Did Senator Schumer really get a perfect 1600 SAT score?

It took a nuclear arms race to make Commies the ultimate boogieman hiding under every rock but it took Hollywood to make the Nazis take their place -- and boy have they gotten mileage out of that Holocaust thing! Ask anyone what "the holocaust" meant before the 1970s and they'd tell you it was the impending total nuclear war between the Commies and the good-guys, and nowadays if you ask anyone what the greatest threat to mankind is they'll say the threat of another Holocaust posed by guys who have opinions about race, gays, women and immigration similar to those held by the US soldiers who volunteered to kill Nazis in WW II. If you ask your average Joe what "the holodomor" is he'll probably say its some sort of 3D picture with lasers or something.

The motion picture is mightier than the MIRV.

These guys envision Galtdom rather than Sortocracy*, for the obvious reason that Sortocracy would result in better social science and that's the one thing they truly fear most because it will show that the measure of a man isn't money.

*Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them.

This kind of talk, bolstering a platform that is dominant by virtue of its network effect in corporate culture, is, quite simply, corporate.

Let's be clear on what /. used to be and what it has become.

/. used to be a place where technology was king.

/. is now a place where kings are king.

Malice is not essential to corruption.

Indeed, all of the reactions to corruption have become vilified as "hate", "terrorism" and "extremism". It is "malicious" to react to, or even let one's self become aware of, conflicts of interest, let alone out and out corruption.

In virtually every instance someone uses the "Never ascribe to malice..." line, they are exposing themselves as unethical.

In ethics there is a concept known as "conflict of interest". In almost every instance where someone trots out the line "Never ascribe to malice..." they are responding to a question about someone's potential conflict of interest.

Especially when those in position of trust and authority are involved in improper decisions, it is unethical to trot out the "Never ascribe to malice..." line. Their position of trust and authority obligates them, and their would-be defenders to being open to additional scrutiny as to potential conflicts of interest.

It is supremacist for the government to test its social theories on unwilling human subjects.

It doesn't matter how much "evidence" one can bring to bear in sociological journals, let alone pundit pieces in the fashion press of the intelligentsia, in support of this or that social theory; imposing them on unwilling human subjects violates humanity.

Quite aside from the fact that "correlation doesn't imply causation", thereby rendering any mountain of data-collection incapable of scientific proof of causality in the social sciences, it is more compassionate to let people learn live out their strongly held beliefs and thereby learn from their mistakes then it is to engender their unquenchable hatred.

When Google purchased Usenet archives from DejaNews, it was believed they would make them as accessible as the current web content is. However, as is clear from even a cursory search of the Usenet archives, Google has apparently decided to let a lot of it slide into the bit-bucket or at least render the search results practically unusable. Indeed, it would appear that some individuals -- I am thinking specifically of some guys at Yale -- managed to get their posts from the early 90s expunged. These weren't minors. They were guys who undoubtedly went on to become powerful members of society.

Now, I understand that Google has every right to dump the Usenet archives down the memory hole, and to protect the Yalees as they enter into positions of trust and authority, but the problem is that prior to their purchase, there existed an informal social network among early Internet admins that tried to ensure that the entire archive was redundantly copied across multiple institutions. They tended to get together at the annual Hackers' Conference is Santa Rosa. That informal effort was abandoned apparently on the assumption that Google could be trusted.

Ah, well. At least the Yalees got into their positions of trust and authority.

Since there is such a shortage of IT workers that we have to open the borders of the US, it is clear this guy is homeless by choice.

Anyone who thinks there is immigrant displacement of US workers is a neo-Nazi sympathizer at best.

No Nazi death rays? Damn, I was hoping for a new sub-genre of Holocaust movie with really cool CGI effects.

Holocaust deniers keep prattling on about how hard it would be to incinerate 6 million Jews. They full of sh*t because, as Nazis, Holocaust deniers know about the secret Nazi weapon that could vaporize entire cities and boil oceans. With such a super Nazi death ray it was a sinch to vaporize millions of human bodies.

We've been suffering from mass hysteria ever since Hollywood got distribution channels into every hamlet in the country. What would be surprising is if people didn't go really hysterical once they started getting a little freedom and started thinking for themselves about how they've been manipulated for over a century.

That's what God wants. It says it in the Bible that Jews are His Chosen People. We can believe the Bible because Jews wrote it and who can doubt God's Chosen People but those who are working for Satan or Nazis?

girlintraining recites: "I would like to point out that in any place that is poverty-stricken, not blending in is a big problem. A black guy wandering around a trailer park will attract just as much trouble from the people that live there."

Sure you can point out false data if you want.

Its people like you that are served by the Obama administration's decision to stop the FBI from publishing crime statistics tables that include a column for race.

Are you proud of your militant ignorance? Does it make you feel righteous?

You didn't read the article yourself since it applies not just to Title VII but also to Title VIII. The reason it is so applicable is that it is necessary to adopt operational definitions for jurisprudence as attempting to impute "intent" i,s otherwise, non-justicable. Moreover, the principle of "disparate impact" goes under another, more widely applied, name of "institutional racism" which is, in its very essence, an outcome-oriented definition of "racism". This brings "racism" out of mere "intent" or "belief", as a matter of public discourse, and into the realm of objective outcome.