"To the Japanese, machines of war--from the heavy machine guns to the tank--are only incidentals in warfare. We Americans realize that the infantry must perform the tasks of actually taking over the ground and holding it, but we use every available machine of war to prevent unnecessary losses. In contrast, the Japanese do not conceive of substituting the shock action of war machines for the shock action of infantry, and they merely strengthen the shock action of troops by the assistance of the machines. The Japanese Army is an army of men, supported by machines of war; ours is an army using machines of war. This is a fine distinction and perhaps not readily understood, but every statement of Japanese military policy bears this out.

A Japanese who has not tasted defeat will attack with a dash and a magnificent disregard for himself. When he has been set back on his heels, just once, he loses that zip and comes back without confidence and impelled by a morbid feeling toward death that might be worded as "Come on, let's get it over with."

He has found himself up against things he can't understand: For example, the way we use artillery (the Chinese never used it against him like that, and he doesn't know what to do about it); the fact that we prefer to sit back and stop him with well aimed rifle and machine-gun fire, and not fight it out with the bayonet; the fact that when we meet him with a bayonet we don't break and run; and, above all, the fact that his basic idea--that skill, bravery, and cold steel alone will win the war--is wrong."

-- "Japanese Warfare as Seen by U.S. Observers" from Intelligence Bulletin, May 1943

Since when are leftists openly xenophobic and nativist? America for Americans? WTF? Have we always been at war with Eurasia?

Americans have this crazy idea that their government exists to benefit their own people. It has zippo to do with free markets. In fact, it screws with free markets to allow a race to the bottom. Americans are disadvantaged. We're not looking for a country that has a standard of living that a Pakistani bricklayer would consider decent. We'd move to other countries if that was the case.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

That's the founding principle, and if you don't like it, then I think you're not really a leftist. You sound like a Republican complaining that her taxes are going to the poor.

PS all those states you listed have large black populations. You're a racist, too.

Really? Here's how it works for me: type "J" - long pause while system pulls up every name that starts with J. This is a lot so it takes a while. Whew, OK! Ready for the next letter. "O" and another long pause while the list is refined and the javascript finishes running. By this time I could have just typed "Johnathan" and been done with it. Or the system could have waited until I typed 3 or 4 letters before auto complete starts getting in the way but NOOO THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.

"Freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with..... And since I am sure of this in general, and since I'd expect most of you to be so too, I shall probably shock you when I say it is the purpose of my lecture tonight to argue in one particular area just the opposite. To argue, in short, in favour of censorship against freedom of expression, and to do so in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct. I am talking about moral and religious education. And especially the education a child receives at home....parents (have) no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose....in short, children have the right not to have their minds addled by (religion). And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon. That's the negative side of what I want to say. But there will be a positive side as well. If children have a right to be protected from false ideas, they have too a right to be succored by the truth. And we as a society have a duty to provide it."
-- Nicholas Humphrey, addressing Amnesty International

The comparisons from here on in get worse and worse as he continues to argue that freedom of speech should *never ever* be compromised....except to suppress ideas he disagrees with. The full speech is one long Author Tract about how we should implement utterly draconian Soviet-style anti-religious policies banning parents from bringing up their children in their own beliefs in favour of forcing them to bring them up in *his*.

How do you think China turned into the polluted wasteland it is today? These same engineers made decisions they deemed sound, with no input from the citizenry or anyone else. This longing for fascism I keep seeing when China comes up is distressing and upsetting. The day that rapid economic growth stops is the day that the Communist Party will count as the beginning of the end.

So, bus drivers need to be subjected to even more stringent standards that pilots? Because bus drivers handle far more than 150 souls per day. Far, far more.

Oh, that wasn't your point? Well, what was it, then?

Uh, no? These are different groups of people. They're not the same people saying two different things. I don't really know how you got to that conclusion, but your starting position must have been flawed.

The fact that you're so unself-consciously self-righteous and equate yourself with Ghandi and MLK (you brought them up, remember) is a major cause of the rest of us failing to take SJWs seriously. How can a person un-ironicially do something like that casually in conversation?

Postive reinforcement isn't effective because it's positive reinforcement, it's effective because the person has done the right thing. Giving positive reinforcement when it is not deserved ("everyone gets a trophy") reinforces negative behavior that did not achieve the desired outcome. This works in childhood where adults can create closed environments but falls apart when faced with cold, hard reality.

The "Nobel prize of computing"? Jeez, has the author been in a space capsule traveling back from Mars for the past decade? The Nobel prize isn't what it used to be - if it ever was in the first place. It's a damaged, discredited brand, like Paula Deen, Best Buy, or "hands up don't shoot". I'd avoid using the phrase in the future.

See, this is why nobody listens to health nuts. Eliminate beer? It certainly is beyond the pale, for ordinary mortals. It is a great joy in life, and worth whatever temporary price must be paid. Only a highly motivated fanatic would voluntarily eliminate such a pleasure. What differences are there between you and ISIS? Not flaming, for real.

Who gets to decide who's ignorant and who's not? You, right? And of course you're on the side of the good, and everyone else is not. Question: has this ever happened before, historically? How did it turn out?

Maybe it's because openly sexist organizations shouldn't be promoted in polite society.