength, where there is no way to be vulnerable without being emasculated, where manliness is about having power over others.

Possibly. As the author says, the lack of focus on men / boys hasn't given them a fresh way of channeling their masculinity in the 21st century.

> I would like men to use feminism as an inspiration, in the same way that feminists used the civil rights movement as theirs.

Not sure how he means it.

(Western) men are having less sex, watching more porn. The testosterone levels have plummeted. Special programs are being held for females, LGBT, etc but not for men due to unquantifiable broad points about "history of patriarchy" and "white male privilege". More broadly, the Y chromosome is kinda fizzling out (at least according to some studies, I've seen other studies that claim thats not the case). Western men are facing shortening life expectancies, high suicide rates, depression, etc. There is a complete lack of social fabric. Nothing unites them anymore (no military, religion, honor, purpose).

But isn't this the world that many intellectuals are looking for? Don't we want to remove western male dominance? Don't we want people to control their sexual promiscuity? Don't we all agree that patriarchy is bad so we have to destroy it? And that white men have had a historical advantage that should be taken away?

I was always under the impression that the thing that makes western society great is that everyone is supposed to be equal. So why tolerate excessive masculinity from western males?

Edit: case in point, this article has been insta-flagged from the front page. Shows you how much even HN cares about boys/men. And maybe that's good, western males apparently have a lot of privilege anyway.

Discovered Dropbox here. Also have gotten many interviews via the monthly who's hiring posts.

I am just extremely wary of people who call me a person of color and who view things firstly through the lens of race. Of course there is racism in the west but correcting that shouldn't mean more racism.

Do you also believe Indians and Asians face a massive advantage in America? They are some of the most successful racial groups in America. Should their advantage be "corrected"? I guess it already happens via college acceptances...

How about Jews? Should we correct their advantage as well?

There is nothing wrong in addressing socioeconomic disparities. The lowest of our societies should be helped to a point of self sustanence and leadership. But it's just so offensive to call us all colored people, I mean people of color. Can I suggest not labeling people with higher melanin with that phrase? It reduces me down to a racial label and it makes me super uncomfortable. No kidding, it kinda reminds me of when I used to hear "Arab" or "terrorist" by right wing nut jobs as that label was also based on my race...

So correct racism with more racism ...

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

I guess that means nothing these days.

It scares me when people start talking racially, especially like you. You call me a person of color (basically a new version of colored people). You see race first, content second.

This scares me because it wasn't too long ago that Jews were being thrown under the bus. And it scares me because now you might hate white people, but what if you start hating brown Indians like me (who have the highest family income in America), Asians, or Jews (you probably consider them to be white anyway).

This is just scary stuff man. I wonder how many of my liberals friends view race first.