Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: It's my house though (Score 4, Informative) 139

"In any case, anytime anyone practices such âoediscriminationâ in the free market, he must bear the costs, either of losing profits or of losing services as a consumer. "

Often, discrimination pays well.

With nightclubs in particular, enforcing a dress code for the purpose of removing most black patrons can result in wealthier clients, and higher tickets. Some restaraunts get less hassle, better tips, and less monopolization of tables by large groups, as well as fewer dine and dashes. That's why many restaraunts require pre-pay after 10, or won't split the bill for large groups (so they can hold any one person liable for the bill if several run). Those policies tend to mysteriously not get enforced when you have a white family show up.

There's an assumption that when you fire the customer you make less money. That's far from true, and in many cases, the reverse is true. Many "customers" aren't worth it.

Comment Re: Well that didn't take long (Score 1) 139

"iq tests are proportional to quality of education."

They can be. That's why they have developed tests specifically to address that. They do things like pattern recognition in order to take the language, cultural, and educational factors out of the equation.

The results are the same.

"so are sats, acts, psats....."

Thos are more so, but we're discussing IQ, not standardized testing. Some of those tests were specifically designed not to correlate so much with IQ, because it harmed certain minorities.

"so your logic for feeling superior can be overturned by giving simple opportunities."

No, no they can't, but people keep trying and trying and trying.

We see this even in twin studies - white children adopted black families do better then their non-adopted children, with the same education, opportunities, and upbringing. Black children adopted to white families do not do as well as white children adopted to white families, regardless of whether they are in a majority white area, majority black area, the level of opportunities provided.

We see differences in intelligence levels between families being conserved, as well as animal breeds where intellectual differences are profound and acknowledged. Larger human families (races) have the same thing.

"but you are racist so you seek to hold power over other groups."

Not at all. I want to quit flushing money down the toilet on programs that don't work, I want to acknowledge observed reality, and to move on. That has nothing to do with holding power.

I'm Mexican. I freely acknowledge that all things being equal, Europeans tend to be smarter than Mexicans (population median), and that Jewish people and Asians tend to be smarter than white people. There's nothing wrong with accepting reality. We should do it.

"more to do with your own fear of being inadequate then the lack of potential in others."

What fear of being inadequate? I don't like crime, and if we're going to address that, we need to face reality and the intersection of culture and genetics.

People think the US has a gun violence problem. It doesn't. If you exclude black perpetrators, the US would be on the high end of gun crime for europe, per capita (despite having way more guns). Remove the hispanic population, and the US is on the lower end of the gun crime statistics.

The US doesn't have a gun problem, it has a black and hispanic people with gun problem. Nobody talks about that, though, so they go for other programs that restrict a lot of people's freedoms when the problem comes from a small percentage of the population.

Comment Re: Well that didn't take long (Score 1) 139

"Didn't take long for the "internet racist" to show their ugly faces."

Well, sure, there are plenty of them.

"They have to live their lives never being able to openly express who they are, for fear of being exposed."

Not particularly. I'm racist in person, too. I can sit there hiding, or I can work to proselytize. Most people are racist to some degree - it's amazing how people behave when they are in private, particularly if you start with things that they have already started to observe on their own.

"They have to live and work around "dirty" minorities and can never tell them what truly think of them."

The issue isn't that "minorities" are "dirty". The problem is that statistically speaking, there are differences in median IQ between populations, and that culture is a function of that population. As IQ tends to correlate reasonably well with the ability to function in a modern western society, "minorities" tend to bring with them higher crime and other societial ills. Diversity compounds this.

"Their world gets smaller and smaller everyday until the internet is all they will have left."

Not particularly. Have you seen the alt right recently? It's getting more and more acceptable to be racist in public, and the internet is making it easier and easier for us to mobilize, organize, and recruit.

For those of us who want intellectual honesty and race realism, the internet has been a godsend.

Comment Re:Its pretty important... (Score 1) 307

I'm actually pretty impossible to please in this department. I would like to see yet still more indication that the problem is well understood. Predictions that are precise to 15 digits, and that unlike all other scientific endeavors don't need to be "corrected" post hoc would do most of it for me.

But that's the thing: it is very well understood, and scientists have made many predictions that are panning out. No one's ever going to say "the earth will get x.xxxxxxx% warmer on this date". Predictions are in the form of "we believe the atmosphere will get between x and y% warmer, with a confidence of z". And they've been accurate as stated. Any claims to the contrary are radical restatements of history.

Comment Re:Its pretty important... (Score 1) 307

Question: what would it take to get you to admit that measurably rising sea levels due to climate change is causing problems? We're losing goddamn Louisiana to it. Literally everyone who studies this stuff for a living agrees with this. No one seriously doubts it. But you'd rather blame some river hacking for literally submerging Louisiana.

What are you going to blame when we lose Florida? Is there a convenient river there to point the finger at? What ungodly amount of river water is flowing through the Solomon Islands that's causing them to disappear7?

Comment Re:Sponsors? (Score 2) 223

How can an artificial sweetener that is not absorbed by the body, like sucralose, have any physical effect, unless the brain hates being tricked and is getting even.

Nailed it. From Wash U med school:

The elevated insulin response could be a good thing, she pointed out, because it shows the person is able to make enough insulin to deal with spiking glucose levels. But it also might be bad because when people routinely secrete more insulin, they can become resistant to its effects, a path that leads to type 2 diabetes.

Basically, the part of your digestive tract that identifies incoming sugar and triggers an insulin release can't tell the difference between sugar and sweeteners. That's not a shocker: if our taste buds can be tricked, it's not crazy to imagine that our sugar-detecting circuits are also fallible. When your body is continually flooded with elevated insulin, it becomes resistant to it. Another term for insulin resistance is type 2 (adult onset) diabetes.

Comment Re:Fake movie (Score 1) 487

Again, I think this is naive.

I refer again to one of the links I gave. There you can see that even among Muslims in the USA there is a considerably HIGHER - significantly so, in scientific terms - percentage that think it's ok to, for instance, stone women to death which are 'unfaithful'.

The only reason, thus, why the USA doesn't have as many problems (yet) is because of..numbers. It's as simply as that. Germany, last year, got 1 million (!) refugees - in one year, thus. In comparison to it's populace, that would be equivalent of the USA taking in 4 million a year. Everyone with a grain of intelligence will understand that, if the USA did the same, EXACTLY the same problems would occur. (And btw, once they got the nationality, you can't force them to settle anywhere, since as a citizen, they're free to go where they want, so your idea of 'spreading' doesn't help. In fact, after 20-30 years, there is no spreading to be done anymore, because they're in all cities with their own neighbourhoods).

Can you imagine how well the USA would fare, if they took in 4 million people per year for 20 years in a row, where 40% of them think the sharia should be above the constitution, and 12% think it's ok to stone women to death?

I say Islam is bad, because it IS bad - if you follow what is actually described there and you believe the stuff is actually the 'word of god' you have to follow. Other religions may be considered bad too, but those are NOT, or far, far, far less, being interpreted literally anymore, nor are the adepts of those religious so devout anymore, as it is with Islam.

In fact, the problem is NOT being fanatic, at least not on its own. Take the most fanatical Jainist, and that will lead to someone avoiding to trample on insects and who wouldn't even try to hurt bacteria. A fanatical Jainist would be a complete and utter pacifist. So being 'fantical' about your religion, when that religion is inherently peaceful, makes person that is fanatically peaceful. There is no problem with that. So how comes it is with Islam (and, granted, some other religions)? Because there IS bad in there, and it DOES say things that are antithetic to modern thoughts, and the more literally you take this, the more bad it becomes. So it's not just fanaticism that is the problem, it's the sourcematerial as well.

But anyway, the point is, the USA has no problems, not because the Muslims they have are so welcomed by the populace that they don't have any of the antithetical values and wishes anymore ( - as evidenced by the poll, they still have, and still with a far larger percentage than the rest of the populace), but primarily because they have far less than the EU. The percentage of Muslims in the USA make out 0,9% of the populace... in Germany, however, it is more than FIVE TIMES as high. Plus, the USA has far more landmass, so you *can* spread them better, in most EU countries, there is nothing to spread anymore: they're in every city, within there neighbourhoods. Many of which have become no-go zones for the police, btw.

It's all about numbers, thus. The more you have them, the more problems you get, because the more people you get with undemocratic ideas - EVEN if, as correctly noted, not ALL of Muslims share those views. My point is, that that doesn't matter: whether all adher to it or not, it doesn't change the fact that TOO MANY do, and that your society/civilisation is going to buckle under it, if one keeps accepting people where 40% wants to abolish your laws.

And the left has tried for 40 years to claim 'spreading' and 'education' will deal with it, and make them all integrate. Alas, wishful thinking: integration goes extremely slow and is very poor, with Mulims, simply by the fact they don't really want to integrate - especially the 40% that finds their laws should govern the land. In fact, polls have also shown, that even among second and third generation immigrants, it's even worse then with their parents that came in the 60'ies. A recent poll with those youth in immigration-neighbourhoods showed a whopping 90%(!) of them supported ISIS and thought them hero's. So much for integration!

Look, one has to stop being naive. There is a huge problem here, and even with the best of practises and methods, integration is going to be a slow process, and it will get slower the more of the same people (with the same culture and mentality, I mean) come in the country. By the time you integrated 10, there are already 100 more that came in, and after a while, they don't even want to integrate anymore, but expect us to accommodate them, whether it's housing, (Islamic) schools, courts (as they allowed in GB; biggest mistake ever), access to own media, etc. Not wanting to integrate anymore is not a joke, btw, there are actually some high-profile Muslims openly saying that in the media here, publicly. There mantra is that we 'both have to adapt'. No, we don't. Certainly not on base values.

What you say, is exactly what the left has been saying for decades thus, but in the meanwhile things have become worse and worse. It's because it is trying to empty the ocean with a thimble. As long as the tap keeps is running and overflowing, it's useless to try to mop the floor. Therefore, I'm a staunch proponent to close the borders so no new ones (or at least far fewer) get in, and THEN *prove* one can actually integrate the ones that are already in here, and see how well that works. The way we're doing it now, it's simply a matter of time until it all breaks down, and the killings, terrorist attacks, demonstrations for the implementation of the sharia, threats to people who they think insultted Islam or their prophet, will only augment. Hack, you already SEE that. It is augmenting, and rapidly so. Since 2004, Islamic terrorism has been the greatest contributor to all terrorist attacks. It has become number one. That doesn't mean all moderate Muslims agree with it, it's just - I repeat - that TOO MANY of the Muslims feel that way, if not in regard to terrorist attacks themselves, than in regard to values that are antithetic to ours.

I mean, it's not rocket science, is it. Look at those countries with large populations of Muslims: they have already serious societal problems with it, including violence and terrorist attacks (but not limited to that). And now look at countries and regions that have practically zero Muslims in their populace, like Iceland or Greenland.... how many Muslim terrorist attacks did they have?


How many cartoonists were killed there because they offended Mohamed?


How many want the sharia law established there?


I mean; for f- sake, the correlation AND causality is clear, no? If you do not have Muslims, you don't have the same troubles with Muslims that you have with countries that DO have large percentages of those. Yes, you still have other problems, and there is no certitude someone else won't do a terrorist attack or want the sharia implemented but FAR LESS, obviously.

Yes, it's a pity for those Muslims that do value our laws and mores, that want to integrate, etc. But: that's life. They're the victims of their brethren they can't seem nor actively try to control, then. I don't see why a society should slowly undermine itself and commit cultural suicide just because anyone knocking on your doorstep, one 'has to' let in. I refute that notion. A very strict immigration-policy - with absolute maxima - coupled with concerted efforts to integrate those already here, is the only way one can still hope to rectify the current mess we're already in. If we fail - and we will if one is not turning the tap close (or to a trickle) first - then in less than a hundred years, our current model of Western democracies following the principles of Enlightenment, is no more.

Comment Re:Fake movie (Score 1) 487

"So given that, I don't really see a reason for singling out Muslims in western society. "

I've given you the reason in my former posts. Whether one wants it or not, in comparison, today, FAR more acts of terrorism are done in the name of their religion by Muslims than by Christians. But, as said, what's even worse is that FAR more Muslims uphold and concur with ideas that are antithetic with democratic, Western values based on the enlightenment. Those are not all terrorists; they just hold extreme views (extreme in regard to our values). If you looked at the links I provided you, you can note that some of those views - which are incompatible with how *we* think about things and go against our basic values - have either a majority, or a very large minority being supportive of it.

If you would take a random sample size and compare Muslims with non-Muslims in regard to women's rights, homosexuality, etc., you would see a HUGE discrepancy in Western countries between the two groups. clearly, the correlation is not by accident, but has a *causal* relation: it's because they are Muslims, such a large part thinks that sharia should be the only law being applied, that women are less worth than men, that homosexuality is abhorred, that they think fre speech does not allow to insult the prophet Mohammed (PUH!), etc.

you wouldn't find these numbers and percentages with atheists, not even with Christians, nor Buddhists, etc. the reason for that is what you said: most people, even claiming to be Christians, aren't all that religious anymore, and Christianity has had a reformation and lost a lot of its sharp teeth anyway.

The Islam has not - or to a far, far lesser extend. Muslims are also to a far higher percentage still devote in the classical sense. You only have to look at the mosques for that: almost always filled, while the churches in Europe are dwindling and largely empty. So, both in religiousness as in the strict applicability of their holy book, Muslims are far more ferocious, percentage-wise, than any other religion these days. That's why you see raving and angry-shouting Muslims trying to get a museum shut down, or making threats - by legal and illegal means - if that museum was posting art that offends their prophet. Do the same with Christians, and the most you get is some bishop saying it's not very proper. That's also why you see people being shot for making a cartoon of Mohamed *by Muslims* - tell me, when was the last time a group of people were shot dead out of religious motives because they offended, say, Jesus?

It's this sort of blindness that annoys me the most. Yes, there has been brutality in the past by all monotheistic religions. Yes, you have nutcases here in the West too, who commit terrorist attacks or who want to impose their religious laws on others. Yes, you have homo-haters in the indigenous populace also. Yes, you have people thinking women are inferior to men as well. But *comparatively* you have FAR more of them within the Muslim community than in every other religious or non-religious community. This is a fact; see the links I gave you, and compare those numbers with the average you get asking the same questions of natives in Europe. The scale and level is considerably higher than with the local communities, and even with any other group who is or has settled themselves in Europe, and their integration is one of the lowest.

Your halal-example shows the same sort of naivety, imho. Ok, so you like halal meat more. Good for you. Now, say I want to eat non-halal food. Do you know it has become increasingly difficult, with the exception of pork, to find *any* non-halal meat anymore in my country? Even when it's not explicitly mentioned, it's still made in a halal way, because that's more convenient for slaughterhouses, even if they technically break the law with it (since they are obliged by law to sedate animals before killing them). Alas, we made the mistake of allowing an exception for religious reasons, and now it's done with all and every animal/meat, whether you are religious and not, or want halal or not. And all that in only 15 years time... There has been attempts to get rid of the exception, but - again - Muslims were vehemently opposed to it. So who's imposing on whom, here? Why do *I* have to adapt, while it's THEY that come live here? If you're invited in someone's house, do you begin to set the rules there and tell the owner what he should or shouldn't do? 'When in Rome do as the Romans do." isn't just a fancy sounding soundbite, it is *essential* if you want to limit the tensions occurring in a society.

And while I agree with you the West shouldn't try to change societies in the Middle-East (in the mistaken belief we can somehow induce democracy by external intervention), this goes both ways. And it's exactly this what is a cause for concern: year after year we get a large influx of people of which a large percentage has ideas and want laws, rules and a mode of living that are antithetic to our base values. One might appease oneself with saying "it's not all of them", but that does NOT change the problematic nature of having large numbers of people that are in essence against the very nature of a democracy and Western ideas. You still introduce a factor whereby you undermine your own society in a dangerous way, and anyone thinking you actually need to have a majority of the total populace before you get serious problems is dreaming. Any large enough minority can already cause enormous societal tensions, and exert influence whether legally or illegally (including violence). When such a group adheres and promotes values that are antithetical to those of your society, it's a given that conflict will arise. And when it keeps going on for years (as is now the case), sooner or later, the civilisation/society itself that let them in will either succumb or have civil war.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce