It is interesting, it seems like the default position is "Every complaint is legitimate". There are no specifics given so we're left to speculate and land wherever our own bias tends to lean.
Not having health insurance is different from not being able to access healthcare. Everyone in the US is entitled to healthcare regardless of their ability to pay. I don't really know if that's the best policy or not, but it simply isn't true that people don't have access to healthcare.
>"I can win if I just work harder/emulate those more successful than I -- ultimately I'm in control and nothing else matters"
While obviously there are things outside individual's control, is this really a harmful outlook? I'd certainly rather look at my life as if I had agency vs thinking I had none, or it was incredibly limited.
I did take calculus in high school, but I barely remember it. So I don't understand your notation, if you could explain in a bit more layman terms it would be great. As I understand it, the chance for birth defects goes from around 1% to 3-4%, about the same as a woman in her late 30s/early 40s having a child. I'm not sure if this would compound over generations though, it seems like it would.
I don't really think that my comment was "racist". Just talking about how culture affects genes and vice versa. Was it not bad that the old European nobles were inbred as well?
>I did take calculus in high school, but I barely remember it
Probability calculus, not calculus in the sense of integration and differentiation.
>So I don't understand your notation
P(x) is the background probability of x. P(x|y) is the probability of x given y.
>I'm not sure if this would compound over generations
It's already had plenty of time to compound over generations, to whatever extent it does.
>the chance for birth defects goes from around 1% to 3-4%, about the same as a woman in her late 30s/early 40s having a child.
Indeed, which shows how silly your theory is. I mean, are you really suggesting that a slightly higher incidence of e.g. cystic fibrosis in Pakistani communities somehow makes it more difficult for them to integrate? That's such utter nonsense that you shouldn't be surprised if people infer some kind of malicious intent behind your comment.
>It's already had plenty of time to compound over generations, to whatever extent it does.
I'm not sure what you mean, most westerners don't make a habit of marrying their cousins.
Because of this compounding it means that the risks would be much higher than 3-4%, which is what we see in the data.
>I mean, are you really suggesting that a slightly higher incidence of e.g. cystic fibrosis in Pakistani communities somehow makes it more difficult for them to integrate?
It seems as though birth defects aren't the only way that inbreeding negatively affects offspring. It also appears to lower intelligence[0], while also increasing mental health issues.
>Because of this compounding it means that the risks would be much higher than 3-4%, which is what we see in the data.
This is pure speculation on your part, as far as I can see. Do you have any data to back this up? It's also not the case that all Pakistanis routinely marry their cousins generation after generation. (The prevalence of cousin marriage is very variable within different Pakistani communities.)
>It seems as though birth defects aren't the only way that inbreeding negatively affects offspring. It also appears to lower intelligence[0], while also increasing mental health issues
You're cherry picking an old paper with a bad methodology. The result could easily be explained by the IQ of the parents being correlated with their likelihood of entering into a cousin marriage. As IQ is largely inherited, this would then lead to a difference in IQ between the two groups of children, even when controlling for SE status.
>When I went to school there was a pretty high number of second generation muslim immigrants, but even there you already saw their strict values eroding.
I certainly wouldn't take that happening as a given. If you bend over backwards to attempt to accommodate their culture in the west, you aren't giving any incentive to join your culture and worldview.
My own personal theory is that the GDPR was going through and the big players didn't fight too much knowing this was going to come through soon as well. They have the ability to comply, their smaller competitors don't, or at least will have to heavily invest in compliance.
Where did you see that Greyhound said no such event occurred? When searching for it all I see are articles that only cite the Facebook post as proof. There are no videos from any passengers, or statements from Greyhound I can find. If you could post a link it would be greatly appreciated.
>But this “believe the victim first” mentality came about as an inverse to the “give the accused the benefit of the doubt” mentality because the latter suppressed the former’s credibility and made it difficult for real victims of real heinous shit to come forward.
Are you referring to our courts "innocent until proven guilty" standard? I'd suggest you be extremely careful in trying to change that.
During the Obama Administration Title IX was used as an extrajudicial bludgeon to expel students who were deemed "more likely than not" to have done something illegal. They were not allowed legal representation during the "trials". This resulted in many cases where police exonerated the alleged perpetrator through evidence, but the student was expelled anyway. The Emma Sulkowicz story is one of these cases.
"Listen and believe" is probably okay for friends giving support to their friend. Legal standards on the other hand must be more strict and an accusation cannot be a conviction.
Strange that you view it this way. I'm not extremely familiar with the case, but how I remember it is Gawker published a sex tape of Hulk Hogan and refused to take it down. While at the same time lampooning "society" about "the fappening". Hulk Hogan sued Gawker, which brings it to a court. Peter Thiel had a personal grudge against Gawker and used that case to take them down. Either way, it was still up to a court and all Thiel was doing was helping to fund Hogan's legal case. I'd hope that our courts have enough integrity to where if the evidence is against someone, no amount of money will change that verdict. Perhaps a bit idealistic, but I see no evidence that Thiel's money caused an inappropriate ruling in that case.
I'd characterize it as, "journalists" using their platform to go after specific people they don't like. Thiel helping one of their victims who couldn't afford to mount a case without running the risk of ruining themselves if they lost. Seems to me like a really noble thing to do.
>I'd characterize it as, "journalists" using their platform to go after specific people they don't like. Thiel helping one of their victims who couldn't afford to mount a case without running the risk of ruining themselves if they lost. Seems to me like a really noble thing to do.
And yet Breitbart is still up. So this idea that it's just about enforcing the law rings a bit hollow.
Perhaps they feel an undue pressure to do something like this. There are some people in these threads that definitely find it out of the norm. [0] It very well could be people who simply don't stand up for themselves particularly well. I find it really difficult to believe that they lack the time/ability to use a gas station bathroom. Some routes may not have public restrooms, but I'd be willing to bet these are few and far between. They would most likely be rural routes, where you could get some privacy much more easily anyway.
It is also possible people actually prefer to do this rather than stopping frequently and dealing with the hassle of finding a place, parking, running the risk of it being a single restroom and already being occupied.
