FruityCoconut

FBI crime stats are a great source. For example, of murders in 2019, "Black or African American" accounted for 51% of murderers of known race (despite just 13.4% of the general population being black). https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

Less formally, and I'm quite serious, if you have the stomach for it I encourage you to explore the types of websites that inadvertently document these trends through amateur video (WorldStarHipHop being the classic example, but there are more confronting ones).

Also you're unlikely to see the owner, they certainly won't be inside with you, you can leave any time, you're likely to be with others, and they can't change your location.

Contrast that with an intoxicated young woman climbing alone into a stranger's car where he has a lot of control - including being able to lock the doors or take her to a remote/unfamiliar location. Even with all the checks and measures in place, assaults are not uncommon; I'm not familiar with any AirBnB type assaults (far more frequently, it's the guests victimising the owner via property damage).

There are an awful lot of "normal people" who want an ethnically homogeneous, harmonious home for their children, while those advocating abortion, transsexuality, homosexuality, childhood sex education, etc are the epitome of evil "hate groups".

Implying that this is a black-and-white issue or that the current status is objectively superior is disingenuous or ignorant.

Fifty years ago it would have been unthinkable that the fringe groups being violently censored and oppressed would now be in power. Where might we be fifty years from now...

I hope this is a wry joke.

Recently we've seen DNS providers, CDNs, payment gateways, and even banks shut down services for wrong-thinkers.

Accelerationists are cheering these actions. That should tell you all you need to know about the likely outcome.

Sadly, that's quite common.

Don't be obtuse. This has nothing to do with the 'rich' part.

I wonder if you would make the same disparaging comment now that you know Ackman is not White: "yet-another-rich-jewish-guy..."

I suspect not.

But he's not even ethnically White. And it wouldn't justify your subtly racist jab at White people anyway.

No.

Did you miss the parent comment?

Bill Ackman is Jewish.

A couple months ago he wrote this:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj4qjd/whatsapp-data-securit...

"Six Reasons You Should Delete WhatsApp"

Maybe it's just a series of clickbait junk targeting popular apps so that the many happy users of those apps give him plenty of interactions. I bet he's watching the metrics right now.

The fact that Telegram isn't enthusiastically censoring everyone who even looks like they might have the wrong opinion is what makes it such a unique treasure. Feature, not bug.

It's not 1% of them though. It's 0%. None of them are getting off the couch to kill anyone because their video game release is delayed.

It's an expression of frustration, and we all know that. Unfortunately in today's world, feeling threatened is socially valuable so they're simply playing on that. It says more to me about the disingenuity and/or weakness of the "victim" than anything else.

We need to laugh at people more.

It's invaluable if you are involved in grey/black market trade. I was briefly involved in a legal-yet-taboo industry years ago, and being able to instantly receive private payments from people on the other side of the world without permission from anyone (indeed, while payment processors were limiting and closing my accounts) was phenomenal. It made sense then.

In fact I became a bit of a Bitcoin evangelist in my circles, especially as it aligned with my then-libertarian worldview. (However, the questionable leadership of the core Bitcoin fork has mostly eroded that enthusiasm over time.)

Now, as a regular taxpayer, Bitcoin makes no sense to me either. And I say that as a fortunate person with a significant stake, and a retirement fund increasingly grateful to all the dumb money being poured into it.

Its popularity and exchange rate is not a function of its utility, but rather an indication of a disillusioned and frustrated middle class looking anywhere for financial relief. Cryptocurrency is lottery tickets for people who consider themselves too clever to buy lottery tickets. (Especially all of the new, more volatile cryptocurrencies popping up each day.) Governments would be well-advised not to deprive their taxpayers of this distracting fantasy.

You'll know when you need it. Until then, if you want to take a gamble at timing your exit better than the next guy, thanks very much.

“Nobody cares, because of who is affected”

My respect to the author for this careful and courageous article. Writing about the problems affecting working class white men in today's climate might warrant censure in some circles.

To the matter at hand, one of my concerns is that the Sackler family will enjoy long, peaceful lives. I hope justice intervenes.

>Could we maybe avoid putting others at risk?

I agree. Let's not inject people with experimental vaccines rushed to market under significant political pressure. Let's not pressure strangers' decisions either way.

Far more money in this career path. I've made more some days writing junk code than I ever made in a year in a lab. It's easy to see why some scientists might be incentivised by external factors...

Being on the periphery of groups you'd likely describe as "conspiracy theorists", practically all of this is strawmanning.

This has become more of a political issue than a scientific issue. I saw a video of a doctor(?) streaming a video alone in his own home in Germany, when armed police stormed his home and arrested him for objecting to the narrative. That's not science. Anyway, can we really blame the common man for distrusting "science" when so much of it has become a shallow tool for political/social activism in recent years?

Nobody is refusing vaccines without reason. That you think it is without reason is either disingenuous or uninformed. And I'd add that the idea that people should accept an injection simply because they can't present a satisfactory reason for refusal is pernicious. The burden is not on them.

There are some who believe in wide scale fraud without evidence, I suppose, but that's a small minority. Most are simply unsatisfied by the evidence in favour, and sensibly don't take the prospect of a mysterious injection lightly. Regardless, I would argue there are far more people who believe in large scale competent benevolence with no evidence (or even evidence to the contrary).

The risks far outweigh the rewards. We're deliberately injecting ourselves with foreign genetic material that hijacks our cells' machinery to produce viral proteins by design. For my consent, I don't have anywhere near enough faith yet in the people hastily developing such technology, their employers striving to be first to market, or the bureaucrats desperate to give their electorates the impression that they have everything under control.

Maybe if I lived in a large, diverse city, I would be forced to consider it (I would far more likely move my family somewhere safer). But where I am fortunate to live, it makes absolutely no sense.

The stereotypical conspiracy theorist hides away at home with tin foil head-coverings to keep the mysterious airborne pathogens away.

Now, that's "normal people", while "conspiracy theorists" are those carrying on unfazed.

There is absolutely 0% chance I'll be letting that anywhere near my family. And I was a biomedical scientist formerly.

Over my dead body (one way or another).

There's a clever little meme floating about showing a perfectly normal, happy, healthy, unmasked family with the caption "conspiracy theorists" and then in the adjacent panel a visibly paranoid person with a mask and face shield captioned "normal person".

Cheap, but clever.

>We're just willing to no longer investigate the cause of this sudden jump in suicides, because we can simply write it off as "normal" loneliness?

That's quite a leap there. I understand there are many societal problems plaguing Japan, and other comments have eluded to Japan's very low birthrates which are also indicative of these factors. It's not an insidious assumption that this year's isolation may have contributed to that phenomenon, especially for women, who generally require more socialisation than men.

There may not be much common ground here though. I don't personally know anybody who uses terms like "micro-pressures" or "problematic", all of the women of my mother's age (including my parents) have been happily married for decades (and my mum's main source of joy through this time has been getting out to see her many children and grandchildren as often as permitted), and I think most people in my family would be at least a little troubled if a young relative was proud of her increases in "productivity" in isolation.

We're from different worlds!

Is that really an insidious assumption to you, or are you trying too hard to be gender-blind?

I've been around for a while now, and it's an indisputable fact in my mind that men cope far better with loneliness than women. From seeing friends and strangers in my personal life, to less tangible understandings of evolutionary pressures and general rates of extroversion/introversion between women and men, it's frankly odd to me that such an uncontroversial statement could give anyone pause.