Newt per you words "Did no one else notice the completely homogenous angry white middle age crowd?" means nothing.

Blacks feel the same pain as everyone else and identifies with it .

You are schilling for the 1% or goverment? why? You a Tool for the man.

Show me a reaction video from a black perspective that is against it.

Why are so many here upvoting this anti governmental America hating regressive racist extreme Christian right MAGA anthem the anti government America hating extreme Christian MAGA right has latched onto?

Do you not know what he’s saying?
Do you not understand “people like me and people like you” refers to white Christian nationalist people?
Do you not understand what’s meant by “with an old soul” (it means they want to regress to pre-civil rights era Jim crow)?
Do you not understand the “rich men north of Richmond” he speaks about are just the Democratic “tax and spend” politicians (and maybe RINOS but not MAGA)?
Do you not notice the anti government assistance message?
Did you miss the pro incel message?
Did you miss all the fat shaming by a fat man?
Did you not notice the COMPLAINT that the government protected minors being raped on an island INSTEAD OF coal miners (who in fact have had dozens of government “welfare” programs created to get them retraining and jobs in industries that are less deadly, pollute less, and pay over minimum wage as well as instituted hundreds of governmental safety regulations that have cut miner deaths exponentially).

Did no one listen to the message of the song?
Did no one else notice the completely homogenous angry white middle age crowd?

WTF people!?

Lyrics-
I've been sellin' my soul, workin' all day
Overtime hours for bullshit pay
So I can sit out here and waste my life away
Drag back home and drown my troubles away

It's a damn shame what the world's gotten to
For people like me and people like you
Wish I could just wake up and it not be true
But it is, oh, it is

Livin' in the new world
With an old soul
These rich men north of Richmond
Lord knows they all just wanna have total control
Wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do
And they don't think you know, but I know that you do
'Cause your dollar ain't shit and it's taxed to no end
'Cause of rich men north of Richmond

I wish politicians would look out for miners
And not just minors on an island somewhere
Lord, we got folks in the street, ain't got nothin' to eat
And the obese milkin' welfare

Well, God, if you're 5-foot-3 and you're 300 pounds
Taxes ought not to pay for your bags of fudge rounds
Young men are puttin' themselves six feet in the ground
'Cause all this damn country does is keep on kickin' them down

Lord, it's a damn shame what the world's gotten to
For people like me and people like you
Wish I could just wake up and it not be true
But it is, oh, it is

Livin' in the new world
With an old soul
These rich men north of Richmond
Lord knows they all just wanna have total control
Wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do
And they don't think you know, but I know that you do
'Cause your dollar ain't shit and it's taxed to no end
'Cause of rich men north of Richmond

I've been sellin' my soul, workin' all day
Overtime hours for bullshit pay

For my understanding, the general meaning of the word "Zionism" is vastly changed throughout the eras. And there isn't a homogeneous kind of Zionism anyway. What kind of "Zionist agenda" the people/government living in the land of "Israel/Palestine" in the 30-50s to today had in mind and pushing for is totally different. Let's be concerned with today's general definition of Zionism, as mostly defined by the Likud and the other far-right/Nationalist parties in today's Israel shall we?

Also, I can't imagine there are a whole lot of countries that would deny Israel's right-to-exist (like, physically, wholeheartedly want to wipe them of the face of the earth kind, NOT the expedient, political rhetorics for their own domestic consumption kind). And those that could really be crazy enough, like Iran, I constantly (naively?) felt the Ayatollahs would rather opt for silent, staus-quo relations than go to war with Israel (they must see the Ukraine invaison and see Russia/Putin isolation as a lesson, they can't afford to put themselves in the same position as Putin's in a Israel/Iran war. The Ayatollahs don't have even Iranian people standing behind them).

The good is that for Israel vs. the Arab countries, trust building is possible, but incredibly slow -- it only takes one wrong step to negate a mile of trust building -- but still, the past few years have seen some Arab countries opening up bilateral embassies with Israel along wiht increased trades & direct flights, etc.

The no good, very bad news of the statehood issues, daily IvP conflict, land grabs and from low-level militray incursions to the occasional missiles trading military operations, are happening far too often. Thus making hard-core Zionism, support of Hamas, the isolation of the Palestinian people & economy, etc. all the more severe. None of these are paths towards peace and/or creating the conditions for mutually agreeable settlement. All the flashpoints needs to be addressed in an even-handed way. But we just don't see balance in the media and/or the world political arena.

My point exactly. Just like a remake of Little Women with all bros wouldn't be a good example of equality for men. It was an exercise in equality in one way, as an example of women's equal opportunities to fail at bad ideas, just like men.

Equality doesn't equate to sameness. That's called homogeneity. It's spelled and pronounced differently because they're different words and concepts.

It's not just a possibility, this is stupid and uninformed malice, this isn't fun, or just slightly malicious. This is he man women haters club INCEL propaganda.

I usually say "the American voter" but since so many of these delusional traitors didn't vote, I modified it to fit the scenario. I never knew where it came from, but I knew it was a quote or paraphrase from someone.

I could hope with all my hope and it would be a thimble in an ocean of pessimism and dispare over the stupidity of any large group of humans. A person can be smart, I've yet to see evidence that people can.

There is no "try".

Well, we got the moron in the Whitehouse for 4 years, when do we reach our heart's desire? How is that even possible when the desires of the plain folk often contradict each other....they / we aren't homogeneous.

Cultural homogeneity. It's sort of amazing. BTW, one thought for people to contemplate--not meant good or bad, just a perspective ---South Koreans think of themselves more as being more like North Koreans than anyone else. And when North Korea finally falls...South Korea will suddenly be Korea---and it will be a nuclear power.

You misread. Please don't speak for me, especially when you're so wrong.

I support both disband the police, which means require all police to go through the hiring process again with those with multiple or serious complaints on their record disqualified or at least forced into retraining and a long probationary period...and I also support defund the police...meaning remove mental health from their job (and fund a mental health department that is sent on mental health calls, normally without police escort), it means the SWAT team is only called after weapons are used, not pre-emptive for non-violent calls, so can be cut in half or less. It means ZERO dollars for military equipment.
It does not mean eradicating the police, it does not mean cut ALL police funding, it means remove the second, third, and fourth hats they wear, remove violent or abusive officers, and cut their funding accordingly.

Mostly I think people want enforceable responsibility, criminal and civil, not immunity. If police had no shield from their actions, they would act better instantly. That's a no brainer and doesn't cost a dime.

Edit: eradicating the police unions would go a long way towards fixing the culture.

I think the demands of the public are more homogeneous than you claim....I know so, since you mischaracterized my position to create an outlier. That said, people do have different ideas of how to fix a problem we seem to agree on....but stripping immunity seems to be nearly universal outside police and Republican senator circles.

The people running the country aren't our best and brightest, they are those narcissistic enough to think they alone can make a difference and those slimy enough to think they can take advantage of an elected position for their personal gain. Trump proves undeniably that they aren't necessarily better educated , smart, or professional.

But BLM movement is not as homogeneous as white supremacists in a sense that black kids doing it would be doing it intentionally to mislead and divert anger(if that was their motive). Meanwhile BLM movement isn't exclusively black people. It is ABOUT black people, but it's not exclusively BY black people. Seeing defaced buildings like that I wouldn't associate it black people. I would associate it with BLM movement, regardless of the race.

? Are you implying that famine and/or water shortages somehow preclude war and disease? I think they're major causes.

No, that's a myth. We have resources enough to do some amazing things if we properly apply them, not anything, and without the will to apply them, almost nothing. Having everything you need for success besides direction is a guarantee of failure.

Depends, if you remove the human factor and look only at total resources vs global need, there are still major logistic hurdles to just feeding everyone, not to mention resource problems if we want the biosphere to be healthy and not homogenized down to humans and our farm animals.

Odd, international law has been enforced since ww2 with only few exceptions with no WW3, only sanctions, bribes, and relatively minor skirmishes. I don't know where you get the idea that only a gun to the head might be coercive when a gun to the economy has worked so well for so long.

You should be hysterical. If you aren't shitting your pants over the state of the world, you aren't paying attention or you're absolutely delusional. Civilization and the habitatability of the planet are both on a clear path to collapse and people are busying themselves with arguments over will it be 50 years out or 100, or maybe 150 instead of making substantive changes to mitigate what's now unavoidable....or even prepare.
A hysterical voice is the only one I think indicates an understanding of the problem and total lack of a working solution.

I find it difficult to believe people are willing to give this argument 45 minutes....I did not watch it, so I won't vote.

My opinion, if you knowingly surprise your partner during sex with what genitals you possess after doing everything possible to hide the fact that they don't match your outward appearance, you are trying to trick them and you are a trap....and I hope that label is distressing and insulting to you because you are a deceiver and a liar.

Be who you want to be, but be honest about it.
If you're a chick with a dick, wear a codpiece when you go out picking up dudes, not tape. You wouldn't be happy if that sexy buff dude you took home turns out to be a butch lesbian with a rolled up sock in their pants and a taped chest and you certainly wouldn't just go ahead and have sex with them even though you like dudes and penises....why would someone ever think that's ok?

Edit: and I think the answer to the question is obvious, if your sex organs are homogeneous with the sex organs of the partners you prefer, you are homosexual.

I know the original concept was fictional, but the general ideal does exist in theory. I can find numerous articles that discuss it and even Scandinavian politicians refer to it as being somewhat entrenched in the society.

Perhaps a better way to look at it would be the secondary summary given by Kim Orlin Kantardjiev. The law might be summarised as "You shouldn't think you're better than everyone else."

Of course it isn't a 'law' in the rulebooks, but when you have a mostly homogeneous society that believes in a certain cultural norm, then it might as well be.

I suspect we will disagree on whether it is truly a factor, I can only offer my opinion based on what I have read and studied. One of the nasty side effect of my crippling fear of flight is the likelihood that I will never visit a country I can't drive to or take a short sea voyage to.

Freedom of religion is independent of civilian armament.
History shows that religious persecution is normal for humanity, and in most cases it's perpetrated by the government. Sometimes to consolidate power (with government tie-ins to the main religion), and sometimes to pander to the grimace of a majority.

Ironically, in this country, freedom of religion only exists due to armed conflict, albeit merely as a side effect of independence from a religiously homogeneous ruling power.



It's true that Catalonians would likely have been shot at if they were armed.
However, likewise, the Spanish government will never grant the Catalans democracy so long as the Catalans are not armed - simply because it doesn't have to.
(*Barring self suicidal/sacrificial behavior on part of the Catalans that eventually [after much suffering] embarrasses the government into compliance - often under risk that 3rd parties will intervene if things continue)

When the government manufactures consent, it will be first in line to claim that people have democratic freedom. When the government fails to manufacture consent, it will crack down with force.

At the end of the day, in government, might makes right. Laws are only words on paper, the government's arms are what make the laws matter.

Likewise, democracy is no more than an idea. The people's force of arms (or threat thereof) is what assert's the people's dominance over the government.



You can say the police/military are stronger and it would never matter, however, the size of an [armed] population is orders of magnitude larger than the size of an army. Factor in the fact that the people need to cooperate with the government in order to support and supply the government's military. No government can withstand armed resistance of the population at large. This is one of the main lessons from The Prince.

Civilian armament is a bulwark against potentially colossal ills (albeit ills that come once every few generations).

Look at NK. The people get TV, radio, cell, from SK. They can look across the river and see massive cities on the Chinese side. They know they have to play along with the charade that their government demands. At the end of the day, without guns, things won't change.

Look at what happened during the Arab Spring. All these unarmed nations turned to external armed groups to fight for them to change their governments. All it accomplished was them becoming serfs to the invited 3rd parties. This is another lesson from The Prince : always take power by your own means, never rely on auxiliaries, because your auxiliaries will become your new rulers.






Below is general pontification. No longer a reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------



Civilian armament does come with periodic tragedies. Those tragedies suck. But they're also much less significant than the risks of disarmament.
(Eg. School shootings, 7-11 robberies, etc -versus- Tamils vs Sri Lankan government, Rohingya vs Burmese government. etc.)

Regarding rifles specifically (all varieties combined), there is no point in arguing magnitudes (Around 400 lives per year - albeit taken in newsworthy large chunks). 'Falling out of bed' kills more people, same is true for 'Slip and fall'. No one fears their bed or a wet floor.

Pistols could go away and not matter much.
They have minimal militia utility, and they represent almost the entirety of firearms used in violent crime. (Albeit used to take lives in a non newsworthy 1 at a time manner)

(In the U.S.) If tragedy was the only way to die (otherwise infinite lifespan), you would live on average 9000 years. Guns, car crashes, drownings, etc. ~All tragedies included. (http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life)






A computer learning example I was taught:

Boy walking with his mom&dad down a path.
Lion #1 jumps out, eats his dad.
(Data : Specifically lion #1 eats his father.)
The boy and mom keep walking
Lion #2 jumps out, eats his mother.
(Data : Specifically lion #2 eats his mother)
The boy keeps walking
He comes across Lion #3.

Question : Should he be worried?

If you are going to generalize [the first two] lions and people, then yes, he should be worried.

In reality, lions may be very unlikely to eat people (versus say, a gazelle). But if you generalized from the prior two events, you will think they are dangerous.

(The relevance to computer learning is that : Computers learn racism, too. If you include racial data along with other data in a learning algorithm, that algorithm can and will be able to make decisions based on race. Not because the software cares - but because it can analyze and correlate.)

(Note : This is also why arguing religion is likely futile. If a child is raised being told that everything is as it is because God did it, then that becomes their basis for reality. Telling them that their belief in god is wrong, is like telling the boy in the example that lions are statistically quite safe to people. It challenges what they've learned.)



I mentioned this example, because it illustrates learning and perception. And it segways into my following analogy.



Here's a weird analogy, but it goes like this :

(I'm sure SJW minded people will shit themselves over it, but whatever)

"Gun ownership in today's urban society" is like "Black people in 80's white bred society".

2/3 of the population today has no contact with firearms (mostly urban folk)
They only see them on movies used to shoot people, and on the news used to shoot people.
If you are part of that 2/3, you see guns as murder tools.
If you are part of the remaining 1/3, you see guns like shoes or telephones - absolutely mundane daily items that harm nobody.

In the 80's, if you were in a white bred community, your only understanding of black people would be from movies where they are gangsters and shoot people, and from the nightly news where you heard about some black person who shot people.
If you were part of an 80's white bred community, you saw black people as dangerous likely killers.
If you were part of an 80's black/mixed community, you saw black people as regular people living the same mundane lives as anyone else.

In either case, you can analytically know better. But your gut feelings come from your experience.



Basically, I know guns look bad to 2/3 of the population. That won't change. People's beliefs are what they are.
I also know that the likelihood of being in a shooting is essentially zero.
I also know that history repeats itself, and -just in case- I'd rather live in an armed society than an unarmed society. Even if I don't carry a gun.

-scheherazade

It's a beautiful place that's given us some amazing science, culture, and social advances.

All those things happened because we're the beautiful, figurative melting pot. Unfortunately, Trump is in the process of turning the US into a pot of homogenized white shit.

Sports is a perfect microcosm. We're good at so many sports because we choose people from the countries that excel at that particular sport. Kenyans for running. Eastern European or Canadian hockey players. Dominican baseball players.

I really dislike making sweeping generalizations, but I think the simple folks that voted for Trump never have and never will contribute anything culturally, scientifically, or socially.

Unless that culture is backwards and hate-filled.

You did it again, Bob. Nice misdirection.

We dont need to prove systemic racism, just a systemic inability to deal with ordinary, individual human racism, which is abundant. Also a systemic inability to deal with incompetence exacerbated by racism.

There is no need to demand all policemen to suddenly not be racist, that would be idealistic. But you can ask them to be trained, professional, unbiased, focused, and not kill innocent people.

Let us assume your stat below is correct. What do you think it means, I wonder? Because if you think of the blacks in the fist half of the sentence and the blacks in the second half of the sentence as one homogenous group, you may be considered a racist by some people.

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

The idea of a Japanese actor being a "minority" would be pretty weird to them. Japan is one of the most racially homogenous countries in the world.