So we give up something we've had for years, and in exchange we get to keep something we've had for years? And what happens when they come back in five years saying Net Neutrality is just too much of a burden? What do we give up in ransom next?

"Left wing party"? Since when does America have one of those?

We've got the right-wing party, and the even-more-right-wing party.

According to page 43 of this study, men drive about 50% more miles per year than women.

The GP's link shows that men account for 2.5x as many traffic fatalities.

So men are clearly still worse according to these statistics. But why trust these numbers? Insurance companies make their money by having teams of extremely smart, highly trained statisticians pore over more data than you'll see in a lifetime, and they charge women less. I don't see how anyone could rationally argue that women are worse drivers while knowing that fact.

I am a white Christian man, and no, I don't see any significant hatred towards me. A few obnoxious atheists who are either passing through, or never grew out of, the I've-got-it-all-figured-out phase, but that's really about it. And even those are pretty much only on the internet.

Also, your copy-pasted science is talking about discriminating against people based on their political stance, not because they are white or Christian or male. If someone starts ranting about how Obama is gonna set up death panels, which was not at all uncommon among Republicans just a few years ago, then yeah, I'm gonna think they're an idiot and treat them accordingly. But that's on the basis of their personal actions, not because of a group that they belong to.

Hahaha, holy shit, you can't possibly be that blind. Rush Limbaugh himself is an addict that rails against drug users. And how many homophobic Republicans have been caught in gay sex scandals? How many complain about wasteful spending, while throwing away trillions on pointless wars?

Yet somehow you didn't think of any of that. They really have got you, haven't they? It's amazing what a steady diet of propaganda can do to a man.

Let's go into detail on that then. Ignoring the Wikipedia page, we have:

#1: Fox News - Waits all the way till sentence 18 to identify him as a Democrat. Are you prepared to argue that Fox is biased in favor of Democrats?
#2: CBS - No mention. That's one.
#3: ABC - Mentioned in the first sentence.
#4: NBC - Mentioned, but several paragraphs down.
#5: Mercury News: Mentioned in the first sentence.
#6: Mentioned in the second sentence.
#7: Mentioned in the 13th sentence.

So it's only omitted once, and only really buried one other time. In every other case, you need to read 20 or fewer sentences. And the third "worst" is Fox News, who you can't possibly claim to be biased against Republicans. Do you really believe there's malice there? And not just reporters figuring that his affiliation doesn't have anything to do with his crime?

I can't pull up a Republican, because I don't know of any who have recently been arrested. And if I Google "Republican arrested", I'm obviously going to get articles mentioning party affiliation. That's the brilliant thing about this lie that right-wing media outlets have been pushing. It won't be on your mind next time a Republican gets arrested, so you won't look for it. But whenever a Democrat gets arrested, you'll have some more fuel for your hatred.

It was the very first one. NY Times is my go-to news source. But I can do some more.

Next up is the Washington Post. I can't find this subject there, but here's their top article on corruption. Again it's a Democrat, and again that fact is in the second sentence.

Now let's check the first corruption-related article in the Seattle Times. Another story on the mayor from the WaPo article. This time you have to read all the way to the fourth sentence to find his party affiliation.

Get the point yet?

This is a regular lie that Republicans trot out. They just love to play the victim. See also: "white Christian men are the most oppressed group in America".

ahem

Here's the blurb in the New York Times on this topic. Party affiliation is in the second sentence.

Stop lying.

I'm telling you man, in just a few years, NOT having a calculator on your watch is going to seem quaint and backwards!

Being eaten by tigers was also common and natural. Natural is not a synonym for healthy.

This study is a long way from proving anything, but I suspect a lot of people will just dismiss it entirely because they don't want to believe it.

Holy shit, how can people be so clueless. You think an unemployed programmer should just pack up his family, ditch his mortgage, and move to fucking Vietnam to work for a dollar a day? When is he going to find the time to learn a language, while he's struggling to feed his family? How's he going to afford the trip? What makes you think his chosen country will even allow him to immigrate in the first place? What makes you think there will even be jobs there, if the problem is technology making human labor unnecessary?

No, you know what he can, should, and will do? He'll fucking murder you, and take your stuff. If your world view relies on the underclass laying down and dying for your convenience, you're going to be in for a rude, and fully deserved, awakening.

Then objectivity doesn't exist, outside of some simple math problems. If you think that people have "never truly reached adulthood" until they can do this, then we're living in Never Never Land.

People aren't computers. We're all influenced by our upbringing, our beliefs, our experiences. You can (and should!) expose yourself to new things, and broaden your perspective a bit, but that just means you have a broader base of things to influence your thinking, not that you've become objective.

No, he's not asking questions, he's making insinuations. Like clockwork, in every single discussion on some new technology, there will always be at least one jackass trying to seem smart by suggesting that those idiot scientists missed something important. Every. Single. Time.

Functional sub-nanometer LED? Pfft. No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

Phew, it's a good thing we have a random dude on the internet to tell us how worthless this is. Just think of how many hours could have been wasted by PhD-holding engineers and physicists if we didn't have Miamicanes to set them straight!

I knew you would make that argument, people always do. But it's deceptive. You don't have a choice to buy most things in life. You cannot live in most places without a car, a phone, clothing, food, shelter, etc. You might have a couple different companies to choose from, but they'll all converge on a similar pricing model, because they're all trying to maximize profit in the same environment.

So what are you gonna do? Live off the grid? That's not a choice for the vast majority of people. If even 0.1% of people tried it, there would be a mass die-off. The world wasn't able to support more than a few million people before modern society, and it hasn't gotten any better. So what are the other 7,140,000,000 people going to do?

Are you fucking kidding me? Nearly every country in the world competes for taxpayer's money. Everyone is constantly offering tax breaks to this company or that, trying to get them to come build factories. Companies headquarter themselves in a PO box in a low tax nation. Millionaires constantly threaten to move, and occasionally do, in response to income taxes. Even regular people move out of high tax states like Massachusetts and California.

Seriously, you can argue opposing points if you wish, but don't just go making shit up.