Time to get on the TRUMP train

Just listened to Prince Harry's interview with Obama. Worth a listen.

Holy shit Prince Harry is gonna get royally murdered if he keeps this shit up. It's one thing to marry a black, but lowering himself to journalism? Jesus.

The jew on jew emotional violence that happens on this site is honestly alot

They aren't exactly being gentile are they.

President Hitler..errr...I mean Trump at it again...

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/New...r-Trump-520135

I mean, come on.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...-nursing-homes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mintjewlips

So a country with 1 billion plus creates LESS carbon per capita than a country with 370 million people? ..........right.......

---

Yes. Are you actually this math challenged or is it some kind of joke?

Lol @ trump fans.

It is true, the left ignores science when it suggests uncomfortable things. However if the end result is encouraging people to be better, then who cares. (As much at least)

Ironically all thus is tied into a racism and sexism. 2 things that charge up Druff !

Outside of the social science sphere it isn't true.

I am not sure if policy is effected at all by the examples given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

The left also loves to deny science and hard numbers, if it suits them.

They deny the innate differences between males and females. Many on the left insist that there is little difference between the male and female brain, and that the differences we witness are simply a case of socialization.

That's what a lot of that flap involving James Damore at Google was about. He was suggesting that PERHAPS there are innate differences between men and women which are at least partially responsible for the vast differences in interest in tech between men and women. He stated that he felt that studying these differences and trying to make the best use of them, rather than artificially forcing equal numbers of coders down gender lines, was better for the company. He was fired for distributing a memo stating this opinion.

The left will not even entertain the POSSIBILITY that this could be the case. Imagine if the typical male brain actually WAS typically more suited to careers like coding and engineering than the typical female brain. OMG OMG OMG!! The world would end, right? And while we have a long way to go to prove such a thing, you must concede that this is a realistic possibility -- that males and females are (on the whole) born with different strengths and weaknesses, and that some may be politically incorrect to acknowledge. The left will fight tooth and nail to avoid ever acknowledging that this is possible, and will work to discredit any studies which could establish it.

If your science doesn't mesh correctly with the left's identity politics, then it's science they can't acknowledge.

What about hard numbers?

We all know that black men are incarcerated at a far higher level in this country than men of other races. Why is that?

Ask the typical leftist, and the answer will be "systemic racism".

No matter what truthful and factual data you throw at them, they will rarely admit that, yes, black males ACTUALLY COMMIT FAR MORE CRIMES PER CAPITA than other races in the US. In the rare case you can get a leftist to acknowledge these hard numbers, you are told that these black males committing crimes are growing up in poverty, and therefore this is the expected result. When you show the leftist poor, rural white towns with almost no violent crime, you rarely get any kind of answer at all.

I actually believe that there is some racism in the justice system, but that racism has sprung somewhat from the true fact that black men are committing violent crimes at a disproportionately high rate. So anyone exposed to that obvious fact (police, judges, etc) will often develop a bias, even sometimes unintentionally, because the human brain is wired to notice patterns. I'm not defending this bias, but I'm stating that "eliminating racism" will not do very much to reduce the violent crime committed by black men in this country.

The left will not acknowledge any of this. It's the white racist's fault. The numbers do not matter. It's all a grand conspiracy to lock up black men and make money for privatized prisons.

And then there's the transgender thing.

I won't even get into all of that right now. Plenty of science denial going on there, as well.

The left only loves science when it seems to proves the claims behind their pet causes. When it contradicts their rhetoric, that's when science goes out the window, and the irrational excuse-making starts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mintjewlips

While we debate logic, China and India are polluting the planet at a rapid pace, who cares how hot the planet will be in ten thousand years if the ocean won't be habitable for marine life in a hundred years.....priorities people......

---

..... and that's the other problem.

Environmentalism can only work if it's a cooperative effort.

If the US takes care of the environment for the sake of the planet, but huge third world countries pollute badly and don't give a shit, then our efforts are mainly feelgood with little actual utility.

Unfortunately this issue is rarely addressed by the left, who will sometimes quietly lament it, but they don't let it affect US policy.

They have taken more of the position of, "We'll set the example, and eventually everyone else will follow", which simply isn't true when it comes to the third world.

The problem -- one which is very difficult to solve -- is the fact that it's much easier to care about the environment when enjoying a high standard of living. When large portions of your population are poor and struggling to get by, everyone's mind goes to what's best for right now, rather than what's best for the planet decades or centuries down the line.

---

The rest of the world has signed on to carbon emission reduction. The USA is actively fighting it. No other countries. You literally couldn't be more wrong.

You argument is one of entitlement. You are doing things where future generations have to pay all consequences. You feel this is deserved for some reason. Awful.

All parties except for greens don't represent future generations so future generations have no impact in these debates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellafriend

I have posted it all you clumsy imbecile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Lurker

The one thing I know from my dealings with tellafriend is that there are several screws loose.

---

You really are a bitch. go find something else to fall off of today. or, go find someone else to commit adultery with. either way, first expound on how my screws are loose a little........

---

As for giving you an example that you "have a screw loose" we can start with this post. The simple facts are that you posted your response after I made my post, yet you still chose to berate me with "I already posted it you clumsy imbecile" pretty much is proof that you are a fucking wackjob.

Pro tip: all post have a time stamp

You get worked up on being called out for your climate change denials.

Why have I never seen *1* rightwinger argue against global warming by attacking the basics of the science. How the sun interacts with CO2 etc. If that is actually true, then it seems to follow that climate change is manmade. So why not explain to me what is wrong with it?

Instead, it is always from the other side. The weather is so incredibly complex and no one can understand it, therefore we know little about climate change.

It is all because the reasoning is political in nature and basically bullshit. Republicans have had this repeated in their little heads "there are too many unknowns to act now!" and then they just repeat it themselves...

but they aren't in denial ! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

In summary, the vast majority of Republicans, when presented with the unanimous findings of every climate scientist, say "nah, you're probably wrong". Saying they "Don't believe in climate change" is true and accurate on every level. The reason the issue makes the right look stupid is because denying the unanimous findings of thousands of scientists is a stupid thing to do.

Al Gore's book was written 25 years ago. A 25 year old book about semiconductor manufacturing would sound really stupid because we've learning a lot in the quarter century since. In many ways, the current situation is worse than Gore's book predicted.

---

"An Inconvenient Truth" was written in 2006. You're thinking of his similar "The Earth in the Balance" from 1992.

Did you read the report at the link I posted? As I said, it's nonbiased and gives factual data regarding where Gore was mostly wrong, where he was partially/mostly right, and where the dangers he mentioned actually got worse than expected.

On the "not nearly as bad as predicted" side was the hurricane situation.

Admittedly, this article was written in 2016. before the horrendous 2017 hurricane season. However, the article pointed out that hurricanes actually decreased in both frequency and intensity since the book was written, which was contrary to the doomsday scenario presented by Gore.

Note that Gore's book was written in 2006, which followed the terrible 2005 hurricane season -- the Katrina one.

Many on the left were insisting that 2005 was the new normal, and that we should expect Katrinas every year from now on. Anyone who doubted that was shouted down as a climate change denier.

Then 2006 had a calmer than average hurricane season. And just in case you thought that was variance, the entire following decade of 2007-2016 had a cumulative lighter-than-average hurricane incidence.

Sure, this year was bad, but so were various other individual years, long before climate change was occurring.

The problem was that, in 2005, the rhetoric from the left was, "See, we told you so! Here are the hurricanes we've been warning you about! Get used to them!", rather than a more calm, reasoned, "This was a bad season, and there's a chance it had to do with global warming, but clearly we need to wait to see the following years before determining they're related."

The article does state that rising sea levels -- honestly the main danger of global warming -- will be the actual culprit for additional damage from hurricanes. With higher sea levels, coastal damage will be worse, and the damage will extend farther inland.

So what's my point here?

It is impossible to have a discussion with most leftists about climate change unless you 100% agree with all their points. If you could go back to 2005 and tell a leftist that the next 11 hurricane seasons would overall be below average, you would get lambasted for your ignorance and stupidity.

This is an example of how we really DON'T know all that much about climate change, and it is both arrogant and dangerous to assume that we do.

That's not to say we should ignore the problem. That's not to say we shouldn't set sensible policies to mitigate the possible damage and worsening of the situation. However, just as stubborn people on the right need to acknowledge the climate change which exists, the left needs to concede that they don't know everything (no one does), and that histrionic sky-is-falling claims for political purposes will simply hurt the cause in the long run.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donkdowndonedied

It is true, the left ignores science when it suggests uncomfortable things. However if the end result is encouraging people to be better, then who cares. (As much at least)

---

I think this is the basic view of many educated liberals, that even if you are saying shit you know isn't true, it is for the best. Also, this is an argument for why the current iteration of the Democrat party might be better than the Republican one, because even if their methods are atrocious (to many) they are actually trying to make the country a better place, instead of just cynically trying to fleece the country while they can like the Republicans.

However, for good or bad most people who work in STEM fields or related fields (scientist/computer science/engineers/etc.) tend towards the aspire side and just seeing someone who should know better saying shit that just isn't true bugs the hell out of them. You can definitely tell that is probably what happened in the Google guy case that Druff referred to. No-one was coming after that guy or threatening his job. He could have just said nothing and rolled with the flow and been fine. But all the PC social engineering going on within the company bugged him, so he spoke up, and then the media got a hold of what he wrote and completely distorted it, and the PC social justice mob got riled up and Google decided to sacrifice him to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donkdowndonedied

It is true, the left ignores science when it suggests uncomfortable things. However if the end result is encouraging people to be better, then who cares. (As much at least)

---

I think this is the basic view of many educated liberals, that even if you are saying shit you know isn't true, it is for the best. Also, this is an argument for why the current iteration of the Democrat party might be better than the Republican one, because even if their methods are atrocious (to many) they are actually trying to make the country a better place, instead of just cynically trying to fleece the country while they can like the Republicans.

However, for good or bad most people who work in STEM fields or related fields (scientist/computer science/engineers/etc.) tend towards the aspire side and just seeing someone who should know better saying shit that just isn't true bugs the hell out of them. You can definitely tell that is probably what happened in the Google guy case that Druff referred to. No-one was coming after that guy or threatening his job. He could have just said nothing and rolled with the flow and been fine. But all the PC social engineering going on within the company bugged him, so he spoke up, and then the media got a hold of what he wrote and completely distorted it, and the PC social justice mob got riled up and Google decided to sacrifice him to it.

---

One thing is for certain, if you go back to saying women are bad at math and blacks are bad at school, then these things have a way of self-fulfilling themselves even more. I'd rather live in a place where everyone gives everyone else an attempt at thinking they're as good at things so they *can* reach their full potential. It is hard to not be racist. It actually takes work after leaving my white city.

Unfortunately there are victims in affirmative action. I understand why people are pissed. Think about it, if being white is the best thing you got going for you and that is held against you? Fuck, I'd be pissed off too! Most things have a downside.

The problem with the people the PC police attack is that people pretty much know where the complaints are coming from psychologically. I've been attacked by PC people lots lately and I just hammer it in their heads they are wrong. Since I'm basically a liberal, they really can't get very far. I used to know understand what PC was, but now I do. A lot of people are complaining for far different reasons. "must protect my race" sort of thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donkdowndonedied

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

I think this is the basic view of many educated liberals, that even if you are saying shit you know isn't true, it is for the best. Also, this is an argument for why the current iteration of the Democrat party might be better than the Republican one, because even if their methods are atrocious (to many) they are actually trying to make the country a better place, instead of just cynically trying to fleece the country while they can like the Republicans.

However, for good or bad most people who work in STEM fields or related fields (scientist/computer science/engineers/etc.) tend towards the aspire side and just seeing someone who should know better saying shit that just isn't true bugs the hell out of them. You can definitely tell that is probably what happened in the Google guy case that Druff referred to. No-one was coming after that guy or threatening his job. He could have just said nothing and rolled with the flow and been fine. But all the PC social engineering going on within the company bugged him, so he spoke up, and then the media got a hold of what he wrote and completely distorted it, and the PC social justice mob got riled up and Google decided to sacrifice him to it.

---

One thing is for certain, if you go back to saying women are bad at math and blacks are bad at school, then these things have a way of self-fulfilling themselves even more. I'd rather live in a place where everyone gives everyone else an attempt at thinking they're as good at things so they *can* reach their full potential. It is hard to not be racist. It actually takes work after leaving my white city.

Unfortunately there are victims in affirmative action. I understand why people are pissed. Think about it, if being white is the best thing you got going for you and that is held against you? Fuck, I'd be pissed off too! Most things have a downside.

The problem with the people the PC police attack is that people pretty much know where the complaints are coming from psychologically. I've been attacked by PC people lots lately and I just hammer it in their heads they are wrong. Since I'm basically a liberal, they really can't get very far. I used to know understand what PC was, but now I do. A lot of people are complaining for far different reasons. "must protect my race" sort of thoughts.

---

at some point, the left does need to have an adult conversation about the damage affirmative action and thought-policing has done to the black community, but given that the republican alternative is to literally re-institutionalize slavery via the prison industrial complex, its laughable for the right to point fingers.

not to mention, long before the left starts to write checks for its mistakes, the black community itself needs to explain why it would allow its own members to absolutely and utterly squander the entirety of the civil rights movement by completely refusing to police its own culture (which was exactly what they insisted they were willing to do if the left held the right accountable for its rampant unchecked racism).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donkdowndonedied

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by verminaard

I think this is the basic view of many educated liberals, that even if you are saying shit you know isn't true, it is for the best. Also, this is an argument for why the current iteration of the Democrat party might be better than the Republican one, because even if their methods are atrocious (to many) they are actually trying to make the country a better place, instead of just cynically trying to fleece the country while they can like the Republicans.

However, for good or bad most people who work in STEM fields or related fields (scientist/computer science/engineers/etc.) tend towards the aspire side and just seeing someone who should know better saying shit that just isn't true bugs the hell out of them. You can definitely tell that is probably what happened in the Google guy case that Druff referred to. No-one was coming after that guy or threatening his job. He could have just said nothing and rolled with the flow and been fine. But all the PC social engineering going on within the company bugged him, so he spoke up, and then the media got a hold of what he wrote and completely distorted it, and the PC social justice mob got riled up and Google decided to sacrifice him to it.

---

One thing is for certain, if you go back to saying women are bad at math and blacks are bad at school, then these things have a way of self-fulfilling themselves even more. I'd rather live in a place where everyone gives everyone else an attempt at thinking they're as good at things so they *can* reach their full potential. It is hard to not be racist. It actually takes work after leaving my white city.

Unfortunately there are victims in affirmative action. I understand why people are pissed. Think about it, if being white is the best thing you got going for you and that is held against you? Fuck, I'd be pissed off too! Most things have a downside.

The problem with the people the PC police attack is that people pretty much know where the complaints are coming from psychologically. I've been attacked by PC people lots lately and I just hammer it in their heads they are wrong. Since I'm basically a liberal, they really can't get very far. I used to know understand what PC was, but now I do. A lot of people are complaining for far different reasons. "must protect my race" sort of thoughts.

---

The irony is that most of the people who use "science" to support their agenda of racial/sex superiority don't even understand or use it correctly. Say that men are on average slightly better at math related thinking than women (which at this point is pretty obviously true). The way intelligence distribution works at a statistical level in the population is the vast majority of men and women are well within the normal part of the curve, so the difference really is negligible. Where it really matters is that a small difference in mean actually equates to a very large difference at the tail ends, so there is going to be many more male mathematical geniuses than female. But most of the people who try to use the "men are better than women at math argument" dont understand this, and even if they did it certainly doesn't apply to them anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donkdowndonedied

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

..... and that's the other problem.

Environmentalism can only work if it's a cooperative effort.

If the US takes care of the environment for the sake of the planet, but huge third world countries pollute badly and don't give a shit, then our efforts are mainly feelgood with little actual utility.

Unfortunately this issue is rarely addressed by the left, who will sometimes quietly lament it, but they don't let it affect US policy.

They have taken more of the position of, "We'll set the example, and eventually everyone else will follow", which simply isn't true when it comes to the third world.

The problem -- one which is very difficult to solve -- is the fact that it's much easier to care about the environment when enjoying a high standard of living. When large portions of your population are poor and struggling to get by, everyone's mind goes to what's best for right now, rather than what's best for the planet decades or centuries down the line.

---

The rest of the world has signed on to carbon emission reduction. The USA is actively fighting it. No other countries. You literally couldn't be more wrong.

You argument is one of entitlement. You are doing things where future generations have to pay all consequences. You feel this is deserved for some reason. Awful.

All parties except for greens don't represent future generations so future generations have no impact in these debates.

---

From 2014, before China and India had an excuse to back out of the Paris climate change agreement, that excuse being President Trumps decision to pull out


https://www.politico.eu/article/pari...s-china-obama/

Quote:

---

Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.” And lest pressure nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by the initial deadline of March 31 — and most either submitted no plan or submitted one only as the final September 30 cut-off approached.

---

China and India were never truly committed to the Paris treaty, it was all lip service and virtue signalling, all while they were negotiating to e exempt from the treaty

:lol4

So to Todd's point, if every country is not held to the same standards then an agreement is useless......not to mention the obvious transfer of wealth and jobs to those countries that don't have to follow the same rules...

fuck you jewlips

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

The left also loves to deny science and hard numbers, if it suits them.

They deny the innate differences between males and females. Many on the left insist that there is little difference between the male and female brain, and that the differences we witness are simply a case of socialization.

That's what a lot of that flap involving James Damore at Google was about. He was suggesting that PERHAPS there are innate differences between men and women which are at least partially responsible for the vast differences in interest in tech between men and women. He stated that he felt that studying these differences and trying to make the best use of them, rather than artificially forcing equal numbers of coders down gender lines, was better for the company. He was fired for distributing a memo stating this opinion.

The left will not even entertain the POSSIBILITY that this could be the case. Imagine if the typical male brain actually WAS typically more suited to careers like coding and engineering than the typical female brain. OMG OMG OMG!! The world would end, right? And while we have a long way to go to prove such a thing, you must concede that this is a realistic possibility -- that males and females are (on the whole) born with different strengths and weaknesses, and that some may be politically incorrect to acknowledge. The left will fight tooth and nail to avoid ever acknowledging that this is possible, and will work to discredit any studies which could establish it.

If your science doesn't mesh correctly with the left's identity politics, then it's science they can't acknowledge.

What about hard numbers?

We all know that black men are incarcerated at a far higher level in this country than men of other races. Why is that?

Ask the typical leftist, and the answer will be "systemic racism".

No matter what truthful and factual data you throw at them, they will rarely admit that, yes, black males ACTUALLY COMMIT FAR MORE CRIMES PER CAPITA than other races in the US. In the rare case you can get a leftist to acknowledge these hard numbers, you are told that these black males committing crimes are growing up in poverty, and therefore this is the expected result. When you show the leftist poor, rural white towns with almost no violent crime, you rarely get any kind of answer at all.

I actually believe that there is some racism in the justice system, but that racism has sprung somewhat from the true fact that black men are committing violent crimes at a disproportionately high rate. So anyone exposed to that obvious fact (police, judges, etc) will often develop a bias, even sometimes unintentionally, because the human brain is wired to notice patterns. I'm not defending this bias, but I'm stating that "eliminating racism" will not do very much to reduce the violent crime committed by black men in this country.

The left will not acknowledge any of this. It's the white racist's fault. The numbers do not matter. It's all a grand conspiracy to lock up black men and make money for privatized prisons.

And then there's the transgender thing.

I won't even get into all of that right now. Plenty of science denial going on there, as well.

The left only loves science when it seems to proves the claims behind their pet causes. When it contradicts their rhetoric, that's when science goes out the window, and the irrational excuse-making starts.

---

druff, i'm curious. considering your rant is about how liberals are "science deniers" when it suits them, you appear to be outright saying that black people are genetically prone to criminality. but you didn't actually say those words.

can you please confirm that your actual position is that black people are genetically prone to criminality or did you just "misspeak" and, upon further reflection, would like to completely reverse your position and say that the black crime rate is a product of external factors.

---

bump cause i need to see how druff spins this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

druff, i'm curious. considering your rant is about how liberals are "science deniers" when it suits them, you appear to be outright saying that black people are genetically prone to criminality. but you didn't actually say those words.

can you please confirm that your actual position is that black people are genetically prone to criminality or did you just "misspeak" and, upon further reflection, would like to completely reverse your position and say that the black crime rate is a product of external factors.

---

bump cause i need to see how druff spins this

---

I don't think it is clear at all whether the elevated criminality is genetic or environmental, and I don't think Druff insinuated he had a strong opinion either way, and you are reaching.

I think a lot of it is just how value systems in different social groups work. Say you are walking down the street with your friends and some guy walking by aggressively bumps your shoulder. Now if you and your friends are all Jews, chances are you just shrug it off, and keep walking and no-one in your group thinks any less of you.

But if you and your friends are black, it is a necessity that you respond aggressively to such a transgression, or you will lose stature in the group. So you "step up," things escalate, someone gets stabbed or shot, and someone ends up in jail.

On the flip side, if you were a Jewish guy and you impregnated your GF when you were 15 and had to drop out of high school to support the baby, you would be shamed in your community. But if you were black no-one would really care all that much.

I will say, if one day every black teenage girl/woman decided she was only attracted to black men who studied hard and graduated high school and went to college, the retention rate in high school and college enrollment rate would skyrocket overnight.

Riveting analysis from dicklick..............just riveting..............