Hi Kane. Whats your name, where do you live and tell me about your pets! 😛

/pol/ is mainly shitposters and people disenfranchised with politics all-together - theyve become observers/mockers of politics

^

So... I learned a few months ago, that a muslim friendof mine in University, gets preferential treatment because of her race/gender ETC.

1) she's a woman. (on a computing course.)
2) she's nonwhite
3) she's muslim. (complete with headscarf.)

Due to this, she recieves emails BEFORE anyone else when it comes to work placements, or opportunities to represent the university, because, obviously, she's a good token-face t promote their inclusion and diversity...

This is clear discrimination in the way my university treats differrent groups of people, but is it even worth the hassle to raise this issue with heads-of-schools and department heads? Will anything even happen? I have a feeling my life would become harder, if I did.

I'm not sure that's the case. Inclined to pretend to listen perhaps... I'm probably not going to say anything though. Too much potential hassle for, what is, a minor problem.

Im in UK, if that helps. A country where hundreds of people per year go to jail over tweets, jokes and memes.

But how can it be considered discrimination, to point out discrimination? :S

Im not worried about hatespeech laws; fuck the censorship.

Theres a reason dankulas trail will have taken twice as long as nerumberg trails by the time it goes back to court... its not easy to police "offense". Offense is subjective, and jokes are jokes. They cant just remove context and police content. And if they do, "Hitler did nothing wrong."

Mr Robot

@Timcast Tim

Regarding your latest video (and the previous one on the same topic)
https://youtu.be/CIT93W4_6kY

Good point on the fact that the sources were mainly right wing, ergo more right wing consumption/sharing... BUT you're also missing the CONTEXT of the people sharing the posts. If people are sharing fake news for the purpose of calling it out, thats completely different to someone sharing it because they believe the news.

In short, the data in the report isnt nuanced enough to give us a clear picture of what's going on at all..

@AC says sub to PewDiePie It kinda is. If it's hyper-partisan, its bias. It's not a neutral outlook. Misrepresentation (or presenting only one side) is fake news. "News" should give a full, well rounded, unbias reporting of a topic or issue,

Shh Ginga, I think that's sexist.

Oh my god..
https://youtu.be/M2v68iQhDSc
🤣🤣🤣

MAGA

Seen a bunch of people making fun of Stephen Hawking since his death... its not even fair. He can't even stand up for himself.

"Youtube are great.. They sent me an ipod touch!" - Tim Pool

!agree

Prepping for a discussion;
race and crime: cultural Vs biological.

(Is the disproportionate representation of crime due to cultural/socioeconomic factors, or is it a biological difference; that blacks are just de-facto more violent?)

(Not gonna mention which side I'm intending to argue, as I want information from all sides.)

As is mentioned in "Theory of Race" by Wilson (1995), the discussion is "mired in an unproductive mix of controversy and silence" - and it's proving difficult to find sources that are up to date and relevant. Any helpful links would be much appreciated, if anyone has any to hand. (@tag me)

LMAO no, I've been doing my own research too, just figured this might be a good place to find people who may already have some links to hand which could help me. Of course I'll be going through everything, as well as what I have so far.

Problem I'm having is the muddied waters - my compatriot keeps bringing up the race:IQ correlation (which he asserts is biological) and then the IQ:crime correlation to support his hypothesis that it's entirely biological.

Also states that race:crime is biological; he asserts this on the basis that on average, blacks have more testosterone and a higher fight-or-flight reflex... but since things like your posture, can chance your testosterone (and other brain chemicals), there's something to be said for a cultural/social reason for this too. Plus none of the studies I have found so far measure across cultures for the same races.

For example, the higher fight-or-flight reflex would be understandable for people who are constantly aware of external threats. #MudHutsVsDoubleGlazing

I mean, my main argument is "why does it matter".

Whether it's biological or cultural, you can't make policy around it.. you shouldn't, for example, make immigration policy that discriminates blacks because they have a higher propensity for violence.. that would be illiberal. But I really wanna drill down into the subject with him. Curiosity is peaked

Because IQ is just a bi-line he's making to support his predetermined conclusion, imo. @shaving

And yeah @zutt , that's exactly what I said above

LOL shaving autocorrect

Yeah; but what's the point.

I'm with you there, but I still wanna have the discussion with him. Not just about why he thinks it's important, but also why he believes it to be true. Just out of curiosity more than anything.

Well, I'm dead centre on this; There's no doubt looking at the figures that blacks commit more violent crime per capita than whites, in most countries. I don't believe it's entirely biological nor entirely cultural (though I think culture probably plays a bigger role; social disorganization theory)

I think it's worth examining the root cause, but as I mentioned in OP, the discussion is kinda taboo in the first place, which I think accounts for the "these kinds of people" arguments gaining traction

That's true, and both are bad outcomes. But refusing to acknowledge the facts as a problem, is also... problematic.

You know, the people talking about blacks being shot more by police, but ignoring the fact that blacks commit more violent crime (requiring police intervention)

See I don't know if that's necessarily the case. I mean, we all know implicit bias tests are BS, we have no way to measure how much of someone's subconscious is influencing their behaviour or treatment if another.

If you look at an average police encounter with anyone, their attitude of normally based on the context of their reason for being there.

If they're walking down the street, they'll be calmer than if they're responding to an active shooter situation.

Yeah, it's crazy... I hope it never comes to that.

I'm not even sure I'm on board with genetic modification to eliminate birth defects/medixal conditions.

Hell, im not really a fan of genetic modification of corn, lol.

You forgot enchiladas.

Debate over

^

Thanks @g@Graylan | gray00 , I'll present that in the debate

Haha

Speaking of Harris.. where do you line up on objective vs subjective morality? :p or is that too heavy right now..?

Okayyy shiv, Give me an example of something that is objectively moral?

Or immoral

Albert Fish killed and ate over 30 children and didn't understand why people had a beef with it... did he just not understand morality? Or was his moral standard different?

I don't even know how objective or subjective morality can be proven, in any way.. anyone acting "immorally" might have a different moral standard, or they may not understand the objectively true immorality of their actions. Is there even any chance of an consensus?

@Deleted User I think I see where you're going. Like, putting a dog out it's misery if it's twitching in gmthe road after being hit, is moral. Compared to hitting it with a baseball bat for fun.

The action itself isn't immoral nor moral; rather the intent of the perpertrator

Or the consequence?

So intent then? Did he shoot him because he as black? Or to defend the rape victim?

Yeah, I see what you're saying

But if people disagree that randomly killing blacks with no reason is immoral, how do you square that with objective morality?

You and I might agree that unprovoked murder is immoral...

Someone else might disagree

Your nuance is showing 🙈

Yeah but shiv, you're missing a crucial point..

I mentioned Albert Fish earlier. He killed and ate over 30 children. Didn't see why people thought that was wrong.

You and I can both agree that's not moral.
He couldn't.

If morality is objective: he didn't understand the immorality of his actions.
If morality is subjective: he was acting under a different moral framework.

How can we ever know? How can objective morality ever be proven?

Unless we ignore such characters for the rare outliers they are.. which I suppose would be fair

Cause they tasted nice, I guess...

My point is that he never understood why it was considered taboo

We can agree that. He never understood that argument

Yeah, but regardless, he never understood why it was considered immoral.

I have considered that zutt, hence my question before; it was a serious question:

Did he just not understand morality?

Or was his moral framework just different?

Yeah I agree with you tbh shiv.

To understand how you can be hurt, is to understand how to hurt others. Then just don't do that, because empathy.

That's the basis for the objective morality argument I guess. .

But then, some people think differently. "Its a dog eat dog world".

Like, if I can fuck you over and make my life easier, I should be able to do so.

And you should be able to do the same to me. But I'll make it as hard as possible for you to do so out of self protection/self interest.

Not how I think, but genuinely how some people perceive the world. And if some people perceive the world that way, how can morality be objective across the board.

!agree

!rank

Y'all are having the pettiest argument I've ever seen... :L

wheter win or loose, you're still arguing over the pettiest shit ever. You're also obnoxious as/f and seem to demand being right, whether or not you are

....who knows the deal with this whole Gab thing?
As I understand it, it was the hosting platform who revoked their service from Gab.. are there any hosting providers which have a committment to free speech?

It's all well and good with people trying to make alternatives to censorious social media platforms, but its all irrelevant if they're beholden to censorious hosts or payment providers.

are there any hosting platforms that have a dedicated protection of free speech/free expression? Which will host anything as long as its legal?

seems to be hosting platforms and payment providers which are holding back the solutions to this shit

yeah ive never used Gab but I use minds

Minds is still glitchy on mobile, imo

fuck a gag, unless its in the bedroom

Y'all hear TheKnifeMedia shut down? Elon musk's time to shine?

https://boingboing.net/2018/10/28/paypal-closes-accounts-on-far.html This cancer though...

RE: $250M lawsuit against The Washington Post for their role in the Covington scandal

The Washington Post has just filed a counter:
"We dindu nuffink!"