But the combination of the Japanese and Germans could over time.


If Hitler had made the decision not invade the USSR, the Luftwaffe had actually built heavy bombers(instead of medium/light bombers) and not attacked population centers, and the German navy had invested even more into submarines, I very much think the war could have gone differently for England.


Edit: If you love answers/questions like these, you'll love this book. I read it as a child and it is what made me a history teacher.

Great Book

American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?


As Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood-ebook/dp/B00OFK22Y8

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. You can't even imagine how rough some people have it.

I live in New York City, and take the train every day. I see at least four or five obviously homeless people a day. I probably see twice or three times as many that are living in a shelter, even though they are invisible to me. Whether you are living on a street or a shelter, homelessness destroys people. Do you think they have it "not that bad"?

Take a look at this video.

And you don't even have to be poor to experience the misery that many people go through in the US. The young psychology major with student loans she can't pay off? The father that just got laid off, supporting a family, and feeling useless while he's unemployed? The mother with frustrated, red eyes, looking at a mortgage statement over a kitchen counter? The young guy that sees another bill mailed to him from a collection company, from that time he went to the hospital for a stomach ache and they charged him thousands of dollars? The children that fail to create familial bonds because their parents are either out of the picture or work too much? The young overweight girl who's fed unhealthy food because that's what her single mother can afford, but is tortured by the images of females advertised everywhere? These are things that profoundly affect peoples lives.


Read this book about the most neglected place of the US. Watch this documentary about how the economy has destroyed families. Read this book about how neglected the poor are in the US, and what they go through. Watch this documentary about how the justice system and the drug war are like a holocaust in slow motion for minority males. Watch this interview about the slums of DC and what young black males go through there. Or this interview about the utter despair of native americans in the US. Or this documentary about children handling povierty. Read testimonials on this website of what it means and how it feels to be poor. Watch this trailer of the vicious immigration system and the oppression poor immigrants go through even though all they want to do is have a good life. Watch this interview on how tens of millions of people in the US don't have adequate access to food.

The poor are invisible. Society is naturally segregated so that you never see them, or they are too ashamed to voice their pain. You have passed them by the side of the road. But hopefully, you will notice now. And you will never say the ignorant statement you just did.

You are correct. We live in a gynocentric society that constantly shits on men. Even the fact that men are falling behind is presented as a problem for women because there are not enough marriageable men around.

More on this in the book Men on Strike.

You're nothing like a "conspiracy nutjob". Your viewpoints are much too mainstream.

What's happening is that actually the elites have already been colluding for years to deliberately crash the system in order to make World War III possible.

Another part of this is the fact that public education has been training people about the "benefits" of war in "improving" economies. This aspect of public education is criminal and insane.

The only way war can possibly be considered is if one has or has been given an ancient, primitive, Social Darwinist, elitist and anti-human belief system. Which, unfortunately, the greater percentage of recent generations has been indoctrinated into.

In this belief system, the "health" of an "economy" is related to its "profitability" and completely divorced from the health of its citizens or physical environment and resources. In this belief system, most human life, especially those of the lower castes which comprise most of the earth's population, is worth very little.

The elite view their role to be that of the ecological protectors of the earth from the encroachment of the over-multiplied ever-growing masses of peasants.

> In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.

-- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

> “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

> “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

>“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

--from Ecoscience, co-authored by John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

http://www.amazon.com/Ecoscience-Population-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/0716700298

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22480029/Ecoscience-Population-Resources-Environment-1649-Pgs-John-holdren

This unscientific belief that the earth is overpopulated has been firmly planted through "education" in the minds of the public. Just to clarify, it is only by intense suppression of deployment of technology and relevant knowledge concerning energy, food production and systems that the public can be misled about the reality, which is that the carrying capacity of a truly scientifically and technologically-integrated earth is many times more than the current population.

War achieves two aims of the elites: killing off "excess" humans and reaping greater profits than any other type of industry.

>War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

>I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. -- U.S. Marine Major General Smedley D. Butler

http://feralhouse.com/war-is-a-racket/

http://www.archive.org/details/WarIsARacket

To touch on just how far from the truth the beliefs about overpopulation are, look at the potential for increasing energy production. Numerous sources have suggested that energy needs could be met with solar power alone. Google has reported that geothermal energy production in the US could be increased by 1000 times or more:

>The project estimates that “technical potential” for the continental U.S. exceeds 2,980,295 megawatts using EGS and other advanced geothermal technologies such as low temperature hydrothermal, according to Google.org. To put that into perspective, currently there is 9,000 MW of traditional geothermal generating capacity installed in 24 countries around the world. The United States, the world’s largest geothermal energy producer, has about 2,800 MW of installed capacity, which generates enough electricity to power roughly 2.8 million homes.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/google-project-maps-us-geothermal-energy-potential/9934

http://www.google.org/egs/

The only way for the mass killings and insane profiteering to go on as planned is for this perverted and ignorant belief system to continue in the general population. Unfortunately, belief systems have a core tendency to resist alteration. Given the strength of the belief in the myths about overpopulation, the devaluation of human life, the indoctrination into the relevance of "economic" theories completely removed from human or physical measurements, the massive build-up of deployment of US and allied military power in the vicinity of the Middle East, the next great war is likely to occur soon (and is considered by some to be in the early stages now).

I mean, I really don't want to be a bummer or anything, but someone has to say this stuff since the future of humanity is directly related to our ability to perceive the realities of our world.

Give him a copy of Manufacturing Consent. It pulled me back from the edge at around his age.

I think the problem is at that age you start to get a sense that the media is manipulative as fuck. But the only people saying that loudly enough for young people to hear are the Tommy Robinsons of the world.

We desperately need some loud leftist voices.

Yes we do need to focus on the immediate problem. What if we didn't just throw around ideas that sound good in theory but actually tried evidence-based solutions that have been proven to work in other cities? Like focused deterrence or "safe streets"

P.s. stop-and-frisk sounds good to some but there's no evidence that it works. All it does is make minorities feel like cops are out to get them. NYC dropped it by 97% after it was declared unconstitutional and crime went down. Surprisingly - or maybe not so surprisingly - the evidence-based stuff that seems to work also seems to be the stuff that involves treating people like rational human beings and trying to understand the reasons behind their choices (i.e. stealing a gun b/c you're afraid someone wants to shoot you first) and working to change those incentives (i.e. coming up with ways to disrupt the social dynamics of retaliation), rather than ideas that assume, either explicitly or implicitly, that criminals are just evil people that need more 'justice system' thrown at them.

What you just described is how I read the "low barrier to entry". That they aren't selected based on their ability to document sincere insight the world, but their ability to conform to the filters that manufacture consent.

Though maybe this is an epistemological error made given that I have Pete Coffin's recent episode on meritocracy on the brain.

As Michelle Alexander wrote in her excellent book, 'The New Jim Crow', the Drug War and the Prison Industrial Complex are the new tools of institutional racism. The drug war vastly and disproportionately affects black and Latino peeps.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1501260235

Manufacturing consent is as relevant as ever.

Sadly, most journalists seem to read it and think it's a text on best practices.

She just wanted to brag that she buys expensive butter and organic coconut oil. Standard Bobo stuff.
http://www.amazon.com/Bobos-In-Paradise-Upper-Class/dp/0684853787

It's refreshing to see younger adults resonate with Chris Hedges. He is one of the last true journalists of this country, and one of the few individuals from the press to openly speak out against the war in Iraq during the Bush administration.

He's one of the few individuals I consider my hero living today. Read his books, "Death of the Liberal Class" and "Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt", because he paints an accurate picture at the problems we face today: division of the middle class, the profiteers of corporations, the rape and pillage of our ecosystem. It's extremely sad to read and it will make you angry because only then will you truly understand at how backwards American society has become. If anyone is interested to learn more, watch this interview he was in with Bill Moyers. He single-handedly taught me not only to be an objective reader and investigator, but how to debate using facts and sources instead of ad-hominems and logical fallacies, what a true journalist should be in my opinion.

The phrase, "ignorance is bliss" rings so true after reading these books for me, because it opened my eyes up to the greed and willingness of corporations to seek profit over human life. It was difficult for me to process at first because I was never aware of so many things he mentions in these books, I didn't want to believe they were true. The thought of Americans cities as disaster zones, or 3rd world countries, but also how easily they engineered this system of propaganda to an already apathetic and ignorant country upset me not because I was offended, but that it was painfully true. The overall narrative of his language is that very principle of Capitalism itself is to consume all the resources for the maximization profit until it will ultimately consume itself... and he hammers it home brilliantly.

Hell: PM me and I'll buy you a digital copy of these books myself, that is how powerful and impacting they are to me.

Edit: This also an open invitation for anyone else who wants to read these books. My Xmas gift to you guys...

Recent research has leaned towards the "some level of racial bias" in sentencing argument. You've already noted one source: Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Sentences by Starr and Rehavi (2014). I would also add the Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing Practices by the US Sentencing Commission (2010). They make the following observations:

• "Black male offenders received longer sentences than white male offenders..."
  
• "Female offenders of all races received shorter sentences than male offenders. The differences in sentence length fluctuated at different rates in the time periods studied for white females, black females, Hispanic females, and “other” female offenders (such as those of Native American, Alaskan Native, and Asian or Pacific Islander origin)."
  
  Note that these studies tackle sentencing length and not prosecution and conviction rates (or the likelihood of being sentenced). Your original article "There Is No Evidence of Racial Discrimination in the Criminal Justice System" mostly talks about prosecution and conviction rates in its "Criminal Justice Literature" section.
  
  Off the top of my head, I can't think of any research that asserts racial bias in prosecution and conviction rates. I'm inclined to believe the author's non-discrimination argument here.
  
  However, this discussion rests on the assumption that laws are racially fair to begin with. It is possible for police officers and judges to fairly enforce laws with disporportionate effects, and have racially baised effects. Michelle Alexander argues this point in her book The New Jim Crow (2010) and characterizes the modern justice system as one that is facially "race-neutral" but ends up targeting African-American males anyways. Check out this previous /r/AskSocialScience thread for more info.
  
  P.S. The original author of your post makes several references to "president-elect Obama", which implies they wrote it in late-2008. If this is true, then that means their post predates everything I've mentioned above.

There's my LATE NIGHT CREW!!! <3 <3 <3

High Energy WINsomniacs!

_

New from Ben Garrison! Damage Control

Monday was the first Tucker Carlson Tonight in the new timeslot! Here's the morning promo and news review from Fox. It's hard to believe “Tucker Carlson Tonight” has only been on for about 2 months now! TCT is currently the #1 rated cable news show with 25-54s, however Carlson's show was yugely successful from the very first night. According to Nielsen, 3.7 million viewers tuned in for the debut of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on 11-14-16, making it the biggest audience of 2016 for Fox News during that time slot. An estimated 750,000 of those viewers were in the crucial age demographic of 25-54. The debut of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” also beat the ratings of CNN and MSNBC combined. (LOL! Dishonest Media BTFO!) From the Daily Caller: Tucker Carlson’s New Show Has Epic Ratings Premiere — Beats CNN And MSNBC Combined Here is another promo with Bill O'Reilly (Tucker Carlson Tonight will now air right after the O'Reilly Factor) Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson Discuss Hollywood's Liberal Elitism at The Golden Globes






Starting the first show off the right way, Tucker Carlson talks about putting Americans back to work with Mike Rowe! (inb4 MikeRoweAggression) Carlson talks with Laura Ingraham<3 on Meryl Streep's silly anti-Trump Sermon at the Golden Globes Ingraham's book "Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the Media are Subverting America" covers the virtue signaling, social engineering and promotion of cultural Marxism from the Hollywood Left. But this is why we tune in: HERE COMES THE STUPID!!! Tucker Carlson grills flip-flopping idiot shill Glenn Beck over his low-energy stance on Donald Trump



_


Gavin McInnes says Meryl Streep lied in her Golden Globes speech: Trump never mocked a disabled reporter. (We know this, there are videos going back over 10 years with Trump making these sort of hand gestures, even a video of Trump targeting himself with the silly-hands-gesture. I even do this myself, when discussing the Extremely Stupid or Easily Flustered.) Another interesting note: the sort of people who are freaking out over this are also the people who insist on doing "jazz hands" lest anyone be "triggered" by applause/hand clapping. I digress, the point here is: Meryl Streep is retarded.



_


HIGH ENERGY! Sean Hannity talks with Kellyanne Conway<3 on Building The Wall, Repealing Obamacare, and other important work Donald Trump is taking care of before he even takes office! MOAR! Kellyanne Conway<3 Truth Nuggets™ on Fox and Friends: "I Wish Meryl Streep Was As Concerned About Disabled Boy On Chicago Facebook Live" Moar fun with Fiberal biased shills: Rand Paul schools herpderping Wolf Blitzer on Upcoming Trump Cabinet Confirmations Moar from the Hannity show, counter-terrorism expert Dr. Sebastian Gorka discusses the reality of the ISIS threat.






Judge Jeanine Pirro and Darrell Issa Rip into California Governmental Fruitcakes for Hiring Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder to help preserve the Obama/Soros legacy of sanctuary cities, illegal immigrant coddling, and other low-energy policies!






Lee Ann McAdoo<3 reports on the ways in which the mainstream media and the intelligence agencies are distracting the the American public: Intel Report: Weapons Of Mass Distraction






Paul Joseph Watson brings us moar ridiculousness from the Professional Triggerbrats™ of the Liberal Elite! Lily Allen threatened Tommy Robinson with legal action because she lost an argument on Twitter. Yes, really. Here's Tommy's response: Tommy Robinson Responds to Lily Allen






Truth Nuggets™ from Stefan Molyneux: The Death of Nations: Globalism, Immigration and Migrant Crisis



_


Moar lulz with Mark Dice: Man reeeeeee On The Street Monday! Are Millennials the Dumbest Generation in American History? They have the world at their finger tips but do they even have a clue about basic history or common sense? (He's generalizing, we have some smart Millennial Centipedes here at The_Donald, but the ones he interviews in this video are on the Cutting Edge of Stupid!)



_


Otherwise, I've been doing the same thing I do every day, Making America Great Again.



WE ARE THE GROUND GAME



DEUS VULT



NO BRAKES



NO SLEEP TIL WASHINGTON

MAGA!!!

And that sort of stuff is the reason this book was written:
https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood-ebook/dp/B00OFK22Y8

Pacifism as Pathology by Ward Churchill

How Non-Violence Protects the State by Peter Gelderloos - PDF

Deacons For Defense are one of several groups of armed black Americans during the civil rights movement.

Orgasms of History

from riot to insurrection more of the theoretical side than history

See also: general strikes and the riots that accompanied them. The history of the labor movement, which is full of strikes that became riots. The timeline of the civil rights movement, in that it was only after the riots began that meaningful civil rights legislation began to be adopted, and even MLK knew that the only reason they were giving him a seat at the table after calling him a communist etc... was because of the riots forcing them to deal with the non-violent moderates of the movement and make concessions.

Soul food has made me not fat. When I get cravings, I tend to snack or get fast food and get instant gratification. With soul food, you got to cook and it's very hearty, so by the time you are done cooking, your cravings are gone and you only eat it if you're hungry. People are obese because of fast, processed, and pre-packaged food, not soul food. Enjoy your soul food. Just make sure you eat some collard greens once in a while.

This is just another way white people try to distinguish themselves from blacks and use a culture's food as a way of casting judgment on the culture and its people. "The social world, argues, functions simultaneously as a system of power relations and as a symbolic system in which minute distinctions of taste become the basis for social judgement."

This video is amazing. I, for one, am irked when large businesses tackle social issues and it's seen as a sustainable practice. It reminds me of that time freaking Forbes came to our school to tell us how "capitalism is great" because of this (here's the poster for that).

Interestingly enough, the social changes that reward these empty gestures of multiculturalism and progressiveness are nothing new; it's a trend that exploded in the US after the 50s but also existed in other parts of the world before then.

There's two great books on this phenomenon that give the historical context in the US, even if they don't provide a direct solution:

Bobos in Paradise - David Brooks (bourgeois bohemians = "bobos")

Everything but the Coffee - Bryant Simon (talks a lot about how Starbucks was able to manipulate social changes)

For real. You sing. If you were in politics I would vote against you, but you sing. Shut up and sing.

What you're ignoring is that the gravest insults under which you suffer are perpetrated by those authorities you deem "insufficient". Petty slights in everyday life pale in insignificance compared to the systemic crimes against your rights by the powerful (and are in fact to a large extent caused by these systemic frustrations), and a system like this would do nothing but grant them unprecedented powers to expand these crimes.



Want some literature? Begin with the obvious, Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World. Next, read up on complex systems theory, maybe take a course or at least have a look through some of the videos here. Having some insight into behavioural economics and power dynamics is very useful.

Then read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, and then Necessary Illusions by the same Chomsky ("Understanding Power - The Essential Chomsky" is also a good, but long, one) for an overview of the mentioned systemic crimes by those in power, and for a general understanding of how power operates on large scales. Many will discount Chomsky due to his political leanings, I think that's a huge error. The way he argues and presents relies heavily on actual examples and real-world comparisons, and these are useful even if you fundamentally disagree with his political stance (I personally belong on the left of the spectrum, but I do not subscribe to his anarcho-libertarianism or anarcho-syndicalist stances). I also recommend "Austerity - The History of a Dangerous Idea" by economist Mark Blyth for this purpose.

Finally, Extra Credits has a good introduction to the concept of gamification with the playlist here. At the end, see this video for an introduction to the actual Sesame Credits system in the gamification perspective.

The field is inherently cross-disciplinary, and "specialisation" in the field is almost a misnomer since the only way to get there, really, is to have a broad (if not deep) understanding of multiple fields, including psychology, pedagogy, linguistics, game design theory, design theory in general, economics, management and leadership theory, complex systems and network analysis, and now it seems politics as well. Some gamification specialists operate in much narrower fields and so do not need this broad an approach (generally, most people in the field operate in teams that contain most of this knowledge), and some of the fields incorporate aspects from the others so you won't have to explicitly study all of them (pedagogy, for example, is in many ways a branch of applied psychology, and game design theory must include lessons on psychology and complex systems).

Edit: Added Amazon links to the mentioned books.

You might be interested in this book: Black Rednecks and White Liberals

The author is black and grew up in Harlem, raised by his great aunt. He was the first in his family to make it past the 6th great but ultimately he had to drop out of school at the age of 17, for family and financial reasons. He eventually become a professor and top selling author.

Book Description:

> This book presents the kind of eye-opening insights into the history and culture of race for which Sowell has become famous. As late as the 1940s and 1950s, he argues, poor Southern rednecks were regarded by Northern employers and law enforcement officials as lazy, lawless, and sexually immoral. This pattern was repeated by blacks with whom they shared a subculture in the South. Over the last half century poor whites and most blacks have moved up in class and affluence, but the ghetto remains filled with black rednecks. Their attempt to escape, Sowell shows, is hampered by their white liberal friends who turn dysfunctional black redneck culture into a sacrosanct symbol of racial identity.

My friend, you have just stepped into a minefield. Get a helmet, and start reading some books. There is much for you to learn.

You aren't wrong, you're right about most is the things you say. It's why I ended up studying education policy in graduate school. Unfortunately, the more we know the more helpless we become.

Here's some required reading to get your feet wet:

http://www.amazon.com/Spinning-Wheels-Politics-School-Reform/dp/0815736355/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458110858&sr=1-1&keywords=Spinning+wheels

http://www.amazon.com/Tinkering-toward-Utopia-Century-Public/dp/0674892836/ref=pd_sim_14_28?ie=UTF8&dpID=51DQYN2V19L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR105%2C160_&refRID=0C983NQYAYFNVQ68XQT5

http://www.amazon.com/Distinction-Social-Critique-Judgement-Taste/dp/0674212770/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458110942&sr=1-1&keywords=Bourdieu%27s

http://www.amazon.com/Reign-Error-Privatization-Movement-Americas/dp/0345806352/ref=sr_1_14?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458111017&sr=1-14&keywords=Education+policy

Camden's plight, and how it got that way, is a bit part of Chris Hedges (the author of the article) and Joe Sacco's excellent book "Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt".

Wake up

Chris Hedges wrote a great book about what happened in Detroit. It makes for a great read if you would like to put together an informed opinion about the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Days-Destruction-Revolt-Chris-Hedges/dp/1568586434

To maintain a prisoner class of society.

>Shut Up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the Media are Subverting America Paperback – October 24, 2006

>Feisty radio sensation Laura Ingraham is tired of the Hollywood Left--and she has all the answers in this pugnacious, funny, and devastating critique of the liberals who hate America

she's such a fucking idiot.

https://www.amazon.com/Shut-Up-Sing-Hollywood-Subverting/dp/0895260816

Urban communities of color are over-policed, and our sentences for almost everything are too harsh. I know, I know, this sounds like liberal SJW party line talk, but the facts bear it out.

The US has the highest rate of incarceration on the planet (and by far a higher rate of incarceration than any industrialized/European country we view as our social peers). If you start parsing out demographics, black and latino Americans have incarceration rates that somewhere around 10x any comparable nation. I'm talking gulag/apartheid level incarceration rates for these subgroups. (Sorry for the lack of figures throughout this post, but it's too much work to bust out the books each time. In general, these figures are what I remember from Crime and Public Policy). To me, the most convincing piece of evidence is the disparity between arrest rates for drug use of adolescents by race. White and black teenagers use at about the same rate, but black teenagers are arrested far more frequently. Are black teenagers made safer by that higher arrest rate? Are white teenagers made worse off by their lower drug arrest rate?
I think the answer (on aggregate) is a resounding no on both counts. That's over policing right there, where fewer contacts results in better outcomes.

So what do we get from this? We lock people up for far longer than any of our peer nations do for similar crimes (the common anecdote here is a life sentence in the UK is only 15 years) and for far longer than we did historically (again, anecdotal but look at some of the sentences in an old crim law casebook. I'm talking 7 years for 2nd degree murder). Yet, we also have a middling to high rate of crime (particularly homicide). Either American's are particularly criminal, particularly insensitive to incarceration, or other nations have a better system (i.e., one that achieves better/comparable results with less incarceration). That's what I mean by draconian charging; we could have less incarceration and the same or better crime rates with the right system. And these excessive sentences create other problems as well, such as giving prosecutors disproportionate power to dictate punishment.

So where can we trace these phenomena to? The explosion of inner-city crime from the 1960's to the 1990's. This unprecedented level of violence and crime caused an overreaction of law and order, so this is where we start getting 10-25 year sentences for possession of drugs. Just think about that, we are penalizing simple possession more harshly than most of sister nations do for murder. This escalation in drug sentencing caused an escalation in everything else, because once you're getting heavy sentences for mere possession it seems weird to give out a lighter sentence for manslaughter or assault. The concentration of violence in the inner cities (the cause of which is still up for debate, see When the Work Disappears or Don't Shoot or even lead) means that we concentrate these harsh sentences on on inner-city residents who are primarily minorities.

Finally, if you have any interest in this area at all, read "When Brute Force Fails" by Kleiman. It's only like 80 pages, but it lays out the theory and the basic stats for why our current system should be considered to over-police but under-protect.

Counterfactual questions can be useful, but I've generally had an ambivalence toward them for several reasons. There's one reason, in particular, though, that I'd like to use to open up further questions and comments.

Most who frequent this subreddit might be familiar with this book. It's a fun read, but a quick look at the table of contents reveals that the essays are overwhelmingly addressing questions about military. Now, this isn't surprising, given that the book's concept is an expansion of an earlier one focused solely on military history. Thirty-three of the forty-five essays in the book revolve around "what-if-this-person-lost-this-battle" or "what-if-a-certain-war-had-been-won-by-the-other-side."

I figured that a lot of those essays were written with a different audience in mind, and since it wasn't my cup of tea, I didn't give it much further thought. But after reading this question and looking back through the book, I think that table of contents might explain my uneasiness with counterfactual historical questions.

It wasn't the fact that those questions were overwhelmingly on a subject for which I had only a tangential interest that bothered me, but that all of them, save for a handful, were placing the power to significantly alter history into the hands of a few great men. Napoleon Bonaparte, Otto von Bismarck, Robert E. Lee, Alexander the Great, Adolf Hitler, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, V. I. Lenin, and George Washington all figure prominently in these essays; there is little about everyday people, scant minority voices, and nothing about women.

However, I wonder if this isn't just a casualty of the way these questions are posed; even the most intriguing essays that attempt to incorporate multiple voices - the one at the end asking what would happen if potatoes were never transplanted to Europe from Peru is a good example - end up ultimately placing the power of changing history into the hands of a single man. In this case, it's completely on Pizarro bringing back the potato; there's no chance that peasants in Europe would have chosen not to cultivate it, there's no room to speculate if it might have gotten there by some other means.

This raises several questions, then (and this is the TL;DR version): Are counterfactual questions only useful or interesting when they're posed about the "big players" in history? Is it possible to ask such questions about "lesser" figures? And does focusing on the counterfactual marginalize the power/agency that everyday people had to alter the course of history?

Sure, here is a quick paper on the methods feminism uses to cover up and minimise female perpetrated domestic violence to conform to its theories on how it should look.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf


Here is Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge'

>Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies

http://www.amazon.com/Professing-Feminism-Education-Indoctrination-Studies/dp/0739104551


Not peer reviewed like the first two, but an article from Real Clear Science on the topic

>Column: When 'science' looks for sexism, it finds it

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-07-26-men-women-feminism-sexism_n.htm

>we might support them in their well-being, while recognizing that men certainly hold privilege and power in sociopolitical fields and economically.

Not entirely true. There are more men at the top of the food chain than women. But there are also more men at the bottom of the food chain. Women tend to cluster towards the middle for whatever reason. https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood-ebook/dp/B00OFK22Y8/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3DN7GTVDU7C4I&keywords=men+on+strike&qid=1556005635&s=books&sprefix=Men+On+Strike%2Caps%2C148&sr=1-1

​

>When we talk about traditional masculine ideology, those are the things in culture—and right now we're in a particular historical time and culture—that are prescriptive (what boys and men should do) and proscriptive (what boys and men should not do). There's a lot of diversity in the way masculinity is experienced and expressed. Some of these standards have held popular ideas in a certain segment of the population: Things like the avoidance of being seen as weak, extreme risk-taking, or extreme levels of aggression or violence.

The problem with this way of thinking is that it is idealist. It says that the problems are certain ideas floating around in our minds that are causing the problem. The ideas that occupy people's heads are logically dependent on their physical and social circumstances, not the other way around. https://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/61013

​

I have said it once before but it bears repeating now.

https://www.amazon.com/Are-Italians-White-Race-America/dp/0415934516

There's a lovely book that details all this stuff, it's all apart of a greater plan, It's a old goodie, but it's called ECOSCIENCE: Population, Resources, Enviorment by Paul R. Ehrlich

https://www.amazon.com/Ecoscience-Population-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/0716700298

https://archive.org/details/Ecoscience_17

It's all apart of population control.

Now is an EXCELLENT time to question your dogmatic commitment to nonviolence.

May I suggest Peter Gelderloos' excellent How Nonviolence Protects the State?

Or, perhaps, Ward Churchill's Pacifism as Pathology?

Thomas Sowell, probably the greatest black intellectual alive today has been saying as much for a long time. And of course I doubt whites have more sensible political opinions, the only difference is that blacks have an easier time asking for handouts and special treatment (even if in reality it harms them more than help), whites would do the same stupid things if they could.

Race and Culture: A World View and Black Rednecks and White Liberals are two great books by Thomas Sowell on the subject.

Of course, in the current climate of political correctness paranoia, anything that can in any way be interpreted as criticism of a 'minority' is not acceptable, whatever it is true or not.

umm try again sweetie

Dr. Propaganda artist and eco-fascist more like it. Check out this 5 star review from Amazon!:

"Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In this book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
  
  
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
  
  
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
  
  
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
  
  
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
  
  Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things. [...] "
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Ecoscience-Population-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/0716700298

Essentially that taste, judgement, etc. are conditioned, rather than a marker of whatever you want it to be (cultural sensibilities etc.) and that our buying into them is one of the ways in which the class structure reinforces itself. The article uses the lens of the "hipster", the person desperately striving to be the tastemaker while never being seen to be striving.

It also points to this book, which I'm totally going to read now.

Not sure I agree, but definitely Food for Thought.

Voit ihan sen itse kirjankin lukea:

https://www.amazon.com/Global-Inequality-Richard-Lynn-Vanhanen/dp/1593680244

No. Everyone has a right to voice their opinions, so everyone’s opinion matters, to a degree. That’s why there are debates, a popularity vote, etc. To sway the opinions of everyone, not just the politicians. What annoys me is when celebrities use their platform to abuse this and act like they know a lot on the subject, just because they are popular. I don’t watch entertainers for their political views. I watch entertainers to be entertained. And yes, I know what you’re referring to, but I’m assuming you’re with the crowd thinking it was “racist”, when in fact the same woman who made the comment is just reiterating a schtick she does in reference to her own book Shut Up and Sing.

It really depends on what she is interested in, it is a very broad subject. Here are some of the better things I've read in the past few years, trying to make up for a lack of art education in school:

History of Modern Art

Art in Theory 1900 - 2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas

Color in Contemporary Painting: Integrating Practice and Theory

After Modern Art 1945-2000

Contemporary Art: A Very Short Introduction

Modern Sculpture: A Concise History

Sculpture since 1945

The Painting of Modern Life: Paris in the Art of Manet and his Followers

Aesthetics

The Art of Color: The Subjective Experience and Objective Rationale of Color

Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste

I'm quite into reading politics related books so if you like I can recommend a couple that I'd buy myself :P

This book by Naomi Klein is FANTASTIC

I quite liked the look of this one as well

A really interesting book on Political Theory

If he doesn't like Chomsky, he doesn't like politics!

Can never have too much Chomsky!

Maybe a bit o' Lincoln too?

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Inequality-Richard-Lynn-Vanhanen/dp/1593680244

Personal Bias: Anger at denial of truth.

Verhagen (1956) gave Raven’s Progressive Matrices (a non-verbal, multiple-choice test of abstract reasoning) to 67 adults, and obtained a mean IQ of 64.

Laroche (1959) gave the RPM to 222 children, ages 10–15; mean IQ, 68.

Boivin and Giordani (1993) gave the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (designed to be culturally unbiased) to 47 children, age 8; mean IQ, 62.

Boivin et al. (1995) gave the K-ABC to 95 children, ages 7–12; mean IQ, 68.

Giordani et al. (1996) gave the K-ABC to 130 children, ages 7–9; mean IQ, 65.

Congolese IQ remains the same whether they are under Colonial Rule or not.

As for socioeconomic background, the poorest whites still do better than the richest blacks on the SAT. Yes, tell me all about how a standardized test for all somehow disadvantages all blacks who score low, I dare you to bring that SJW bullshit here.

Also, comparing a toxin to an economic background makes a false equivalency.

Is it really that hard to believe we evolved in different scenarios thus only got what we needed to survive? People in most tropical paradises don't have much of a high IQ because they didn't need to. Climb a tree to get fruit and you'll stay alive, that will be there all year round. People who live in northern euro and cold places needed to find out when winter is coming and going, farming for resources, preservation of resources, harder survival, harsher elements, means of travel, etc.

>It's like a creationist with a high school education thinking she can "debunk" the theory of evolution.

This is a very bad analogy.

Academic feminism is similar to fundamentalist religion and it uses academic and scientific fraud to support its ideology, the people criticizing it are usually the ones that are backed up by the science.

>Do you have any ideas as to how I can quantify the influence of the Wire outside of the United States? Beyond the fact that it is universally acclaimed?

There was a half-hour special HBO released before the premiere of season 5, and it included some background on the show, as well as interviews with the cast and creators. (I think it was either called The Wire Odyssey or The Wire: The Last Word, in case that helps.) I expect this would be available as a DVD and/or Blu-ray extra, too.

Anyway, Robert Wisdom, who played Colvin, mentioned that the show had a really devoted following amongst people in some Caribbean country with its own history of drug trafficking and its attendant violence. (Jamaica, perhaps? I forget.) People had taped the show and shared those tapes over and over, and they personally told Wisdom how important that story was to them. The stories about Baltimore and its civic dysfunction really resonated there, even though so much of the context was specific to the deindustrialization of large American cities.

This might give you an entry point into how The Wire was received elsewhere. Another way might be to see how The Wire has influenced shows that followed. There are some American examples which didn't try to replicate The Wire, but they were clearly inspired by that show's refusal to dumb things down for its audience. For me, it's hard to imagine a show like Breaking Bad without understanding some of the vocabulary of The Wire. And although it's a very different show, you can see the attempt to pay attention to details in something like The Good Wife, for example. It's probably one of the best shows to depict computing and technology accurately, especially in the context of the law, at least until something like Mr. Robot.

There's The Wire's influence on international TV, too. For example, consider something like European series The Last Panthers or, to a lesser extent, the Italian mafia series Gomorrah. (I'm personally less familiar with the latter, in full disclosure.) These are bleak shows with wider scopes than typical law enforcement shows, and it's clear that they owe a debt to the storytelling ambition The Wire demonstrated. The Last Panthers, in particular, is set in at least four different countries, and it shows how war leads to crime, and how criminals are pursued by law enforcement continent-wide.

To the extent your professor is interested in controversy generated by The Wire, I'm not sure how much you'll find in the context of critical disagreement over the show's reputation as a TV series. There's some controversy in Baltimore itself, where elected city leaders in particular complained about how the show's depiction of Baltimore was so negative. You might have more luck if you look into some of the policy ideas advanced by the show or its creators, whether directly of implicitly. In particular, consider [Colvin's attempt to partially legalize the drug trade via Hamsterdam](/spoiler "Season 3"). As I understand it, that season may have inspired some real-life copycats in law enforcement^([citation needed]), though most of the references I'd heard were American rather than international. I know there'd also been complaints that some real-life criminals began emulating techniques shown on The Wire in terms of evading law enforcement: using burner phones, using only pagers and payphones, encoding their communications, etc.

There's also the body of commentary by the show's creators. David Simon, in particular, has been incredibly critical of The War on Drugs. His analysis of that is certainly controversial—e.g., openly advocating jury nullification for drug crimes—though that may fall beyond the scope of the show itself and the show's influence. You can also consider The Wire to provide an important context for some arguments in print and documentary films. I imagine that it's easier to understand the thesis behind something like Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, Baltimore native Ta-Nehisi Coates' "The Case for Reparations", or the documentary The House I Live In, which includes interviews with David Simon. (This is different from How to Make Money Selling Drugs, another 2012 documentary interviewing Simon on the same topic.) It also provides a context for real-world events like the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore and the subsequent riots, as well as the Black Lives Matter movement more generally. BLM is certainly controversial.

I imagine that The Wire may have contributed to the civic conversation which led to the state-level legalization of marijuana in states like Colorado—but it also explains the instability of local legalization efforts when there are still federal anti-marijuana laws, to say nothing of federal anti-money laundering laws which further complicate statewide legalization efforts. (E.g., "legal" marijuana dispensaries in places like Colorado can't use banks because that would be a federal felony under money laundering laws.) A lot of this has only indirect relevance to The Wire itself, but it might give you a starting point.

I wish I had more useful suggestions for the influence the show has had internationally. In any event, good luck on your project!

https://www.amazon.com/Are-Italians-White-Race-America/dp/0415934516/ref=nodl_

All mass media has been biased since it's inception. Partisan bias is one single facet of the biases of mass media and shouldn't be taken as the only one. As per Chomsky:

1. Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation of the Mass Media. Mainstream media is essentially owned by corporations and the government, because those are the very agents who fund them. Any favourable studies, studies or information that the government or corporations want the public to know (or don’t want them to know) either ends up being aired or buried as a result.
   
   
2. Advertising License to do Business. Mass media isn’t interested in attracting viewers to educate them, but rather to sell them on something. They’re more interested in engaging an audience with higher buying power than actually making a difference through education and information.
   
   
3. Sourcing Mass-Media News. Whatever is aired on mass media needs to be 100% credible, meaning it’s viewers need to completely trust what’s being aired, without the need of them using their critical thinking skills. Since the majority of the public trusts the government and mass corporations, AKA the propaganda machines, most of the “news worthy” content comes from them.
   
   
4. Flak and the Enforcers. “Flak” refers to negative responses to a media statement or program aired on the network. Perhaps the most influential producers of flak are corporations and the government. Corporations have created large scale organizations whose sole purpose is to produce flak. The government is also a large producer of flak, as it constantly corrects or threatens the media based on their interests.
   
   
5. Anticommunism as a Control Mechanism. Everything at home seems to be a lesser evil if there’s something on the news that seems much worse (fake terrorist attacks, false enemies, and/or “radical” states). Anything that sounds too left can also be dismissed if it sounds too much like “communism.” By creating an extremely anti-communist state, the elite will never have to worry about losing control over society because their wealth and power remains safe and sound.
   
   A great animated version of this is available here.

wenn du es genau wissen willst empfehle ich diese beiden hier

https://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X

https://www.amazon.com/Global-Inequality-Richard-Lynn-Vanhanen/dp/1593680244

> Either black people are predisposed to committing more violence or their media/culture is disproportionately influencing them. Which is it?

This is clearly a false dichotomy, as the other commenter offered another alternative, namely socioeconomic status.

>Even if what you say is true, then why aren't white kids out committing the same levels of violence as their black counterparts?

This further hurts your narrative -- the whole point being that whites as a race enjoy a higher prestige and socioeconomic status than black people. It's almost as if their higher SES allows them to get away easier with comparable transgressions! For example, consider the number of drug crimes committed amongst races compared to the number of arrests. Check out Part 1 of this source for some thorough breakdowns.

Relevant sections:
>>Although the majority of those who shared, sold,
or transferred serious drugs17 in Seattle are white (indeed seventy percent of the general Seattle population is white), almost two-thirds (64.2%) of drug arrestees are black. The racially disproportionate drug arrests result from the police department’s emphasis on the outdoor drug market in the racially diverse
downtown area of the city, its lack of attention to other outdoor markets that are predominantly white, and its emphasis on crack. Three-quarters of the drug arrests were crack-related even though only an estimated one-third of the city’s drug transactions involved crack. [...]

>>The researchers could not find a “racially neutral” explanation for the police prioritization of the downtown drug markets and crack. The focus on crack offenders, for example, did not appear to be a function of the frequency of crack transactions compared to other drugs, public safety or public health concerns, crime rates, or citizen complaints. [...]

>>The racial dynamics reflected in Seattle’s current drug law enforcement
priorities are long-standing and can be found across the country. Indeed, they
provided the impetus for the “war on drugs” that began in the mid-1980s.



You said:
>Many other races, and ethnicities, and people have faced economic hardship and have lifted themselves out of it.

In the US? No other racial or ethnic minority has experienced consistent, lawful, systematic subjugation to the extent that black people have faced, full stop. You might try to counter this by bringing up Asians, for example. You might offer: Asian people are by many accounts more successful than whites, and the Chinese in places like San Francisco were for a long time used as slave labor! And many Asians were interned during WWII! So clearly it's the blacks' faults that they can't get out of their situation in the same way as Asians!

But this is a false analogy. The examples of internment or physical subjugation of Asians are temporally constrained compared to blacks. Asians have never been a part of the system of chattel slavery followed by legally enforced discrimination in the form of Jim Crow laws.

It is abundantly clear that the continuing issues of black people, poverty, and crime in the US hinges on so much more than just black people "refusing to come to the table" on this, "playing the victim/racism card", or the rest of society "not holding them accountable".

If you'd like some good reading material, there's a book called The New Jim Crow that documents the modern racial caste system implemented by the US' war on drugs and the US prison system.

The term "Gender Studies" is so broad that it is really hard to create a one size fits all rebuttal instead you have to attack individual claims. The subject itself has been criticised heavily from its inception (it was ridiculed by Sociologists during the Second Wave but sadly it infected the subject).

This is a great book criticising the subject itself

This is really great. This is the first time I have heard an analysis of what really is going on.

He only goes so far here. To carry his ideas further, leaving more money in the hands of two-income families where the two incomes are similar, more money for their parenting, is still making the woman work. A woman who has to work is going to have fewer children than one who is home, and she may divorce from sheer exasperation and exhaustion.

But his ideas are right, about the parental wage concept, and about the valuing of parenting specifically and visibly. A very exciting speaker and writer, this guy Lyman Stone.

"Hi. I'm Suzie. I want to bankrupt you by marrying you and having children" is not a nice pick-up line. That's how you get "men going their own way."

Or, "Hi. I'm John. I want to make you work and raise kids too. I'll help when I can, but money will be tight, and you will be tired, and miss the kids all day. Sorry, but that's the best I've got, under the present tax system." Not much better.

I wish Lyman Stone would write a book. I tried to find his name on Amazon but it's not there. He could just self-publish on Amazon, simply bundling the articles he has already written. I also want to hear from his wife. Let her contribute a piece to this book.

This is another book: I haven't read it.

https://www.amazon.com/Empty-Planet-Global-Population-Decline/dp/1984823213/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=empty+planet&qid=1570079917&sr=8-1

I highly recommend you read them at some point - alternate histories have a lot of stigma surrounding them in the field of history. But this is a rare instance where famous academic historians at the top institutions just fucking went for it - they ignored that stigma and wrote essays that are paired with little introductory fiction stories that occur in these universes. You'll love it.


https://www.amazon.com/Collected-Eminent-Historians-Imagine-Might/dp/0399152385

Interestingly enough, there are those who advance the idea that "black culture" is derived from redneck culture.

Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks and White Liberals might interest you.

If anyone's interested in the debate over this, Jennifer Guglielmo's "Are Italians White? How race is Made in America" discusses this question thoroughly. It's a collection of essays that is pretty thought-provoking when one considers the the history of Italian immigration and the different ways in which "whiteness" has been defined.

Here's the Amazon link, if anyone is interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Are-Italians-White-Race-America/dp/0415934516

You would be interested in reading Black rednecks and White liberals by Thomas Sowell.

I'm not going to argue with you, because it's obvious your entire understanding of this is based around wikipedia, and googling "gotcha" responses, when this is a lot more complicated and research has evolved since then.

Subsequent studies have been done that have corrected for the data. I suggest you look into the research by Richard Hornstein and the late JP Rushton, who along with Richard Lynn, has corrected many of the factors and controls that may have led to such issues.

The results aren't much different.. Buy the book (or pirate it if you're really that ideological about this) and get back to me. I look forward to having a meaningful discussion with you once you're educated about the topic.

>I know you want to say that non-white

Funny, wasn't aware that Japan, Singapore, etc. were White nations.

Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole

https://www.amazon.com/dp/162157606X/

a few people requested so here is the amazon link, i saw it in a Barnes and Nobles one day and bought it on impulse it features what if questions all across history from D-day, civil war, Cold war, Conquest of Alexander and several more it's a really good read, i'm a civil war dork so that section was really interesting to me but i've yet to finish it but it's really good
Edit: i forgot to put the link in http://www.amazon.com/Collected-Eminent-Historians-Imagine-Might/dp/0399152385/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1371068935&sr=8-4&keywords=What+if%3F+Robert+Cowley

Great list! Regarding the question of violence, I would add How Nonviolence Protects the State and Pacifism as Pathology because your list seems a slightly one-sided.

Men's Rights FAQ Additions:

0D: Modern feminism: an evaluation

0E: How feminists tried to destroy the family

0F: Feminist Quotes

0G: The Ten Most Common Feminist Myths

0H: Women need to speak out on feminism and the hateful ideology it represents

0I: The Definition of Anti-Feminism

0J: The feminist trojan horse in Family Law, Australia, George Christensen

0K: The Origins of Political Correctness/Feminism

0L: Myths and Facts Concerning Divorced Families and other Feminist Myths

0M: Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies

0N: Feminism labeled a ’society killer’

0O: To the women of NOW – a rant by Steven DeLuca

1F: 12 indisputable indicators that Men are Second Class citizens in the USA

1G: Discrimination Against Men in India

1H: Drawing up a list: Codified legal rights that women have, which men lack.

1I: Feminist Lies Exposed: Facts about equal pay, domestic violence, feminist hoaxes, anti-male bigotry, gender politics, and media bias.

1J: Men will suffer from new laws on sex discrimination, academic warns (UK)

1K: Feminist myths 'are making equality laws unfair to men'

1L: UN Cheats Men With Gender Agenda

1M: VAWA Must Be Rewritten by by Phyllis Schlafly

1N: Feminists tell you that the solution to men's issues is more feminism. In reality, feminists fight against men's issues.

1O: Suzanne Venker- Feminism Doesn’t Liberate Women - Radio Boston

1P: The Flipside of Feminism (book) - Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly

1Q: New study blasts theory that women do more work - Catherine Hakim

1L: Five feminist 'myths' from the gender equality debate -Catherine Hakim

1M: Feminist myths and magic medicine: the flawed thinking behind calls for further equality legislation. - Catherine Hakim

1N: NYT and Time Discover Men and Women Work Equally

2B: Mommy's little secret, Paternity Fraud: roughly 10 percent of babies are not fathered by the man we believe to be dad.

2C: Fatherless Homes Breed Violence - 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)

3B: Why we should protect those accused of rape

4B: Female paedophile stats

4C: UK's Childline receives More Reports of Female Sexual Abusers of Children

4D: Top Ten Myths about Female Sex Offenders

4E: The Rape of Men: male rape is endemic in many of the world's conflicts

4F: Rape Common War Crime Against Men - Discussed on TheYoungTurks

4G: The silent male victims of rape - Al Jazeera English

5C: RADAR Media Fact Sheet: Women are just as likely as men to engage in partner aggression.

5D: Venus: The Dark Side--Female Sociopaths (Part I)

14B: 10 Reasons You Should Rethink Infant Circumcision

14C: The effect of male circumcision on sexuality - DaiSik Kim, Myung-Geol Pang

14D: How Male Circumcision Harms Women - Ronald Goldman, Ph.D.

22: Misandry Ignored

22B: What is Misandry

22C: Carey Roberts on Misandry

22D: Misandric Songs

23: Does Obamacare discriminate against men?

23B: A Gender Gap in Cancer, Prostate, Breast

23C: Pesticides on fruit and vegetables ' are wrecking men's fertility'

23D: A push for a federal focus on men's health

23E: Male Depression: How to Deal with It

23F: Women's brains ARE different from men's, and here's scientific proof

23G: Feminism begs to differ, but unisex brain is a fantasy

23H: Sex Difference On Spatial Skill Test Linked To Brain Structure

24: Equality is Not the same as Symmetry

25: Manginas - Betrayers Of Men

25B: An unhealthy respect for women... Marriage and Eligibity

25C: Forbes: Don't Marry Career Women

26: A List of Major Inventions Created by Men

26B: Men on average, versus women on average

26C: Men Invented Humanity

27: Feminist Code Speak

27B: The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics

27C: Aaron Russo: Feminism was created to destabilize society

27D: The Female Privilege Checklist

27E: Sexual Slavery Of Men

27F: Marc Rudov Busts Undercover Feminist

27G: Unearthing Matriarchy - The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why An Invented Past Will Not Give Women a Future (Beacon Press 2001)

27H: It's Only Sexist When Men Do It -TheAmazingAtheist explains the sexist double standard.

27I: Men's Health Australia Busts Office for Women's 'False and Misleading' DV Statistics

27J: Exclusive:The Feminization of American Education

27K: Hoax: The Continuing Distortions about Intimate Partner Abuse | Christina Hoff Sommers | Return of the Super Bowl Hoax.

27L: Mounting Evidence Supports Reliability and Validity of Parental Alienation

You are an idiot. There are no "low-IQ areas" or-"high-IQ areas" and all of humanity's modern economic, scientific, and cultural achievements are not driven by my people from low birth rate countries. It is correct that most Western, industrialized countries do not have birthrates at or greater than replacement fertility. For better discussion of this I recommend the book Empty Planet. India's fertility rate is above replacement rate and yet immigrants from India seem to do fine Western industrialized countries. Actually, there are too many nutty things in your post for me to address so I'm going to stop here. Go back to your gaming.

The activist paradigm the world over is very much the people described in Bobo's In Paradise. Europeans included.


^(Do you believe that spending $15,000 on a media center is vulgar, but that spending $15,000 on a slate shower stall is a sign that you are at one with the Zenlike rhythms of nature? Do you work for one of those visionary software companies where people come to work wearing hiking boots and glacier glasses, as if a wall of ice were about to come sliding through the parking lot? If so, you might be a Bobo.
In his bestselling work of "comic sociology," David Brooks coins a new word, Bobo, to describe today's upper class -- those who have wed the bourgeois world of capitalist enterprise to the hippie values of the bohemian counterculture. Their hybrid lifestyle is the atmosphere we breathe, and in this witty and serious look at the cultural consequences of the information age, Brooks has defined a new generation.)

I don't think that we're overpopulated at all. And human population has already entered the beginning stages of global decline. John Ibbitson wrote a good book on it called Empty Planet. I find it a convincing argument as to why the major issue now is population stagnation and decline.

How so? Italians and Irish were, at one point in time, not considered white and so discrimination against them would, indeed, be racism, at least back in those days. What I'm saying is that deporting everyone except for one race will just lead to the creation of new races to discriminate against because, at its heart, racism is the desire to assert one's superiority based on inherent, inborn qualities -- if this desire is thwarted, people will simply find new outlets.

I thought that was coined by David Brooks?

The way he uses it, it doesn't mean hipsters in the sense of urban youth, but of old-style hippies who grew up and became successful but held onto many of their hippie values. Hence bourgeois.

The hipsters I know aren't really capitalists.

>'Racism' in the public consciousness ...

Jim Crow racism. People are now colorblind racists.

sources: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1501260235
https://www.amazon.com/Racism-without-Racists-Color-Blind-Persistence/dp/1442202181

Okay, how about https://psmag.com/social-justice/commercializing-counterculture-summer-music-festival-went-mainstream-86334

and the book Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There

Do they have to be sources from social science journals?

http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/31448/1/1-s2.0-S0160738316301761-main.pdf

You might want to read this.

For a different take on the subject, check out The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison.

http://www.amazon.com/Ecoscience-Population-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/0716700298

Just recently bought three alternate history books that have some what if's


Election of Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, how Germany might have won the war in 1915, etc.


Some of the stories do overlap if you take a look at the books but I will come back with my impressions of the WW1 chapters (Would take a very long time for me to read all three books)


The books are


http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-Military-Historians/dp/0425176428

http://www.amazon.com/What-If-II-Robert-Cowley/dp/042518613X

http://www.amazon.com/Collected-Eminent-Historians-Imagine-Might/dp/0399152385

The BLM movement has a point and there is still systemic oppression toward blacks, especially in the criminal justice system. Also, America still has a tremendous class problem, black or not: https://www.amazon.com/Rich-Get-Richer-Poor-Prison/dp/0205137725

Also, race realists are an unfortunate thing, and they often promote the idea of an ethnostate America where all non-whites are forcibly removed.

It's important that people don't self-victimize, right, but saying that everything is hunky-dory okay is a huge leap of faith. The guy you're arguing with is arguing in bad faith, and I don't think I'd call you racist, but there's still problems out there for marginalized classes and blacks remain one.

Edit: here's a video on wealth distribution in America https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Ann Coulter: How the Establishment Will Try to Destroy Trump - Dec 8, 2016 - Source: breitbart.com

Shortly before Thanksgiving, New York Times columnist Frank Bruni wrote a column that should chill you to the bone.

Titled “Donald Trump’s Demand for Love,” Bruni said: “I had just shaken the president-elect’s normal-size hand and he was moving on to the next person when he wheeled around, took a half step back, touched my arm and looked me in the eye anew. ‘I’m going to get you to write some good stuff about me,’ Donald Trump said.”

Bruni is a fabulous writer, but if he ever writes good stuff about you, Mr. President-elect, YOU WILL HAVE FAILED.

I assume this was just our president-elect doing something he gets the least credit for, which is being nice.

But you can never be too careful.

The Times is in total opposition to Trump’s stated goal to make America great again.

Trump has got to know — not next year, but by 5 p.m. today — that anyone pursuing his agenda will incite rage, insanity and spitting blood from that newspaper.

There’s a long and tragic history of Republicans who won the war but lost the peace by trading results for respectability.

The first President Bush not only promised not to raise taxes, but also laid out the steps Democrats would take to get him to break that promise.

“And the Congress will push me to raise taxes,” he said in his iconic 1988 convention speech, “and I’ll say no, and they’ll push, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again, and I’ll say to them, ‘Read my lips: No new taxes.’”

He was a good prognosticator!

Congress did exactly as he’d anticipated.

But instead of saying “no,” Bush caved.

That betrayal cost the GOP its most popular issue.

As the Times’ Michael Wines put it (shortly before Bush predictably lost his re-election bid), with the president’s sellout, Republicans gave up “a political weapon so fearsome that it had destroyed three Democratic presidential candidates in 12 years.”

The Times had spent months hectoring Bush about the “yawning deficit,” denouncing his “obdurate refusal” to raise taxes, and promising “political popularity” for the “needed” tax hike.

But the moment Bush raised taxes, the Times couldn’t stop crowing about his broken promise.

That was always the whole point.

Not the “yawning deficit.”

Not raising revenue.

But to get the GOP to give up its most potent issue.

Trump has just annihilated 16 far more experienced Republican rivals, the Clinton machine and the entire media/Hollywood/Wall Street complex by raising the one issue no other politician would touch: putting America’s interests first on immigration. [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/162157606X]

What promise do you think they want Trump to break?

Luckily for the country, Trump doesn’t seem obsessed with what the elites think of him. [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0735214468]

But his advisers include just the type of Republicans whose second-tier law schools make them particularly susceptible to the cheap respectability of establishment media approval.

Trump has been a politician for only a little more than one year.

He has no experience with the tricks that will be played to get him to betray voters on his signature issue.

The first president Bush knew what was coming — and he still broke his promise.

Manifestly, if anyone in Washington seriously wanted to build a wall, deport illegals, return criminal aliens to their own countries, end the anchor baby scam and prevent jihadists from immigrating here to kill Americans, it would have been done already.

Nearly every promise Trump made on immigration is 100 percent within the power of the president.

For example:

It is already the president’s job, as commander in chief, to protect the borders.

It is already the Department of Defense’s job to build border walls.

It’s already the law that citizenship is not acquired by being born on U.S. soil to an illegal alien. (No Congress has ever passed such a law, nor has the Supreme Court ruled that they are: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/162157606X)

It is already the secretary of state’s duty to rescind visas from countries that refuse to take their criminals back.

It is already the president’s job to prohibit the entry of any class of immigrants he deems “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

It is already the president’s job to remove immigrants who commit crimes, entered our country through fraud (i.e., every single refugee), are in the country illegally or who become public charges.

None of those things have ever been done before for one reason: The entire Washington establishment is unalterably opposed to enforcing our immigration laws.

Trump will have no trouble enacting the rest of his agenda.

If congressional Republicans are good for anything, it is to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes and regulation, confirm good judges and protect the Second Amendment.

No one but Trump would have done it, but not even Nancy Pelosi is going to attack Trump for keeping jobs in America.

Only when it comes to immigration will Trump be Gary Cooper, out there alone against every powerful entity in America.

Just as he was during the campaign.

On immigration, Trump will be furiously opposed by: Democrats, Republicans, the permanent bureaucracy, the Chamber of Commerce, George Soros, The Wall Street Journal — in fact, the entire media, except four webpages, six bloggers and five talk-radio hosts — and hundreds of taxpayer-funded immigrant grievance groups. And that’s just off the top of my head.

He’ll even be opposed by his own hand-picked U.N. ambassador! (It is an amazing fact that at the 2016 State of the Union, both the Democratic president’s address, and the Republican governor’s response, attacked candidate Trump’s immigration proposals.)

There’s a reason millions of Americans were showing up at Trump’s rallies chanting, “Build the Wall!” and not, “End Obamacare!” “Cut taxes!” “Save the Second Amendment!” — or any other slogan that could have been chanted just as easily at a Jeb! Rally.

There are only a handful of people in the entire country with the knowledge and ability to enforce our immigration laws.

Any Cabinet appointees likely to impress The New York Times aren’t going to get it done.

They won’t have to expressly defy Trump.

They just won’t do it.

Perhaps they’ll make some showy effort at deporting illegals — and then back down at the first La Raza lawsuit.

Or they will allow career government lawyers to submit briefs in court that cite all the wrong cases.

Or they’ll wait for Speaker Paul Ryan’s approval to do anything.

Or they’ll be moved by a Nikki Haley speech about the vibrant diversity of Somali refugees.

Or they’ll be scared off by Washington bureaucrats who say, You can’t do that!

But if Trump chooses from among the few people who know how to get it done (Kris Kobach, Kris Kobach or Kris Kobach), his promises will be kept.

He can relax.

He can spend all his time playing golf, living in Trump Tower, yelling at American CEOs trying to outsource jobs — and engaging in appalling conflicts of interest with his businesses.

He could even shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. (I propose GOP consultant Rick Wilson!)

Trump is down to his last wish from Aladdin.

He can impress The New York Times, or he can make America great again.

But he can’t do both.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/ann-coulter-how-the-establishment-will-try-to-destroy-trump/

Link for the lazy - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1847678661/

Here are two videos on this theme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H0guC-2q4U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssYBZmK9hmA

Also here is "Pacifism as a Pathology" from Ward Churchill

https://www.amazon.com/Pacifism-Pathology-Reflections-Struggle-America/dp/1904859186

Aw. I have a book of this kind of thing that's super interesting. There's a good deal of WW2 era stuff in there, but most of it is about the events of the war going differently (what if Normandy failed? what if they never cracked the Enigma machine?) Or looking at the 1930s if WW1 had ended differently.

http://www.amazon.com/Ecoscience-Population-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/0716700298

Get help

> And by the way, talking about their IQ is just proving a point about yourself.

That is? fact is the average intelligence is much less in the countries most of them originate from... They're in line or lower than most of our lower-class, and they're usually not a benefit to our country either.

We have a huge Moroccan population that has a genetic disadvantage, due to inbreeding mostly... They're close to what we call mentally challenged, but because there are so many of them we treat them like they're like the average person.

Just google a bit or read this

> They DON'T want to be treated like children,

Not saying they do, but they are like children... Like you said you need to demand a lot from them, but that's not in line with their expectations or will. And because they're not children this might prove hard to implement.

The issues are more complex than this one thing.

I was reading a great book on demographics called Empty Planet which suggests that developed nations like Canada do not have a birth rate to required to replace those who die. Our national rate is 1.5 births / woman, and 2.1 is needed to keep the population we have. In fact,

>1971 was the last year our birth rate matched where it needed to be to renew the population without immigration. source

Because of our ageing population, most women are past prime childbearing years, and if you look at the population pyramid on this site it looks like more than 1/2 our population is over 40 years old.

From this source it looks like only NL has a lower fertility rate than QUE.

In general, entry level jobs need younger people, and with immigration and the children they bring, there will be many entry level jobs with few workers to fill them, and few top end jobs, with a surplus of people over 40 looking for them.

Here are some links for the product in the above comment for different countries:

Amazon Smile Link: http://smile.amazon.com/Pacifism-Pathology-Reflections-Struggle-America/dp/1904859186/ref=sr_1_1


|Country|Link|
|:-----------|:------------|
|UK|amazon.co.uk|
|Spain|amazon.es|
|France|amazon.fr|
|Germany|amazon.de|
|Japan|amazon.co.jp|
|Canada|amazon.ca|
|Italy|amazon.it|
|China|amazon.cn|




To help donate money to charity, please have a look at this thread.

This bot is currently in testing so let me know what you think by voting (or commenting). The thread for feature requests can be found here.

Not victims, but products. We all are, of our own social situations. If it were so easy to just wake up one day and step outside of our own habitus (see also Pierre Bourdieu's Distinction), why are so many people "choosing" to live in poverty? You're saying that people just need to stop being stupid and then everything will be fine, as if there weren't problems inherent to our economic and political systems (as they are set up by our governments) that provide worse outcomes for certain types of people and lavish benefits to others. Not by accident, but by design. You are attempting to ascribe your value system on an entire group of people you don't really understand and with whom you do not empathize. You are assuming that there is a single rational response to poverty when, in fact, it is an incredibly complex issue that has more to do with social structure and power relations than personal choice or "bootstrapping."

Social science has actually done quite a lot of research on poverty, and it turns out that getting out of it is pretty freaking difficult, especially if that's where you started.

> Most of us are fairly engaged here, so we understand the material a bit more than a layperson would, but certainly not more than an academic (except for the FRD members who are academics in the social sciences).

I'd differentiate further based on whether or not the branch of academia in question explicitly includes advocacy for social change amongst its self-description.

(i.e. there are certain parts of academia that I find rather unreliable).

I've been saying this for years. I used to be massively into personal development. Anthony Robbins, Zig Ziglar, Brian Tracy, etc. It's like a cult. After 4 years of "faking it" (til you make it) I realised it doesn't work and I was beyond miserable.

I found a good book about this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Antidote-Happiness-People-Positive-Thinking/dp/1847678661

>I am so fucking hungover dude and now I gotta read your wall of text bullshit at fucking 2 in the morning. Whiny cunt.

Nice start, 15 lines ain't a wall, only for you hominoidea.

>Ok, assuming your assertion is accurate and backed up (Race Realism tires me greatly),why does that literally matter for anything? At all?

It matters about virtually everything, as for wealth/education levels to criminality/birth out of wedlock, intelligence is a great predictor, which seems you don't have much. For pisa and timss for example the correlation is around 0.8.

>STUDIES SAY SO BUT I AIN'T GONNA LINK SHIT.

Since you can't search for shit, here goes:

Heritability IQ

Heritability IQ Wiki

Bell Curve

IQ and Global Inequality

A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement

More about Jews

Blacks commit more violent crimes and poverty isn't correlated:

Truth about crime

A little bit of Harris

>'THESE ANIMALS ARE GONNA BREED AND WE GOTTA LEAVE THEM IN FILTH' That is what you said, dude. In fact, I would respect you more if you just came out and said it, or retracted your prior statement, not become a whiny cunt when someone treats you at the same level as your (repugnant) statements.

First world people aren't responsible for the chaos and irresponsibility by african adults. Africa had 200 million people at the start of 1900, now it's 1.216 billion and it's still sky rocketing. They need to become self-sustainable without european aid.

>That statement pisses me off, I've seen it kicked around ad nauseum, as if when people say that 'all men are born equal', they're like 'WELL ASCHTUALLY, WE ARE BIOLOGICALLY DIFFERENTTT'. No fuckwad, that's not what such a sentiment means. It means that, regardless, everybody should be treated with a baseline of respect and dignity. No more, no less.

Never said people needed to lose their natural rights, aid isn't a natural right.

>GUESS FUCKING WHY? IT AIN'T BECAUSE THEY'RE 'THE SUPERIOR INTELLECTUAL RACE', IT'S BECAUSE THOSE ARE FIRST WORLD CIVILIZATIONS WHO DON'T SHIT IN A TROUGH. That is why people get frustrated with you as an individual, because you're dense. Abjectly dense.

You need a smart population to maintain good institutions and have professions, which requires higher cognitive abilities.

>Refer to the above. But regardless, keeping them in poor conditions won't stop any suffering. I abjectly fail to see your amazing solution to this issue. 'IF WE KEEP THEM IN POVERTY, THEY'LL JUST DIE OUT OR SOMETHING'. Nope, they'll just continued to be impoverished and continue to have more dying kids. Good job.

Lack in food supply would force african parents to considerate their number of children and their capability to feed them, like any adult needs. Also, there is no duty to send aid and most of the aid is stolen by the african elite.

>Stop spreading bullshit. Abject bullshit.

The demographics of Africa only exploded because of european technology and aid, if that stabilises is another story, regardles, there is no duty to give aid.

>GUESS FUCKING WHY? IT AIN'T BECAUSE THEY'RE 'THE SUPERIOR INTELLECTUAL RACE', IT'S BECAUSE THOSE ARE FIRST WORLD CIVILIZATIONS WHO DON'T SHIT IN A TROUGH. That is why people get frustrated with you as an individual, because you're dense. Abjectly dense.

They have higher intelligence and intelligent people tend to have less children and invest more on them.

>I dislike your assertion that, because I share an ideology, we are somehow comparable. Or I should have 'x, y and z' beliefs. Eat a dick.

Because antinatalists rely on human nature and evolution to support their claims, but there will be always people like you in any political spectrum.


Cheers.








>

You're right: it's a little bit hard to know without looking at the original study or at least an accurate summary thereof. I am assuming that these studies are not in laboratory conditions and are rather interpretations of real-world data. When I said "cannot," I assumed (wrongly?) that you cannot cause crime in order to study crime-fighting techniques.

BTW, this book is the best thing I've read on the subject.

Then you have a weird fetish for everything Trump - repeat a lie long enough its the Truth, all publicity is good publicity ! https://www.amazon.co.uk/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0099533111

We still have segregation. It's never gone away. I live in Milwaukee, which is one of the most segregated cities in America. Racism and discrimination is still a huge problem in the states.

This is a great book to read in order to have a better understanding of what's going on in America for minorities

Ditch the "staying positive" mentality. Nobody feels positive all the time, and if they did it would be quite unnatural and pretty exhausting. We've evolved to experience negative emotions because they're useful (in appropriate situations).

Also ditch the mentality that happy life = problem-free life. Problems are intrinsic to life, there's no getting rid of them, the second you overcome one problem, a new one appears, that's just how life works. And not having any problems at all would actually get pretty boring after a while.

I recommend these two books: Mark Manson's "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck" and Oliver Burkeman's "The Antidote". They sound controversial from the first glance (well, they are), but they will honestly change the way you see life, make you adopt a completely different perspective.

That's a bit negative, isn't it? /s

Read Burkeman's The Antidote. Maybe it will help you see negativity in a better light.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Antidote-Happiness-People-Positive-Thinking/dp/1847678661

Hmm... I must say I take exactly the opposite stance on Noam and Free speech that you do – he always strikes me as a leader and champion in such things.

Among many many other things he actually ended up putting his carrier (and possibly life) at risk defending free speech in the Faurisson affair.

One of Noam's most famous quotes is "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." (from his book Manufacturing Consent which deals with EXACTLY what gamer gate is dealing with: calling out a corrupt political elite controlling the narratives that come out of the mass media as to manipulate the populous into otherwise unpopular views.)

But I do like to understand where people are coming from as I might learn something. Could you let me know how you reached that Stance on Noam? ...because I am pretty surprised and confused by it.

...Talking points? I'm a sociologist who works on economics, politics & crime and has worked in several police & prison orgs.

I'd be glad to cite every claim I made--though I can't imagine how explaining the is/ought distinction is a 'talking point.'

Crack is not more addictive than free based or injected cocaine, this is a physiological fact. It is only more addictive than snorted cocaine. And, it is not 18-100X more addictive than snorted cocaine, so that isn't even a justification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elements_of_the_Philosophy_of_Right

http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~hlevine/Secret_of_World_Wide_Drug_Prohibition__HG_Levine

https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/ssrn-id1118460.pdf

http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~ec970ajf/Class_19/economics_drug_war%20copy.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Pursuit-Oblivion-Global-History-Narcotics/dp/0393325458

https://www.amazon.com/Creating-American-Junkie-Addiction-Research/dp/0801867983

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/harvard-economist-jeffrey-miron-on-why-drugs-should-be-legalized-a-886289.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/?utm_term=.765f9157fdf3

http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-theft-protect/

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=35

http://www.countthecosts.org/sites/default/files/Crime-briefing.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w6950

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/08/racial_disparities_in_the_criminal_justice_system_eight_charts_illustrating.html

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/141027_iachr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Color-Justice-Ethnicity-Wadsworth-Contemporary/dp/1111346925

http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Color-of-Justice-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparity-in-State-Prisons.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20452518.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/who-are-biggest-killers-america-numbers-will-shock-you

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16702

http://hlrecord.org/2015/03/20-things-you-should-know-about-corporate-crime/

https://www.attn.com/stories/2643/crack-vs-cocaine

https://openborders.info/double-world-gdp/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/21784-prescription-drugs-kill-more-than-illegal-drugs-teens-at-high-risk

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/29/george-will/claims-smoking-kills-more-people-annually-other-da/


edit:

more sources

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2015.303032

http://news.stanford.edu/2016/06/28/stanford-researchers-develop-new-statistical-test-shows-racial-profiling-police-traffic-stops/

http://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/how-much-crime-fighting-do-%E2%80%98crime-fighters%E2%80%99-really-do

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1458086.files/Western.pdf

http://64.6.252.14/class/540/2013/science-cullen.pdf

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm

https://www.amazon.com/Rich-Get-Richer-Poor-Prison/dp/0205137725

http://www.infoshop.org/pdfs/Our-Enemies-in-Blue.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Lockdown-America-Police-Prisons-Crisis/dp/1844672492

Good point.

The Collected What If? Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been https://www.amazon.com/dp/0399152385/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_a0c5BbQAK65MJ

>citation

In Empty Planet, John Ibbitson and Darrell Bricker find that a smaller global population will bring with it many benefits: fewer workers will command higher wages; the environment will improve; the risk of famine will wane; and falling birthrates in the developing world will bring greater affluence and autonomy for women.

But enormous disruption lies ahead, too. We can already see the effects in Europe and parts of Asia, as aging populations and worker shortages weaken the economy and impose crippling demands on healthcare and social security. The United States and Canada are well-positioned to successfully navigate these coming demographic shifts--that is, unless growing isolationism leads us to close ourselves off just as openness becomes more critical to our survival than ever.

David Kennedy has some really interesting stuff:

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Shoot-Fellowship-Violence-Inner-City/dp/1608194140
http://www.c-span.org/video/?303600-1/book-discussion-dont-shoot

What do you think about the Collected What If? It's presented as a collection of essays, rather than a novel.

Thank you for posting this. This is a great insight to the injustices that the incarcerated population and their families see every day. I have personally had to use the companies they mentioned in the video for commissary while I was incarcerated and the prices for everything are inflated. A good book on this if you want to read on more of this type of subject is The Rich Get Richer And The Poor Get Prison. I read it while I was locked up and it really opened my eyes. http://www.amazon.com/Rich-Richer-Poor-Prison-Edition/dp/0205137725

no, white is a color, and that's how i used it. live with it. and i guess you have some reading to do, it seems like a localized "problem" of the USA: https://www.amazon.de/Are-Italians-White-Race-America/dp/0415934516

Cool, that is what I wanted. Read this https://www.amazon.com/Adios-America-Lefts-Country-Hellhole/dp/162157606X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499674388&sr=8-1&keywords=ann+coulter

For one, there's a group that calls themselves The Honey Badgers. They are avid supporters of men's rights. A Voice For Men has several women that are regular contributors on their website. In fact, DV shelter icon Erin Pizzey is one of the co-founders of AVFM.

Dr. Helen Smith wrote a best-selling book about male issues.

I can do this all day....

You're misunderstanding me. I'm explicitly saying Ingraham has the right to say and do as she likes. I'm only saying she has to face the resulting consequences, just like everybody else. In other words, just like everybody else... she has to pick her battles. Making fun of Hogg's college admissions was not the battle to pick.

I'm sorry you think I'm some kind of monster for advocating "censorship," but you're pointing your outrage at the wrong party. It's up to the advertisers as to whether or not they want to pull their money. And they're only going to make that choice when they have a legitimate scandal on their hands.

That's why they're reacting this way - Ingraham legitimately crossed the line this time. She's a professional provacateur who makes her living telling other people to shut up (is that not itself a form of censorship that you so clearly despise?), and made the mistake of targeting a high school student for the high crime of being sad about not getting into his first choice of college. And not just any high school student, but one who narrowly survived being murdered and is doing what he thinks is right to make sure no one ever has to go through what he and his friends had to go through.

Bashing her or memeing her as you describe it is a waste of time, because she doesn't care. She thrives off of that kind of attention, in fact. But her sponsors don't. And that's a reality she will have to live with so long as she wants to continue having sponsors.

But if she wants to tell them all to fuck off and make her own network where she gets to make fun of high school kids' grades as much as she wants..... well, I don't think it's a good idea, but I support her right to do it.

Just remembered your post on Friday but didn’t have time to respond. Check out thisbook or better, audiobook .

Also have a read/audiobook of this and find out what works for you.

Audible usually have a trial period, should be easy to set up.

It’s not a good place where you are and may take time to get out but worth the effort.

Mind needs a reset. Good luck.

LOL -- funny cuz for many many years Italians (and Irish) were not considered "White" in the US. http://www.amazon.com/Are-Italians-White-Race-America/dp/0415934516

I don't think Pirsig's quality is tangible -- its a relation between what is generally considered a subject (e.g. a mechanic) and an object (e.g. a bicycle.)

The issue of distinguishing good and bad quality is interesting to read alongside critiques of the taste. We often think of "good taste" but people like Bourdieu have gone along way to dispelling any objective basis for it.

I mean there's obviously stuff like this. You can probably make something like this for any famous person because it's inevitable that they're going to say stupid things. Looking at her twitter it's a lot less cringey than I remember it was during the campaign. It looks like she's upset about Trump not following through with his campaign promises.

I haven't read her [book] (https://www.amazon.com/Adios-America-Lefts-Country-Hellhole/dp/162157606X) and I don't plan to because it's ridiculous and certainly doesn't help my opinion of her.

It's hard to really pinpoint one thing that made me form that opinion of her but it's more of a built up thing especially since I've never heard her say something that I agree with or that would sway my opinion the other way.

Side note: it's not really relevant but seeing her at the roast of rob lowe was just embarrassing for her and really hard to watch.

There is actually evidence proving the opposite. The best book on the subject by far is The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0205137725/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_iYdWzbF2006CY

It's not a conspiracy the Science Czar John P Holdren wrote a book in 1977 about spraying the air with chemicals and blocking out the sun called Ecoscience. They call it Geo-engineering. It's no conspiracy. Here's the whole book for you to read. Click the PDF link on the left hand side and you can d/l the whole book. You think it's just a coincidence he is the science czar? He talks about forced abortions and spraying the air and the drinking water with chemicals to sterilize people. It's no joke and no crazy conspiracy. He wrote this shit and published it. Here's the book for sale on amazon.com if you think I'm making this up.

We're going a bit off topic, but a strong theory is that the world will have a population decline or stagnation. Hopefully at that point we can live better, and maintain cultural ties to eating meat.

In a book called "black rednecks and white liberals"

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594030863

They talk about middleman minorities. Jews are the middleman minority in the US, which is why they go through envy and racism etc.

If you notice though, it's only a few people on Reddit that actually talk about "the jews". Then again, you also have a few people who think the Chinese government purposely put lead in the paint, and that minorities just don't know what hard work is.

There are actually several instances of similar claims, and the document in question is a published textbook:

http://www.amazon.com/Ecoscience-Population-Environment-Paul-Ehrlich/dp/0716700298

I'm not going to shell out 400 dollars for a copy, but you can feel free to.

They already have.

His new book with Joe Sacco, Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt is absolutely amazing, and even more revelant to this discussion.

It can be used as a good strategy, the worst rarely happens and you've already mentally prepared yourself for it. It's used in some stoic thinking. Try reading this if you want to accept it : http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Antidote-Happiness-Positive-Thinking/dp/1847678661

I haven't read this book yet, but it's possibly what you're interested in? The summary mentions things about men not really wanting to be husbands and fathers anymore, and how there's apparently a lack of incentive for men to do that now. I really have no idea what the argument it makes is, but I do plan to take a look later.

"Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters" by Helen Smith

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OFK22Y8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Here is the mobile version of your link

This is exciting. I'm glad to hear Oakland is finally implementing Operation Ceasefire, having recently read David Kennedy's book Don't Shoot. I hope it can work. Nabbing these 8 will hopefully have a ripple effect.

I HIGHLY recommend reading his book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1608194140#

This is kind of complex. There is probably some merit in saying that classical musicians put more thought into the craft personally, but this doesn't really explain it properly.

The basic premise is that your aesthetic tastes are largely a result of how you are raised. Higher class people were raised with things like classical music, ballroom dancing, art. Lower class people were raised on the popular music of the time (basically be definition-- popular music what's preferred by the populous). Because of this, people who liked classical music were probably higher class than people who liked pop music. Since we all want to be seen as being higher in the social pecking order, we (mostly) all say classical music is better even if we personally can't tell the difference in quality.

Further reading in case you really want to see more: http://www.amazon.com/Distinction-Social-Critique-Judgement-Taste/dp/0674212770

Read Black Rednecks and White Liberals and then tell me if you still believe that.

https://www.amazon.com/Are-Italians-White-Race-America/dp/0415934516/ref=sr_1_1?crid=29MGZTC5AZ8MM&keywords=are+italians+white&qid=1564423391&s=gateway&sprefix=are+italian%2Caps%2C162&sr=8-1

The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole

https://www.amazon.com/Adios-America-Lefts-Country-Hellhole/dp/162157606X

Did you know 50% of marriages end in divorce... Oh wait!

Much like this bullshit statistics "grit" is bullshit. Grit is not a new idea nor is it profound. Let's not mention that her statement really downplays the impact of socio-economic status. Lastly we should remember that "The Rich Gets Richer and the Poor Gets Prison"

I did, and there are studies to prove it. Take the book IQ and Global Inequality. Their study noticed a clear difference in adopted kids. Kids from African countries who got adopted by white American families had an IQ similar to that of the average in their country of origin. On the other hand, Korean kids (Mongoloids) score higher. A clear signal that the differences have a genetic basis.

I did not know about this German study and I'm not 100% sure a difference does indeed exist, but it's not outlandish to think so. I do, at the very least, consider it.

https://www.amazon.com/Shut-Up-Sing-Hollywood-Subverting/dp/0895260816

>I just want to point out that the OP here is being hypocritical here.

You say this a lot, but it hasn't actually been true so far.

>She claiming to be a skeptic

I am male.

>but has been citing feminist advocacy research and dogma that's been produced in Women's Studies, which is of a more quasi-religion than it is academia,

Peer-reviewed quasi-religion, roger roger. But Men's Studies is totally legit, right?

>while cherry picking from /r/mensrights in order to attempt to discredit the mens movement.

'Cherry picking' from the most upvoted topics on the front-page of the sub-reddit. It's not like it's any better right now either--pick a time and I'll highlight the numerous problems with intellectual honesty on /r/MensRights issues of the day.

>Here is a good source on the dogma and routine academic fraud and indoctrination that takes place in feminist academic. http://www.amazon.com/Professing-Feminism-Education-Indoctrination-Studies/dp/0739104551

Pop-books don't belong in a skeptical debate, generally, but this one has generated some academic discussion (e.g. here). This type of work to hold a movement to task is very important, and many fields in the social-sciences sphere have proponents that commit similar 'offenses' with matching similar efforts to keep the community in line. You're free to think that feminism as a whole is made up of people that are just dogmatic, but that isn't what this book claims, and that isn't consistent with the reality either. Feminism is a diverse field of academic discourse, there's no conspiracy here.

>And here is a good source on data that is commonly used in the mens movement /r/mensrightslinks

There's nothing wrong with more data, but be careful about drawing conclusions when your sources are all filtered through one point. There's a reason that /r/mensrightslinks is so slow moving, and it isn't because supporters are slow to identify research that is consistent with their view.

>and here is a related academic journal http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/nms/issue/view/7

This is a new journal that has yet to establish any reputation one way or the other, but their editorial team suggests that this publication could be a key contributor to this debate in the coming years. Open journals like this often have more issues fending off poorly-thought-out research (as a consequence of their desire to publish more ideas and let the community hash out their rigeur), and so far they don't seem to offer any quantitative research, but the qualitative studies that I reviewed briefly appear to be of generally high quality.

Hmm...

>Didn't he say people coming on the border are "bringing crime, THEY'RE RAPISTS - and some I assume are good people"?

from your Cato link:

"Whether illegal immigrants bring a significant amount of crime to the United States is one of the most important questions to answer in the debate over immigration policy.  President Trump also seems to think so as he launched his campaign in 2015 with the now infamous quote: “[Mexican illegal immigrants] are bringing drugs.  They’re bringing crime.  They’re rapists.  And some, I assume, are good people.”  From executive orders to major talking points to the President’s speeches, which Vox reporter Dara Lind has aptly described as “immigrants are coming over the border to kill you,” Trump is interested in this important topic. "

​

​

ILLEGAL.

Dont leave out the adjective that makes the statement NOT racist.

​

>Which, besides being false (immigrants, including illegals, commit crimes at a lower rate than american born citizens (a sum article: https://www.cato.org/blog/illegal-immigrants-crime-assessing-evidence), is a pretty racist thing to say

​

​

Why is it racist? He said Illegal ones not all Mexicans.

He got that from a HuffPo article.

From your Cato link:

>" In 2010, 10.7 percent of native-born men aged 18-39 without a high school degree were incarcerated compared to 2.8 percent of Mexican immigrants and 1.7 percent of Guatemalan and Salvadoran immigrants. "

​

Why are we comparing native men WITHOUT high school degree?

>" Measuring illegal immigrant crime rates is challenging for several reasons.  First, the American Community Survey does not ask which inmates in adult correctional facilities are illegal immigrants.  Second, federal data on the number of illegal immigrants incarcerated on the state and local level is recorded through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which is a combination of stocks and flows that is incomparable to any other measure of inmates.  Third, 49 states do not record the immigration statuses of those in prison or convicted.  Until recently, these data limitations allowed pundits to say anythingabout illegal immigrant crime without fear of being fact-checked"

​

So we dont know what illegals do, do we?

​

>"The ACS counts the incarcerated population by their nativity and naturalization status, but local and state governments rarely record whether prisoners are illegal immigrants.10 As a result, we have to use common statistical methods to identify incarcerated illegal immigrant prisoners by excluding prisoners with characteristics that illegal immigrants are unlikely to have. In other words, we can identify likely illegal immigrants by looking at prisoners with individual characteristics highly correlated with being an illegal immigrant. Following guidance set by other researchers, those characteristics are: the immigrant must have entered the country after 1982 (the cutoff date for the 1986 Reagan amnesty); cannot have been in the military; cannot be receiving Social Security or Railroad Retirement Income; cannot have been covered by Veteran Affairs or Indian Health Services; is not a citizen of the United States; was not living in a household where someone received food stamps (unless the immigrant’s child, who may be eligible for food stamps if a U.S. citizen, is living with the immigrant); is not from the Democratic Republic of the Congo or Syria; was age 59 years or younger on arrival; and is not of Puerto Rican or Cuban origin if classified as Hispanic."

​

IE Cato is guessing.