The metaphor of an endangered species of duck is still apt.


No. It is not an apt comparison, you should stop using it, thinking in these brackets and stop listening to whomever told you this crap:


1. Human beings are at the top of the food chain, intelligent, social and able to make babies with one another, as previously stated.

2. Ducks can be saved by humans because humans can save ducks because: point 1. Ducks cannot form eco-departments of duck governments to save other ducks. Because they are fucking ducks. Certain species of ducks cannot breed with other species of ducks. Because they are actually different in more ways than colour. So saving a certain species of duck makes sense for biodiversity and etc. Also, plants and whatnot.

3. Now: Human beings of whatever colour, culture or other dividing feature your racist brain cooks up, are NOT DUCKS. They are all equally human. All. Equally. Let it sink in. Aaaalll. Eeeequaally. Not one single person is above another.

The above considered, I plead that because a particular civilization finds itself below replacement level it is in a perilous state and merits attention. This is a conclusion that, again, assumes an overreaching, unfettered respect for diversity.


There it is again, the racism. See point 3 for physical racism. Now to your cultural racism: "Civilisations," cultures, religions are NOT DUCKS. They are collective constructs. They diminish, they go inert. You can look at them in museums. Because there are almost always remnants and relics. But cultures are never dead. They are not murdered, driven away by evil muslims, outbred or dying off.

Cultures go on in the following cultures. They are absorbed. They are mixed. They are in flux. As I mentioned before. Cultures change. It is inevitable. A few hundred years ago, German was spoken on the British isles. It mingled with Scandinavian, Celtic and french languages and cultures --> English.

You must extend your own desire to protect a unique given species to the right of a nation to maintain its own identifying characteristics. Realize that the desire for prosperity and sustained existence of a nation does not by definition mandate the impingement on another.

Bullshit. Any nation's "identifying characteristics" did not exist 200 years ago and will not exist in 200 years time. It doesn't even need an outside influence to do it. It happens. "Nations" do not have a right to maintain characteristics. Those which tried, failed. We live in a globally connected world now in which ideas, culture, science and knowledge can be shared freely. Look at yourself being lectured at by a post-racial, post-fascist human being on the internet. Whatever culture you belong to, it changed a lot and it will keep changing a lot. This is called progress. Otherwise we'd all be talking a babylonian language.


On the other hand, if like GenjiKilpatrick you harbour a sense that "whites" deserve to be eradicated because of who they are... you're barely human.

As far as I can see here, he never said such a thing. This is your irrational fearful racist mind at work. Try to look outside your head. I guess you misread this: Not to mention - Adult White Males have been the most privileged, self-entitled, killin' & manipulating "lesser" cultures type homo sapiens on the planet for a few centuries now, at least.
He says that white men were basically "in charge." Nowhere does he call for an eradication.

And again you are calling a fiction of your own "barely human". I do not think it, Genji does not think it. This is your racist mind creating fictions you can lash out at. Try to see how your own fears are all without merit. Group B will not destroy anyone's culture. They will enhance it. As they have done before. And Group A will enhance them. As they have done before. In fact, there are no group A or B. Just humans with interchanging, intermingling cultures. Stop thinking in black and white. In every aspect.

You've presented a thoughtful and considerate reply, DerHasisttot. Thank you.

The most basic argument I have presented is the erosion and eventual fading out of a particular population, and this is the crux of what I would like to focus on. The premise can be applied to any element of biodiversity.

The metaphor of an endangered species of duck is still apt.

My assumption was correct in that you, as most people, would find justification for mobilizing efforts in ensuring this particular population is given a chance to exist. For whatever reason, you have deemed this species of duck worth your concern and you do not hesitate to voice your consternation. Another assumption I will make is that the same can be said of any population that contributes to the precious diversity of our world and faces existential challenges. Whether it be a rare beetle, some exotic bush or the giant panda.

I like to think a noble feature of humanity is our desire for fairness and that we should not stand by while something is endangered. We both probably share this in common.

The above considered, I plead that because a particular civilization finds itself below replacement level it is in a perilous state and merits attention. This is a conclusion that, again, assumes an overreaching, unfettered respect for diversity.

Just as you should care for a particular duck, it would not negate your concern for other types of mallards, waterfowl or any other species. Your sense of justice would be shared equally.

You must extend your own desire to protect a unique given species to the right of a nation to maintain its own identifying characteristics. Realize that the desire for prosperity and sustained existence of a nation does not by definition mandate the impingement on another.

If you can not grasp this sympathy you display for a bird and apply it to another context, you are intellectually dishonest.

On the other hand, if like GenjiKilpatrick you harbour a sense that "whites" deserve to be eradicated because of who they are... you're barely human.

>> ^blankfist:

So, we're now equating the conditional support of a poorly written and overreaching law to racism now? Interesting.
Equality is good. Racism is bad. We get it. You can't change the hearts and minds of people through legislation. You can only achieve that through discourse and being persuasive.


See? Denial of good done by legislation.

If you really want to wade into this conversation again, why not pick up where we left off last time?

So, we're now equating the conditional support of a poorly written and overreaching law to racism now? Interesting.

Equality is good. Racism is bad. We get it. You can't change the hearts and minds of people through legislation. You can only achieve that through discourse and being persuasive.

* You still file US taxes? Wow, that's some overreach. I tend to live in the camp of voluntary taxation to fund government programs (excise taxes, etc.), which essentially boils down to no income tax. Income tax in the US is only a 3rd of the Federal Government's revenue, so it's hard to convince me it's necessary especially since such a large portion is spent on defense (which we all know is NOT defense, but really offense).

* Institutional welfare tends to leave people more destitute than aided. Look no further than the Native Americans in the US and Canada. I have a really close connection to one particular treatied band in Southern Canada where alcoholism and gambling isn't just a stereotype. And I've watched young boys grow up disliking when their parents (or parent) use them to get more money from relatives, but once they reach a self-sustainable age they fall right back into that cycle. So few of them I've seen have a drive to escape that life, but instead accept it and live a life of handouts and poverty. I can only guess this isn't because they're natives, because I'm 1/8th native, but because that's what welfare does to them.

Welfare has a stigma, and if you grow up accepting a lifetime with welfare then you grow to associate yourself with that stigma. At least that's the best I can guess.

* Nuclear power is the future. It has to be.

* The free market is the best way for individuals to learn how each of us can better serve our fellow man. No central authority can be smart enough to understand the complexities of every human endeavor, so progress is truly within the open markets. Don't misread that as corporatism. I mean, it's certainly not perfect, but it's better.

* The great, late father of Comparative Mythology, Joseph Campbell, once wrote (and I paraphrase because I can't find it now), 'The world today is as good as it's ever been in history, and it's as bad as it's ever been.' I like that.

* Yeah, when did wanting a more efficient, limited government become a Republican only talking point? It used to be a liberal belief when liberals were more libertarian.

* You should look into Scientology!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think I've made it go away. Please let me know if this continues. It's a bit of overreach on the part of one of our ad providers.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Boo. Completely disagree with this opinion.

For one - living here in Brisbane Australia, I find the trains to Los Angeles to be very infrequent.

For another - why should we show up at an airport and "normalize" this kind authoratarian overreach by demurely consenting to it.

Resist if you can - if you can't, then at least support the resisters. (FTR, traveling with my kids to the US this December - I'll only be doing the latter. :-( )

>> ^Darkhand:

If you don't like it take the train. It's that easy.
Look I'm not saying I'm for full body scanners, for shoe checks, and all that other BS. But don't show up to the airport and expect to be able to "Opt Out" of all the of the security checks.
If you don't a body scan, get frisked, if you don't want to get frisked or a body scan? Take the train.
IF you don't think you deserve to do ANY of that, then protest and try to change the world works. But don't be an asshole and show up at the airport and expect this not to happen.

I will *discard this video...due to objections, which are understandable. I didn't know that he died (altho I had a sneaking suspicion). I object, however, to the implication that people could only find this humorous if they are racist or receive some kind of perverse satisfaction from ridiculing the handicapped. I find that view rather myopic...I didn't give him any special consideration or allowances due to his physical handicap. Although I see your point, I think that you may have overreached a little. You could have made your argument perfectly well by merely sticking to the facts, rather than appealing to emotion and spite....

>> ^joedirt:

how is this different from the highway pileup where a four pixel high car was hit by a semi?
That video HAD TO BE REMOVED for the sensitive sifters that get the vapors.
You can actually see him plummet to his death in this video. I guess it is ok because it's just some Korean guy. Or maybe you all just enjoy laughing at handicapped people.

He was "spot on" on a great many things. Even 2001, if resources allowed, could have been a possibility (the vehicles).

I think the biggest problems with many sci-fi writers is that they overreach or have little knowledge of the logistics and production side. Arthur C. Clarke did have the foresight to take a lot of these issues into his writings and more so, his talks. People like him often help issue these devices into reality just by their influence on future engineers/scientists.

@NetRunner

Given the rock bottom interest rate and the sheer quantity of other measures I think they've rightly concluded that monetary policy has little effect in stimulating an economy out of a downturn. Really it's common sense and historically all but proven that only actual fiscal spending can stimulate a bearish market, much in the same way lowering taxes would have little effect. The incentives, which otherwise would have worked are there, but consumers and investors are behaving irrationally.

Additionally the Federal Reserve's role is really inflation rate targeting than anything else. It's directive is not to stimulate growth but to avoid stifling it. As an unelected and independent agency it's out of place and overreaching if it does anything beyond that and frankly damages its credibility in achieving its main objective.

I agree that the stimulus measure was clearly not sufficient to match the economic downturn and that a swifter recovery from a larger stimulus would likely have paid for itself with increased tax revenue. The blame for that rests with a lack of resolve and commitment by Democrats and partisan opposition by Republicans.

And honestly, when I see MSNBC programs like this blatantly ignoring highly relevant facts, exaggerating their point much in the same way Fox does, (such as by making it seem the Federal Reserve has been passive the past 2 years) it makes me call into question anything else I hear from them.

I've mulled over this for...the evening. My thought are what I had earlier pretty much.

Am I convinced of Tigroom's guilt absolutely? No. Would I be more comfortable having such conviction? Yes. I welcomed the expression and extension of benefit of doubt. I also welcomed the opportunity to present the situation to those of you who have more experience and knowledge. I remain, however, of the inclination to think him a strong candidate for a self link. Apart from that which is presented above, there are other pieces to the puzzle. For instance, when I first presented Tigroom with my concerns, he upvoted my comment and videos. He also upvoted Sifty's admonition regarding the perceived attempt to ban on my part. I found the Galyja account. It exhibited a strong voting correlation to Tigroom vids and shared an inception date. I inquired about any affiliation. I received a somewhat personal response, defensive, but no denial. He removed my reply and comment from his profile page. I actually took this to an individual whom I respect and trust and it was their feeling that the relationship was not clear enough to conclude absolutely a self link. I both trusted and understood their reasoning. I, indeed, shared it. I hadm in the interim sought to present the case here but failed. Additionally, there was a dead vid to add to the list.

I have the distinct feeling that the Sift will not hear further from or about the Galyja account BTW.

I made an earnest plea to Tigroom for his side. I presented that understanding and equanimity are offered here. His response, of course, provided little with which to assess guilt or otherwise. His indignation was a bit overreaching, no hint of denial. To simply be asked of an affiliation concurrently with such basis is hardly indicative of persecution much less a witch hunt, Dag.

Dag, sir, will you or do say that the bannation was wrongful?

Dag, your comment is not lost on me. That Dag, however couched, terms this a witch hunt and trial strikes me hard. To the extent that he may be right I accept responsibility and apologize. I am working on learning what I can to do better by the Sift and those in it. To any extent that he may be in error, I consider moot. I also am not, by my conclusions characterizing the actions of anyone else as culpable or wrong. I trust and have faith in their processes.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Violent retaliation is wrong, plain and simple. But it is true that something must be done to stop the abuse of law enforcement authority. Hotheads like this will continue to escalate the issue in the wrong direction until something positive is done. That's gotta be top-down pressure from politicians and the courts. And that's gotta come from peaceful people putting the pressure on the politicians.


There are some cases where you can be pushed into violent retaliation and understand that it is your only option. I don't want to get into an ethics debate but we can look at any segment of human history and see this same sort of thing happening on every corner of the earth including the founding of this nation. I don't agree in top down pressure, there has to be changes brought about by the public. In every national debate there's always some extremes who will try to subvert the argument and the people on the other side who will exploit those extremists for their ends. There are far more responsible arguments and a groundswell of opposition to Police brutality or overreaching. There should be policing of the police, and we can do that, we have to act faster or we might have to go through a "growing pain" era of the public vs. the police where a lot of people will die needlessly and mistrust will be sown and might never be restored. Fix this before it gets worse, get organized in your community please.

Also Quantum I've yet to see any scientific study that the death penalty does anything to prevent crimes in a civilized society. I am not against the death penalty, I just think it should be used for criminals who are amongst the most reprehensible of the society.

Let's see... there's the easy way to have this discussion
Q: "Do you think the Civil Rights Act and the ADA are overreaches in government?/ Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964?"
A: "I support the Civil Rights Act and believe that America still has a way to come for true social justice"

Then there's the way that isn't a canned politician response, and actually shows independent thinking.

Q: "Would you allow a private business to have a "No Blacks Allowed" sign?"
A: "I would be insulted to even see such a sign at an establishment, but the freedom of speech alotted to us by the constitution and bill of rights protects the rights of all people, even bigots and racists, and we must respect that."

If brown folks bother you, just say it.

The position is one of law enforcement. The only relevant factor is 'legal' or 'illegal'. It is pretty weak when the only argument is to toss the race card and ignore the germaine issue of law enforcement.

...tyrannical overreach of government, but now assert ... this Arizona law that empowers the police to shake down anyone for documentation on mere suspicion, and arrest people who can't prove their citizenship on the spot.

The opposition to health care has always been discussed as the tyrannical overreach of the FEDERAL government. I've always stated that the state, county, and municipal level is where government should primarily be vested with Federal authority being limited to oversight & regulation. I know the left generally distrusts an approach that isn't centrally planned though. Let a STATE decide what is best for itself? The horror!

That's the hardest thing about this bill is that it seems to be doing some good, when in reality it is not

I tend to agree, but for different reasons. I can only shake my head at the left's attempt to paint this as a race issue. That seems like unfounded race baiting based only on presumption. But on the other hand, Arizona's law is a bandaid on a sword stroke. There are a lot of illegals of all shapes & sizes and they exist all over the country. Even if Arizona manages to clamp down, the illegals will just go somewhere else. The US has an OK - if cumbersome - student, temp worker, and immigration program. What we don't have is an effective system to deport illegals when they are identified.

The first step is to cut off the influx. Build the border wall. Walls work. Walls are effective. Ask the Huns, East Germans, and Palestinians. The US built the Panama Canal. Building an effective border wall is child's play by comparison.

Next, we have to require citizenship ID in order to obtain essential services. Renting or owning property, utilities, phones, education, bank accounts, cash by wire, employment, credit cards, driver permits, insurance, medical care and other key functions should all require ID. If you cannot supply the ID, then you get flagged for review and if you are an illegal you get deported. And yes, any time a cop pulls you over or picks you up - no matter who you are - you should be identified. If the police find they have an illegal, then the illegal gets remanded and deported.

I see no racism or malice in the sensible enforcement of immigration policy. Illegals are - by definition - illegal. I don't get why there are people who think that enforcing the law is racist. The accusation of racism seems to be a politically motivated red herring to me.

I'm glad that the people who just had a year-long tantrum about how health care reform was some tyrannical overreach of government, are now asserting the righteousness of this Arizona law that empowers the police to shake down anyone for documentation on mere suspicion, and arrest people who can't prove their citizenship on the spot.

Really helps the whole "racist sore loser" argument we have against them.