search results matching tag: equalize

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.003 seconds

    Videos (567)     Sift Talk (68)     Blogs (34)     Comments (1000)   

Missouri tries to legislate reality away

newtboy says...

Using people as a wedge is upsetting. I wish the right would stop, but their platform is based on mutual hatred of the “other”, so ostracism is a main tool for them.
Trying to secure the rights of Americans to compete in publicly funded sports is not creating a wedge, it’s being a civic American where tolerance and inclusion of those different from you is a cornerstone of our national identity.

No, that’s not common sense. It’s a red herring you would use to deny non binary people the right to participate. As I showed, divisions based on biological “sex” lead to men (biological women) like the boxer above fighting against girls. Is that more “fair”? Hardly.

Yes, trans people follow those rules, and must be hormone supplement free for years before being allowed to compete in most arenas. Non trans people have access to the same supplements, and also need to stop them before they can compete professionally. People naturally have different levels of hormones, we don’t force them to suppress or enhance them to compete, nor do we exclude those with medical needs for supplemented hormones…unless they’re trans. Red herring.

What genitalia you have has no bearing on your performance in sports, unless there are competitive orgies I’m unaware of.

One or two trans athletes being outstanding proves the point that there isn’t a noticeable advantage….otherwise every sport would be dominated by trans athletes….and that’s simply not the case. I bet statistical analysis would show trans athletes are not better, but worse on average than their non altered counterparts for many reasons.

Funny how denying a group their rights to participate (or exist?) in your eyes is “equality” and equitable.

Edit: How do you feel about hormone testing to decide which group you compete in? Too much testosterone, or not enough estrogen, compete with the “Ts”,…below the line on testosterone, or above the line on estrogen, compete with the “Es”. Or how about just separate by body mass index? Now is the problem solved? Do you concede that now the debate is settled? LMFAHS!!

In your biased, ignorant little mind it’s settled, not the real world where facts override your ignorant feelings and misconceptions and people’s rights to participate in publicly sponsored competition aren’t over ridden by ignorance and thinly veiled hatred.

🤦‍♂️

bcglorf said:

@newtboy,

1. Given how few people are affected, I'd love to see way less coverage of trans-sports as a wedge issue to rally political bases

2. Failing that, isn't it clearly 100% common sense that the Men's and Women's sports divisions are NOT divisions applied based upon gender but instead upon biological sex, and as such should always have been a non-issue.

3. I really can't see the issue, if it must be raised, as anything other than a request for special exemptions to be made. Existing competitive sports are divided based on biological sex and most have requirements around usage of drugs, hormones and other performance enhancing substances. We have existing and established testing for both the biological sex and PED requirements. Applying those equally to everyone IS equality.

/s There, now the debates all settled /s

Three-Minute Video Explaining the Common Core State Standard

newtboy says...

CRT is not real outside of law school. It’s a big racist lie. It’s not taught in grade school.

Edit: Yes, if true, actual CRT, the law school class, was banned in grade school, nothing would change….but you want the intentional misuse and bastardization of the phrase to mean any mention of racial disparity, racist actions, slavery, Jim Crow, racist policies including those adopted by the Republican Party at the same time those racist policies were abandoned by Democrats in the late 60’s early 70’s, any mention of lynching, the KKK, the fact that non whites were not allowed to vote, the fact that non whites were not considered full human beings in the constitution, etc to all be under the name “CRT” and want it all to be removed from schools. You want to rewrite history so it resembles the false image you think you project. It’s absolutely moronic, attempted forced ignorance. The Republican plan for children because ignorance makes it easy to abuse and control the populace.

American history is real….and really racist.
By intentionally mislabeling anything about our racist history as “CRT”, a right wing buzz word they have stripped of any actual meaning to create some fantasy racial boogeyman they can point to to excuse blatant racist policy and actions, you think that allows you to pretend it doesn’t exist, to deny it, and to return to it. Removing any mention of our racist history is racist, stupid, and is a ploy to convince right wing morons that racism isn’t real, never happened, and so doesn’t need any fixing or even teaching. It erases an ENORMOUS part of American history, and all of black American history. You love that.

You bold faced liar. That’s EXACTLY what “anti CRT” is about, renaming the slave trade as “Africans immigrating”, calling slavery “job security”, pretending that Lincoln ended racism completely (but being confused because in your mind slavery is a hoax), ignoring the murderous atrocities during reconstruction, ignoring the blatant often deadly racism that was the norm through the 70’s, and the institutional racism that still exists, never mentioning and pretending attacks against blacks like Tulsa and others, mass murders, arsons, terrorism, all by law enforcement so there’s no legal remedies for the survivors….(The Tulsa race massacre took place on May 31 and June 1, 1921, when mobs of White residents, some of whom had been deputized and given weapons by city officials, attacked Black residents and destroyed homes and businesses of the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma, US)…never happened. The anti CRT movement is about erasing that history so they 1)don’t feel guilty or uncomfortable for trying to defend or excuse having a murderously racist history, and 2)so it’s easier to return to that racist society with minimal effort because they won’t know where it leads.

Why? Because the senators that were complicit all switched to the Republican Party after the southern strategy, and those who believed in equality and rights for all switched to the Democratic Party. Another bit of racist history you personally love to deny despite it being the historical, undeniable record of our history. They don’t want to be asked, because they either answer truthfully and are proven to be racists, or lie and lose their racist voter base. Racists are nearly all…99%+-, right wingers. They do not belong to the party trying to eradicate racism. They belong to the party that openly accepts and fosters racism, and pretends, often insists it doesn’t exist when they’re in public….your party. The party of racists, white nationalists, insurrectionists, revisionists, anti American, pro Russian, sexist, anti democracy, anti education ignoramuses.

Quit bringing nothing but dishonest bold faced lies and rewritten history to the table. That means you leave, because dishonest bold faced lies and revisionist history are all you ever spout….because you are a dishonest liar and blatant consistent racist….and a sexist.

LBGTOW (little boys going their own way)….that describes you people well, we wish you would follow through. Go on now…shoo. Go your own way, buy your own country and go there. See for yourself just where unopposed right wing nonsense leads, just leave the US out of it. Ask Musk to forget Twitter and buy Guatemala or an island nation, invite Trump to lead for life, then GO! You have so many issues with other people having rights, so GTFO and create your own white male controlled, white right wing utopia…or move to Russia….but don’t expect to get to come back when it devolves into criminal despotism, economic collapse, and ecological disaster.

bobknight33 said:

If it is a CRT is another red herring than you have nothing to worry about. Let it be banned in schools and in you mind then nothing would be banned.

No one wants to ban the teaching of slavery or Jim Crow.

Why would any Republican want to ban the teaching this side of the Democrat party?

Quit bringing false arguments to the table.

Missouri tries to legislate reality away

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,

1. Given how few people are affected, I'd love to see way less coverage of trans-sports as a wedge issue to rally political bases

2. Failing that, isn't it clearly 100% common sense that the Men's and Women's sports divisions are NOT divisions applied based upon gender but instead upon biological sex, and as such should always have been a non-issue.

3. I really can't see the issue, if it must be raised, as anything other than a request for special exemptions to be made. Existing competitive sports are divided based on biological sex and most have requirements around usage of drugs, hormones and other performance enhancing substances. We have existing and established testing for both the biological sex and PED requirements. Applying those equally to everyone IS equality.

/s There, now the debates all settled /s

w1ndex (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Your video, True Facts: Sea Stars, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 69 Badge!

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Mr engineer, when there are two parties, sentence structure demands you use plurals….both sides have THEIR share of undesirables. An engineer should see grammar as a clearly defined structure that follows simple rules and just get it. Spelling is different, but grammar should be a no brainer….why is it so hard for you? Have you never seen it that way, or was engineering incredibly difficult for you too?

The difference being one side is all undesirables, and the level of undesirability. One side openly calls for an end to American democracy, death for their political rivals, death for anyone who disagrees with today’s talking point. One side has no party platform, no stated goals, and exists solely to stop any legislation the other side puts forth, even when it was something they want or that would benefit them. They are the same side.

We found another point of agreement.

Term limits are a must, and will never happen because our system does put the regulatory onus on those who need regulating….absolute insanity. It also lets them set their own salaries, ethics, and benefits.

Divestment is another must. Perhaps a bigger must. Total divestment across the board. Not just blind trusts that aren’t really blind, and absolutely not what we have now…the “honor” system run by the honorless. Allowing legislatures to write horrific laws because they can personally financially benefit is a recipe for disaster. That should (but never will) change.

Campaign finance is a third must. Corporations should have the same donation limits individuals have, which should be more like $100 each so every person can afford to have a voice, and we should return to an equal time on broadcast tv for free situation and deny the media as a political platform to give candidates a boost….no more Fox News interviews indistinguishable from campaign commercials, no more media smear campaigns, with severe penalties for violations, like $10 mil the first time, $25 mil the second, loss of fcc license the third. Another non starter….but needed badly.

PACs should be outlawed, or regulated into obscurity.

Some reasons often brought up in opposition to term limits can be traced back to Maddison who wrote "[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,"

I think we have proven at this point the cons of self serving representatives legislating for personal gains outweigh the benefits of professional legislators, especially seeing as we have the internet and huge staffs to ostensibly level the playing field of knowledge.

One fix would be the creation of an ethics branch, completely non partisan, not self regulatory, with rules against former candidates (winners and losers) and lobbyists too from serving and strict rules about how they operate, and bans from running for office or being a lobbyist afterwards so it doesn’t become a campaign platform or tool for industry. Maybe even ban close family members from the same. Won’t happen, only the best people intentionally limit their powers, and they are few and far between in Congress….all but absent on your side.

bobknight33 said:

Cheney is 1 of the "others"

Both sides have its share of undesirables.

Term limits should be a must, but we have "the fox watching the hen house" so this will never happen.

New Rule: Make America Grind Again

newtboy says...

He is, but he is clear that he thinks Islam is the worst, most violent misogynistic and intolerant. I say that’s equally true of all religions at different times.

While I do like that he can see when his team goes off the deep end, where that line lies has steadily moved to the right as he aged. I’ve been watching him since before he had a tv show. I live in CA, and I don’t have the issues he complains most about….of course I don’t live in the most expensive, most regulated county in CA like he does. He complained for years about getting permits for his solar system and blamed the liberal government, I got my permits in one day with no issue at all.

My biggest peeve is that, even though he’s been a professional comedian for over 40 years, he still doesn’t understand that a groan/clap is approval for a joke in bad taste or particularly pointed. It bugs the shit out of me when he gets mad his crowd groaned while applauding and laughing.

We actually started HBO to watch him there…but he’s changed so much we often don’t bother anymore. I rarely recognize his panel anymore too. New Rules is definitely the highlight of the show these days.

spawnflagger said:

I think he's against all religions, hence making Religulous.

I like him because he's old-school liberal, and not afraid to call out some of the extreme-left insanity of new-school liberals. Probably he sees it more because he lives in CA.

But I don't subscribe to HBO, and only watch his "New Rules" or monolog clips on YouTube (when they're not already 'sifted, of course)

C-note (Member Profile)

Anonymous message to Vladimir Putin

BSR says...

Hero hackers claim to have breached Belarusian weapons firm

The international hacker collective Anonymous appears to have made good on its declaration of cyberwar against Russia and its allies, apparently exposing 200GB of emails from Belarusian weapons manufacturer Tetraedr.

Anonymous breached the firm’s defenses and released the most recent 1,000 emails from inboxes belonging to Tetraedr employees, passing them over in .EML format to the information transparency platform DDoSecrets. It also made public a complete archive of each inbox in .PST format, though the hackers noted that some files may have been corrupted by the export process.

Tetraedr is a private company founded in 2001 that specializes in making advanced radio-electronic weapons systems. It is based in Belarus, which has provided Vladimir Putin with logistical support in his invasion of Ukraine. Its dictatorial leader, Alexandr Lukashenko, has long been regarded as a puppet of Putin.

“Greetings, citizens of the world,” announced Anonymous in a statement on DDoSecrets, a non-profit whistleblower site set up in 2018. “We are the PWN-Bar Hack Team, we stand for equal opportunity pwnage and unrestricted access to information.”

https://cybernews.com/news/hero-hackers-claim-to-have-breached-belarusian-weapons-firm/

Best of Monterey Bay Aquarium ROV Deep-Sea Animals

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

THE PEOPLE?!? THE PEOPLE are firmly against THESE very few people who think their imagined rights trump everyone else’s actual rights.

Isn’t it funny how much of a problem you had with black people protesting being murdered and imprisoned for their skin color, you were outraged they disrupted traffic and business….but when white truckers do exponentially worse, much more economic damage to protest their having to get a tiny pin prick to secure a privilege (sniveling little crybabies that they are) you are 100% in favor of disrupting traffic and business to the extreme.

Clearly having to get a small shot to have the privilege of free travel between countries is far more draconian and a much bigger, more serious issue than having zero recourse against being gunned down in the streets and in their own homes by organized thugs with immunity from prosecution and military equipment, and of course that makes the disruptions to economies and livelihoods not just excusable but laudable.
Holy fucking shit, dude.

Maybe it’s true you aren’t actively racist, I’m not there to see, but it is definitely true you always stand with active racists and against equality under the law on every single issue.

bobknight33 said:

Now the people have had enough so they gather and shut down traffic and now the government is upset for essentially doing the same thing.

Tesla’s TOTAL DOMINATION (new data)

newtboy says...

No, because I don’t think I should get to do business in America for free while the destitute pay taxes. It’s immoral and unethical. Period.

As a state government, it’s my duty to see that everyone gets equal treatment. Most states refused to give Musk tax free status.
Much like saying you can rent a room in your poor parents house, or you can stay there for free and just watch them struggle to eat and keep the lights on while you save up for your third Ferrari. I say it’s immoral to not pay them rent, you say it’s dumb to not take advantage.

Tx tax for Musk is 0%. Like saying if you can pay for service or get it and not pay, wouldn’t you walk away from your bill?

Austin has become a total shit show since Musk showed up. They REALLY could have used those taxes for uncountable things, starting with massive homelessness to police to crumbled roads to electrical and water systems that don’t quit in the cold….

No, if I were Musk, I would not do the same. I like America and don’t see it as a piggy bank to rob, Musk not so much? He would jump to China if they paid him enough, and you would cheer.

bobknight33 said:

?
( as in Giga Texas) If you were to invest $10 billion and employ 20,000 workers for next 30 years, would you not shop around for the best location, taking into account taxes among other things?

As state would you want make that deal?

If Ca tax is 10% and TX is 5% would this not make one consider?


Land cost , local / state rates? The influx of people to your area would increase your tax base for decades.


If you were a Musk would you not do the same?

Vote While It Counts

newtboy says...

Comment downvote for blatant lies

1) it specifically does not outlaw them, it explicitly allows them….it regulates and enforces them, so yes, in states with ID laws, it has mandatory ID to vote (but expands what ID is allowed beyond a drivers license.). Fail

2) It does not allow unattended drop boxes. where? Quote it. It requires more drop boxes than one for 3.5 million people, it does not (that I can find anywhere) allow unattended drop boxes any more than current laws which require them to be under surveillance and attended. It does not allow “vote gathering” liar, prove me wrong with quotes from the bill (you can’t)….side note, in California, the Republican Party itself set up multiple unauthorized drop boxes, unattended and without surveillance cameras even after being charged for breaking state laws, gathered those votes (discarding any that they didn’t want to submit, like any from people named Enrique and DeShawn, and possibly filling out any left unsealed…..Republicans are also the ones caught with campaigns directly harvesting ballots from nursing homes and admitting they filled out any race not filled out, voting for the Republican candidates even on Democrat’s ballots, so you know, those are Republican MOs, not Democratic, you can’t point to one actual example of Democrats doing that, maybe you can find some false OAN reports claiming that, but absolutely no evidence. Double Fail

3) dumb ass, it requires investigation by the state “ Additionally, the bill sets forth provisions related to election security, including by requiring states to conduct post-election audits for federal elections”. It also requires states to purchase voting machines with a paper receipt and record, so no more attempts like cyber ninjas to reprogram the machines to give the results they want with no physical record to prove their fraud. Super fail

4) where does it limit a states ability to challenge and audit itself? Quotes from the bill or admit you’re lying. It limits the states ability to gerrymander, to deny polling places for targeted populations, and to create biased and blatantly racist policies designed to obstruct certain populations from voting. It limits states ability to limit early voting. It actually REQUIRES states to audit every federal election you delusional fucking moron. Double dipsolitious fail

5) the scariest part for you (that you didn’t mention intentionally) is making Election Day a national holiday, because if poor working people get a paid day off to vote, guaranteed more will vote, and that’s disastrous for the right that freely admits it can only win elections if they get to choose the voters, the method of voting, and the outcome (I’m looking at Trump), and will never win any election ever again if all legal voters vote.

Such a sad, deluded little liar you’ve become, bob. You must really dislike yourself to do that to yourself. You’re worth an honest argument and position, bob. You let Trump twist you into this dishonest, “say anything”, hyper partisan angry little man…..you deserve better, and we all deserve better from you.

Always against the side of freedom, inclusion, equal opportunity, truth, honesty, fairness, civil rights, and civility.

bobknight33 said:

It does not have mandatory ID to vote.

It allows un attended voting boxes.

It allow vote gathering.

None of this is secure.


Limits states ability to challenge.

Sioux Falls police officer delivers DoorDash order

eric3579 says...

My reaction was that this officer was being empathetic towards a citizen. All things being equal i'd say this act points to him being the kind of cop you might like to have around.

I'm guessing the way this act is perceived by the viewer has much to do about the type person one is. I see an empathetic cop doing right by someone when he didn't have to. Others may see him as not doing his job properly on the tax payers dime. I think its ridiculous to think his reason for doing it was to benefit the corporation.

I think there are plenty of cops that do things that aren't required of them, and only because it helps someone out or makes them happy in some way. More of them please.

News Fails to Ask WHY Police Seized $100K From Traveler

bobknight33 says...

from Asset Forfeiture
Policy Manual 2021


I. Guidelines for Planning for Seizure and Restraint
A. Background
The Department of Justice (Department) Asset Forfeiture Program (Program) encompasses the
seizure and forfeiture of assets that represent the proceeds of, or were used to facilitate, federal
crimes. The Program has four primary goals:
(1) Punish and deter criminal activity by depriving criminals of property used in or acquired
through illegal activities.
(2) Promote and enhance cooperation among federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law
enforcement agencies.
(3) Recover assets that may be used to compensate victims when authorized under federal law.
(4) Ensure that the Program is administered professionally, lawfully, and in a manner consistent
with sound public policy

II. Payment of Attorneys’ Fees in Criminal Forfeiture Cases
A. Defendant’s attorneys’ fees
The defendant in a criminal forfeiture action may file for an award of attorneys’ fees only under
the Hyde Amendment.4 A motion for fees and costs filed in a civil forfeiture case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2465(b) cannot include fees and costs incurred in even a directly related criminal proceeding.5
To prevail on a Hyde Amendment claim, the defendant must prove that: (1) the defendant was the
prevailing party in the underlying action; (2) the government’s position was vexatious, frivolous, or in
bad faith; and (3) there are no special circumstances that would make the award unjust.6
This burden
is heavier than the one the government must meet under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA

Is Meat REALLY Bad For The Climate?

cloudballoon says...

Sources for the 8-10 billion & 1.5 billion figures? I'm just both fascinated & concerned about how the scientists come up with those numbers and what tech & better farming can do.

Yeah I agree the human population can't just grow & grow. But it seems the only way to do that is 1) war & 2) high cost of living has worked so far. Diseases used to be a fair equalizer as well, but with advanced R&D, even a pandemic like what we have is able to prevent mass casuality rates of the past.

newtboy said:

Locally, all the beef in my area is grass fed. All unnatural pastures were created as a byproduct of the logging industry, not for cattle. It’s butchered and stays local. I must guess our beef here is that outlier at 9 kg CO2 equivalent per kg….or better.
I also must assume they give no value to the rest of the carcass in their calculations…bone meal, tallow, etc are also valuable commodities not accounted for here.

The biggest issue with food production is the number of mouths to feed. We about 8 billion today and rising. The maximum number that can be supported is estimated to be between 8 and 10 billion, but the maximum that can be sustained naturally without depletion of essential resources is only 1.5 billion, assuming they use the same resources per capita.
To actually be sustainable as a species, we need to eliminate over 80% of the population AND adopt far less destructive behaviors.
Ain’t gonna happen. Start making your chain mail dresses and shoulder pads now, it’s almost time for Thunderdome.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon