Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 235

First of all, no one is in either of those articles arguing that concern over events with refugees of that sort isn't xenophobic. So your basic premise fails. Second it isn't at all relevant: even if people were terribly misusing the term, it wouldn't make Trump's policies and many of his followers less xenophobic. That someone is overusing or badly using a term doesn't make the essential issue go away.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 1) 235

Objecting to immigration over concerns about jobs is not intrinsically xenophobic: wanting to build massive walls, banning all Muslims and similar measures, is. That there are sympathetic arguments for specific low immigration policies doesn't change that large amounts of the anti-immigrant attitude are coming from xenophobia.

As for discrimination, you playing language games rather than ignoring the fundamental point: if you prefer, simply add the words "based on race or religion" after the word discriminate and you get the point.

Comment Re:I don't agree that these are "conservative" vie (Score 2) 235

All the terms we use "conservative" "liberal" "progressive" really stand more for complicated political alliances than anything that clear cut. For example, pot legalization is stronger on the left among "progressives" but legalization is essentially reactionary, going back to an earlier era. Similarly, many right-wing, conservative positions, are new or novel ideas. By and large anti-immigrant, xenophobic ideas are more often found as part of the "conservative" tribe (although there's a definite undercurrent of them in the left also, as seen in for example Bernie Sanders strong dislike of open immigration).

In general, almost everything involved in politics is more about allegiances than coherent philosophical approaches. There's no coherent philosophy that should connect attitude about tax policy to attitude about gay marriage. And in so far as there are attempts at coherent philosophical approaches, they often make very little sense: for example the pro-choice movement's language about freedom and autonomy is very similar to language used by people with strong attitudes about the second amendment or believing they have a right to discriminate, but they are from opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Comment China should have been allowed to join the ISS (Score 4, Insightful) 265

In the mid 1990s, China was not allowed to join the ISS over human rights concerns. Of course,that didn't stop us from welcoming Russia which also had a terrible history, and it isn't like he threat of not being in the ISS changed China's behavior at all. So the end result is that China instead has a very strong and fast growing space program of their own when instead we could be cooperating with them.

Comment Outlawing poverty does not make it cease to exist (Score 3, Insightful) 270

Outlawing poverty doesn't make it cease to exist. This is not the only example of this, but it is curious that San Fran has so many similar issues. A major reason that there are homeless people in San Fran to start with is the insane cost of living which is made by having the minimum mandatory apartment size be high. In general, in the US there has been in the last 100 years a trend for stricter and stricter zoning laws and related laws. And now cities are actively fighting attempts to come up with workable solutions within the legal codes such as microapartments where shared kitchens and other shared spaces http://www.sightline.org/2016/09/06/how-seattle-killed-micro-housing/. Do you want to actually make homeless people go away? Then you need to make cheap housing affordable. How do you do that? By getting rid of the unnecessary zoning rules about height, massive number of parking spaces, large yards, etc.

Comment Re:correction (Score 1) 454

So, your reply a) doesn't address the fundamental facts of the case at all b) ignores the many associated aspects and c) ignores that, as discussed in the article, many forms of ID were not acceptable, and that those IDs were forms mainly possessed by minorities and poor people. In fact, variants of the last are very common: if one looks at a number of other state voter ID laws, they allowed gun permits to count as IDs, but not student IDs, apparently because college students are likely to vote Dem.

Comment Re:correction (Score 2) 454

That's not what happened here, and it is pretty clear that's not what happened even if you just read this article, even before one goes through the effort of reading the original opinion. For example, they took away Sunday early voting, and the report in question explicitly said that that was a common thing used by African-Americans. Literally every single change they made was one which the report that they commissioned had identified as having a more negative impact on blacks than anyone else.

Comment Re:correction (Score 5, Informative) 454

Let's look at North Carolina https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law/2016/07/29/810b5844-4f72-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html. A three judge panel found that the voter ID and related restrictions their were constructed to target minorities with "surgical precision" (the term used by the judges). Most damningly:

The panel seemed to say it found the equivalent of a smoking gun. “Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices,” Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

So, yes, please go explain how these laws are about protecting vote integrity. And then.explain why if they care so much about vote integrity they don't do anything about absentee ballot voter fraud which is a much more common and well-documented problem.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 689

"Trump is less vulnerable simply because he's not as repugnant of a person as is Hillary, not even close." I would have had trouble understanding how one would have thought this after his comments about Judge Curiel, his comments about the Khans, and his comments about McCain. After what leaked on Friday, which you are obviously aware, how can you possibly say this?

Comment Re:Curse them for revealing the DNC's voter fraud! (Score 4, Insightful) 287

So, you are now conflating two wildly different things. We were discussing the emails. In fact, you explicitly brought up the emails. You are now bringing up issues with caucuses. So let's discuss that issue (which we should keep in mind has nothing to do with DNC emails). Caucuses are very complicated (and frankly terrible as a system) and multiple votes are a standard aspect. For example, in Maine (where I caucused) there were multiple stages between the first count and the actual vote. This is a standard thing, and people who leave early are a standard factor. The other issue that came up was Sanders people failing to go to state conventions even after the local conventions were done, and in fact, in at least some occasions similar issues took place in reverse where they benefited Sanders. See e.g. http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/apr/07/blog-posting/no-bernie-sanders-didnt-retroactively-win-nevada/. Caucus obnoxious rules is not voter fraud, and none of this is relevant to the emails being discussed.

Comment Re:Curse them for revealing the DNC's voter fraud! (Score 2) 287

Voter fraud has a specific meaning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_fraud. This is not it. Again, you can be unhappy about it, or even vocally object, but mislabeling this is about as unhelpful as when someone people use words like "assault" and "violence" to describe bullying speech. The problem is the same: if you keep using the more serious words to describe *everything* the end result is people won't take the more serious case as seriously and just won't listen to you. Precision is important not just because it is relevant for one's own thinking but because it is important to getting others to care.

Comment Re:Curse them for revealing the DNC's voter fraud! (Score 4, Insightful) 287

Talking crap about a candidate is not voter fraud. Coordinating with one's own front runner when it is clear they are going to win is not voter fraud. You and I may object to some or all of these things, but that doesn't make it voter fraud. Moreover, part of the hacking here isn't just DNC emails but is actual attempts at hacking *election systems* which should bother you in any event.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.