omonra

Actually it make sense.

Looking at the figures in this report https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... - see for example chart 3.09 and 3.11, whites tend to be murdered much more by people they know / in their home.

Therefore it's more likely that a white murder victim was killed by someone they know - hence likely to be solved & convicted. Blacks have (relatively) higher chance of being killed by strangers outside - hence lower probability of arrest & conviction.

"Evolution, it should be remembered, predates gender by a long time."

1. Good point - gender is 50 years old (first used in 1963).

2. What about other, non-human organisms? If we leave humans out of it, there have to be significant differences in brains between sexes of different species.

People on the first list don't get to choose who they are.

People on the second list make a conscious decision to use birth control.

Thus the two are different.

Same way hating men in general would be misandric. Hating men who do X is not.

Reading the comments below, I am guessing that most people simply don't understand the terminology you are using. Ie you have to define what are:

1. Public service 2. Lock in a price 3. What are the prices (vs margins) 4. What's a starting price

I understand your question because I get regular bills from my insurance company that say "Doctor usually charges $1,000 for the procedure you had but we have negotiated price $100, so that's what you owe, as you are still below your deductible."

Right - but I don't think anybody took that seriously. Even the tea partiers saying it most likely only meant it as a 'Obama is a very bad guy and the worst name we can call him is Hitler'.

On the other hand the many liberal journalists prognosticating Trump to become a totalitarian like Hitler really meant it (for example see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/28/th...)

Fair enough. But people did experiments like

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/twitter-user-replaces-white-...

that show how same speech applied from opposite angles produces different results vis-a-vis being banned.

Citation please.

How does this in any way negate the comment you are responding to? His point is that people go to Gab because they are thrown out of other venues.

You're just going on about how they deserve to be thrown out.

You have every right to believe in whatever you want.

I'd suggest you read this piece by a someone who you can relate to - a "member of a desperate and discombobulated coastal elite" that discusses how definition of the term varies:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

You realize that the word 'racist' has lost all meaning by now? It simply means 'people I disagree with'.

I think it's lost meaning starting with 2011 (thanks, Obama). See: http://chronicle.nytlabs.com/?keyword=racist

Notice how frequency of use spikes by 500% over last 5 years. That means that either the world has got immensely more racist, we started noticing it more or the word has just got diluted to where it doesn't mean anything (by a factor of 5, to be precise).

I happen to think it's the latter.

You're mostly right. The law actually says

"the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin."

If someone refuses me service as a jewish white man, that's illegal (despite jews/whites/men are not being a protected class)

There is a big difference between the two.

Businesses / customers are not required to patronize certain establishments.

However establishments are prohibited by law from denying business to people they personally find objectionable.

Can you provide research that shows upside from hiring diverse candidates for the business (aside from benefitting the actual diversity hires)?

Are there examples of business staffed by diverse staff that outperform boring white/asian male companies?

"Positive discrimination for minorities is legal."

White and asian men (the groups discriminated by this policy) make up about 37% of US population. So in this instance we've already reached the point where 'minority' make up the majority of the population.

I'm not a native English speaker and to me this word has none of the connotations you describe. I'm with

'Residents of Spain, Latin America, the Caribbean, and some countries in Africa freely use the term mulatto, or its cognates in other languages, usually without any suggestion of insult'

How is multiracial more accurate when it equally describes someone who's amerindian / chinese as european / african?

If you could propose a more PC term than mulatto (which specifically describes someone with white/black parents), I'd take it - but I don't think there is any.

The answer to your question is 'black' because of political correctness. This is a great example of why it's pernicious - as it robs us of ability to describe the world.

There is actually a more appropriate term - 'mulatto' which was specifically created to describe people born to black / white parents. Today it's considered 'dated and offensive', so we don't have a 'polite' and 'correct' way to describe the ethnicity of our (current) President.

Would you deny the existence of dog breeds because there exist labradoodles or any other mixes?

You missed my point. I don't care what you happen to believe.

I'm pointing out that people probably objected to inserting a debatable & unpopular held view as a subclause in another argument. That forces people to either go along with accepting your point or getting into a pointless & unsettleable argument that's not even being discussed.

My guess is that this is due to a matter of fact stating of a rather controversial opinion held by a minority of the population.

You're being glib with the term 'immigrant'. He was an upper middle class professional who moved to the west in order to obtain health treatment for his kid that was unavailable in iraq.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a...

That's very different from the people that (some in) the west are afraid of having come over.

How is this different from advertisers selecting the age bracket or gender they want to target? I'm not sure why this is any more illegal.

1. I don't think of foreigners who live in Switzerland as 'immigrants' (despite the article calling them that). They are foreigners who are residing in the country (and most of them come from Europe anyways). It's extremely hard to obtain Swiss citizenship.

2. All the talk about Japan economy doing badly is nonsense. If you believe that narrative (which is totally understandable as that's the conventional wisdom), I strongly suggest you read this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/the-true-st...

Basically many Japan watchers (ie people who live there and know the country intimately well) subscribe to this 'alternative' view.

If we strip your comment from the emotional affect, you're essentially saying that immigrants are happy to do menial jobs that the locals do not.

How do countries without large immigrant (I won't even go to refugees) populations handle this? Switzerland seems to be doing fine. Japan isn't falling apart because there's nobody to cook. Most of Asia is doing fine without allowing any immigrants.

So on a strict analysis of whether immigrants are beneficial to the host population, your argument isn't made.

Is it normal for these new laptops to not have an SD card slot? That would be a major drawback for me as that's the easiest way to import photos and I don't want to lug around a card reader.

Why doesn't Amazon have a simple 'verified purchaser' flag that users can filter by?

  They know who actually *paid* for the item (since they collect payments).

I remember that file renamer program! Think it was actually rather well reviewed at the time.

Didn't realize it was in some sort of bad UI hall of fame :)

"Even if most people there support gay rights, many men can still be closeted."

Can you offer specific issues with that survey? The general "i think there are probably more closeted gay men out there' we can dispense with as that's a non-falsifiable statement.

I specifically picked Netherlands as they are as liberal a society you can have with regards to gay lifestyle as you will find on this planet, the survey was done online and had a large sample size (30k people).

The number is 3.6%.

This was the survey done in the Netherlands a few years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orienta...

NL is a very liberal, small and tolerant society - thus is a much better sample than the US (where being gay may still not be looked upon favorably by a large part of the population).

Can you cite anything that mentions birth control as having anything to do with roman empire collapse? I'm genuinely interested.

This part of your comment is factually not true:

"The kerfluffle over Apple's Irish tax bill is because the EU competitiveness committee has ruled that Ireland's low taxes are equivalent to an unfair subsidy. But the key point is that it is Ireland's rate, which is why Ireland is also fighting the EU ruling. If they can't have lower-than-average business tax rates, they might have a harder-than-average time attracting businesses."

Ireland made a deal with Apple, whereby Apple effectively paid NO tax (vs the standard Irish rate of 12.5 or 13%). THAT is the problem - that Apple scored a preferential one-off deal that is not available to most other business operating in Ireland.