No, you're thinking of WhItE SuPrEmAcY. Apparently it's everywhere, and sends all the talking heads straight to the fainting couch.

Yeah, I know, that's why I said it barely qualifies as experimentation.

Of course I approve of the initial study. Who wouldn't. It only became a problem later, once effective treatment was available. Obviously the doctors who then chose to prevent their patients from getting treatment were fucking assholes, which is why we subsequently changed the laws and regulations governing medical studies. Yet as bad as that study was, the majority of people believe it was something far worse, and their perception of those events is often pure fantasy.

Interesting link; I'd never heard of Sims before. What exactly is unethical about his experiment?

I see accusations about not using anesthetic, but that's ridiculous; it was the 1840s and anesthetics were essentially unknown at the time. He went on to perform fistula surgeries on white women, also with no anesthetic.

I also see accusations that it was unethical to use women who didn't consent, but no evidence is offered that the three women involved in the experiments did not consent; it is just assumed. Given that they were suffering from a very real and very serious condition, it's quite likely that they were happy to take part. We don't actually know if they consented or not, so you can't make a judgement either way.

Of course I'll grant the point that consent was largely irrelevant in the days of slavery. Even if Sims had their consent, it wouldn't change the fact that he didn't NEED it. But that's a given; obviously blacks were treated as property at the time. If you have to go that far back to justify your fear of doctors, then we are doing pretty great overall.

That's not really true. It depends very much on what area you're in, and what part of the plane you're sitting in. Populated low-density areas tend to be your best bet; I've been able to maintain an LTE signal for 20+ minutes at 30k feet while flying over some such areas. High-density areas tend to have much weaker signals so even if you get one you won't maintain it for long.

How long is it, exactly? Other than the Tuskegee thing, which barely qualifies as experimentation, what other examples are there?

For the Starship/Super Heavy, it's more like 3 and a half max-weight trucks. But that's not really relevant; what you're missing is that taking stuff UP is hard, but bringing stuff back down is relatively easy. You don't have to use the Starship or anything like it; if you already have heavy industry in space you can slap together relatively simple containers make of thick steel, give them a little push, and let gravity and the atmosphere do the rest. If they're small you can put parachutes on them and drop them in the ocean; if they're massive you could potentially put wings on them and glide them down. If you're sending raw materials (metals) you wouldn't even have to bother with a container or parachutes; you just form them into a hollow ball and drop them into the ocean where they'll bob around for a while until you fish them out.

Correct.

In other words they did some of the same sorts of things which thousands of rioters throughout 2020 did. How much video footage do we have of rioters in, say, Seattle, doing the same and worse? Not only fighting with police, but literally forcing an entire precinct to evacuate, then taking over and torching the building, after which they declared an entire section of the city to be its own "autonomous zone" not subject to the laws of the United States. And how did those rioters get treated, in comparison to the ones on January 6th?

Nobody is saying that the people who took part in the Jan 6th riot are innocent. However there is an incredible disparity in the treatment of those rioters as opposed to all the rioters on the left side of the political spectrum who did the same or worse. And that disparity is a pretty clear indication that this is politically motivated prosecution rather than an impartial application of the law.

Yeah it's insane. If the same guy had walked down the same stairs intending to go and make breakfast and then walk to his computer afterwards, it would not have been considered a workplace accident. Even though getting out of bed and going down those stairs was a necessary part of ANY activity he chose to do that day, somehow the fact that he was going to his computer rather than his toaster makes it work related. Mind boggling.

I remember the good old days when Slashdot users actually knew something about computers ...

"Not the entirety" is both a massive understatement and heresy at this point in time.

The issue we have currently is that the extremists have taken over and want you to believe that "white supremacy" is literally everywhere, while in reality "racism" is pretty much the smallest problem facing minorities today. Focusing on racism is like (to paraphrase Bill Burr) watching your house burn to the griund and then yelling "omg, we need a new toaster!". Maybe we do need a new toaster, but we have some bigger problems to address first.

It's definitely ad hominem. If I say "the sky is blue" and you say "well you lied about your homework back in grade 6 so nobody should believe you", you have in fact committed an ad hominem fallacy. You have attacked the source rather than the claim. Even if you had very good reasons for not believing me, and even if any reasonable person would be suspicious of me based on my history, that still doesn't change the fact that you restorted to a fallacy.

In this case it's even worse because you haven't actually shown that the people you are accusing are liars; you have instead essentially said "these people believe stuff that I don't believe, therefore nobody should believe them". Which is a whole other level of dishonest and stupid.

This tells me that you're obviously not rich, nor are the morons who modded you up. Only poor people think that Scrooge McDuck swimming in a vault of money is a real thing

If you were rich, you'd know that one does not become rich or remain rich by "locking away money in savings". The currently richest man in the world has essentially zero money in savings; nearly all of his net worth is invested in the companies he runs. The rich are far more likely to "put their money to work" than are the poor; that's how they got to be rich in the first place.

When people see someone who they suspect is an active shooter running away from them, they don't typically go chasing after him. On the contrary, they tend to run in the opposite direction. You can go and watch some of the footage in the recent Michigan school shooting to see how people ACTUALLY react when there's a mass-shooter nearby.

The fact that there was a large crowd chasing after a guy armed with a semi-automatic rifle and at least one 30 round magazine tells me that the people in that crowd had zero fear of him. They attacked him because they hated him, not because they feared him. You don't get to do that.

That's pretty much the definition of malicious prosecution. You don't charge someone because you're hoping that maybe at some point some testimony will come out which proves that they're guilty; you're only supposed to charge them when the evidence YOU ALREADY HAVE leads to the reasonable conclusion that they are guilty.

There was enough video footage that within 3 hours of the shooting I had already seen enough to conclude that he was almost certainly acting in self defense. If I was able to make that determination in 3 hours, the prosecutor's office should certainly have been able to do it in a matter of days. Yet despite having no good reason to believe that his actions constituted murder, they decided to charge him. And despite having zero evidence of malicious intent, or of him being a flight risk, they got his bail set at $2 million. No reasonable person can look at that and conclude that they were just trying to do their job; it's patently obvious that they were engaging in a politically motivated witch-hunt.

I don't think he was providing that video as evidence of those claims; he probably just assumed you were aware of it. This is another thing which is blatantly obvious. Antifa members who show up at protests always wear masks. This is to avoid being identified. In recent years they've started bringing umbrellas, to block cameras. 5 minutes on Google will show you hundreds of videos of them attacking reporters, breaking phones and cameras, shining lasers to blind people and cameras, ordering people to stop filming, etc. None of this should be even remotely a surprise to you if you've paid any attention to what's been going on at these protests and riots.

This is true, but not even remotely the same thing. Trump supporters will mock and insult reporters from organizations which they do not like, but will rarely resort to assaulting them, or preventing them from filming. Antifa members regularlly order journalists from all types of organizations - and even private individuals - to stop filming, and they often use force to back up their demands. You can even find plenty of footage of them threatening people on their own side in order to prevent them from filming.

That's just your bias speaking. It's hard to be objective of course, but even a remotely meaningful attempt would quickly result in you acknowledging that the left-wing media is at least as bad as the right. From the "Russian collusion" nonsense to the "fine people" hoax, to the selective "kids in cages" outrage, to the Sandman incident, to the "white supremacist" in Kenosha shooting 3 white people, to the apparently self driving car running through a Christmas parade .... it's pretty clear that if you're looking at left-wing media coverage of anything even remotely political, statistically you'd be better off assuming that they're lying if you actually cared about what was going on.

Of course not. Some are born with genes that code for height, while others will forever be short. Some are born with bodies which will grow up to be muscular, fit, and healthy, while others are destined to be weak and sickly. Some are born inherently gifted with superior abstract thinking abilities, while others are born with underdeveloped or damaged brains which will result in them having difficulty mastering anything more complex than shoelace tying.

This, of course, is why we need to bring about the Office of the Handicapper General, to ensure that accidents of birth do not privilege some over others. The only way we will ever be happy is if the strongest, healthiest, smartest, and most fit amongst us are brought down to the same level as the lowest. This is how we truly Build Back Better!

If he was "hoping to shoot some humans" he could have opened up and emptied his mag into the crowd any time he wanted to. As could have the several dozen other armed men whom he was with. They could have killed hundreds between them, if they wanted to. Your characterization of the situation is idiotic.