All animals, not just mammals. See "parochial altruism".

Bible is not a problem, it's so self-contradictory that you can use it to justify anything, from Crusades, slavery and genocide to hippie lovefest or full-on socialism (the real kind, not what Americans mean by it). You just hire the right preachers.

Science is tricky because it is, ultimately, fact-based, and you can't hire people to change facts. You can only hire people to hide them.

Why not just call him a "nigger"? I mean, it's what you really want to do, anyway, and it's much more efficient at "driving lefties into a rage" to boot. So don't be shy.

Rust is specifically not designed to be a "meets all your needs" language. It's a language that knows its niche well, and sticks to it.

Basically, this is programming language for systems and other low-level stuff done right. It competes primary against C++, and to a lesser extent, C, and does it really well. It's not yet another scripting language for the web or desktop GUI or some such, and it doesn't pretend to be one.

I see two distinct problems here.

One is the severe social injustice that is prevalent in some areas of the world (notably Africa and Middle East) that creates a lot of disaffected people who have little to lose and a lot to gain, and are a fertile ground for others to come and plant fanatical ideas into, so long as those ideas promise some kind of justice, from their perspective... even if it's the classic "who had none shall have all" in Islamic theological wrapping. In some places (most notably Africa, but also e.g. Afghanistan and some parts of Pakistan) there's a general poverty issue, and this requires significant material investment - not the "feed a hungry African kid for a dollar" kind, but long-term stuff that will make those hungry kids have education and eventually paying jobs once they grow up.

In some places there's plenty of wealth to go around, but its distribution is very one sided - most of Middle East is like that (though all the really poor places have that problem too in addition to just being poor). This is largely a function of the corrupt local elites that have sprung up pretty much everywhere post-decolonization. These need to be replaced with something better, and if in some places it means going back to running them directly for a while, so be it (regardless of people crying about neo-colonialism... the difference would be in why it's done). In some perhaps helping the opposing parties take over, with firm guarantees of loyalty and supervision in return for such support, would be sufficient. Either way, unless it is done, those corrupt elites will be swept away in an uprising, except what comes instead of them will be much less pretty. See Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, ISIS, and Yemeni fundies (whatever their name is, I forgot) for a few examples.

The second problem is that some people, and even some states (again, ruling elites, not whole nations) use that social injustice to plant their destructive ideas in masses.

With states, it's easier because they can be isolated, embargoed etc - take KSA for example, one of the biggest sponsors of extreme Islam and terrorism worldwide. Take them out, and suddenly many hundreds of fundamentalist madrassah around the world, from Indonesia to Tatarstan, suddenly find themselves without funding. And where does that money come from? Why, the oil that we buy from the Saudis. Why are we doing that again? Stop them from selling their oil, and they will collapse, and world will be that much better for it. The question then is how do you maintain some stable society on that territory afterwards; it requires some of the local contenders for regional leadership, the saner ones, to step in. Iran, perhaps, they have a decent historical track record of running a multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire.

With specific individuals - the leaders, but most importantly the thinkers and the preachers, the ones that create and spread those ideas - direct violence is probably the most efficient and justified approach. Drones, special teams, even hired assassins - whatever it takes. But this has to be done after their sources of funding are gone, and after the social injustices have been corrected to the extent that most common people in those societies would have enough to lose in a war. If that is not done first, then killing the prominent figures only makes them martyrs in the eyes of the rest, and they're swiftly replaced anyway. This is the problem with the ongoing drone strike program... it creates more harm in PR effect than it helps in taking out the enemy command.

Yes, their websites probably would. And I think this is as it should be.

The specific preachers, OTOH... if a guy talks about killing Jews in a mosque during a sermon, and then one of the listeners goes and actually does that? I'm pretty comfortable stuffing them both in the same cell.

I didn't support the Iraq war originally, but I don't think it was useless. Or rather the taking over was not, but the way it was run afterwards was. The problem is that it takes much more time, money, and yes, lives (of your own soldiers) to build something good there, but the Western taxpayers don't seem to be particularly interested. So we pull out, and in the power vacuum yet another warlord moves in, quite possibly more brutal than the next one.

I think we either have to bite the bullet and go all in - and by this I mean taking over any country that is affected, and staying there for as long as necessary to set it on the right track, which probably means at least a generation and possibly two (and yes, that would be colonialism in a way). Or else stop fucking around there directly, but allow some of the major regional players, the more civilized ones, run the show. Turkey, perhaps even Iran; definitely not KSA. Really, anyone who thinks that building is more important than waging war. But, again, the current foreign policy is supporting KSA against Iran, so it's against that goal, too. And we have what we have.

Those people are not fundamentally different from us; the problem is in their culture, not in their genes. Even then, their basic culture is not all that thug-centric. Most people would very much rather have a stable society than war. The passionate fanatics - the ones that are willing to machine gun rooms full of students to make their points - are few (percentage-wise; it still amounts to hundreds of thousands when you take into account the overall population), but their fervor drags the rest along.

The tricky part is that when you take them out, their ranks will be refilled by more from the disinterested mass whose fervor was reignited by that "martyrdom". If you insist on killing as the ultimate and only solution, then you'll have to keep killing until there are no more left, not from the smaller group, but from the larger one. So, are you ready and willing to start a genocide of over a billion people?

The other way is to offer an alternative to those who would follow. You still go after the fanatics and kill them, but not before you discredit them in the eyes of the rest, so that their death is then seen as just punishment or defense, not martyrdom. And to do that, you have to make their society work better, and prove that you and your policies are responsible for it.

Yes, this means occupying and then staying for as long as it takes. And not just in one place, but on all of them where the cancer has already spread. Problem is, among such places there are several major US allies in the region (like Saudi Arabia), and then there's Pakistan and its nukes. But all of them ultimately have to be dealt with. Which is a very long-term, and very expensive (both in terms of money, and in terms of lives) proposition. But it's still less expensive than your proposed alternative.

And how do you address it? Kill them? They become martyrs to the cause, prompting even more to step in, and bolstering the argument of the preachers.

No. When the preachers advocate violence, and those preached to immediately and directly follow up on that, the preachers are fully responsible. We're not talking about something abstract here, but, essentially, giving orders. Giving criminal orders from a position of authority has been a crime in every society in the world, regardless of its stance on free speech, and rightly so. Most of the people executed at Nuremberg didn't personally shoot or gas anyone, but they gave orders to others to do so knowing full well that those orders would be obeyed.

In a war, is hacking the servers run by the IT division of the enemy army censorship, or is it just a strike against a legitimate military target?

It actually is, at least in US, so long as there's no threat of imminent lawless action stemming from such advocacy.

Ironically, you've brought up KKK. KKK was exactly the organization that pushed the limits of freedom of speech, triggering a SCOTUS decision on where the boundary lies (which was defined as stated above - and KKK propaganda in that case specifically ruled legal and protected speech).

I don't know about Enlightenment thinkers, or for that matter the US founders. They would have probably differed. I'm pretty sure that Jefferson would prefer to err on the side of free speech here, for example.

Given that we live in here and now, though, are you aware of Brandenburg v. Ohio decision?

It matters in a sense that identifying the root cause correctly helps deal with the problem more efficiently, and prevent the re-occurrence of the same problem in the future.

I don't think that's quite right, either. Assad is not persecuting people who disagree with him just because he hates disagreeable people, but because they represent a threat to his political power (and, really, only to the extent they do represent such a threat). That isn't really medieval thinking - it was quite common in the West until very recently, too, in pretty much every dictatorship out there, and even some populist democracies.

ISIS, on the other hand, are genuine believers (well, we don't really know about the leadership... but so far I don't see any particular reason to believe otherwise, all their actions and decisions seem to be in line with that). They'll behead you for insulting Islam or some such not because that insult is a threat to their power, but because they believe that God told them to do that. Now they also will kill people for e.g. calling them ISIS (as opposed to just IS), and there it's not a religious thing but a threat-to-power thing.

Your post is self-contradictory. First you blame the American educational system for underachieving compared to the rest of the world. Then you claim that public educational system is broken, despite the fact that many of those "rest of the world" countries that outpace you have exactly that.