>The Hamas-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which is best known as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing case in U.S. history, appears to have access to high-ranking Facebook and Twitter executives and has communicated with these individuals about who should be allowed to stay on their platforms, according to a Wall Street Journal report published Tuesday.
Like anything else, you can run a union poorly. Sometimes they don't actually achieve anything in their barganing. No one is going to be enthused about paying for a non-existant benefit.
Or maybe its a chance for you to wonder why a gay woman might find themselves constantly frustrated and angry when living in a patriarchal homophobic society?
Would the same comment be applicable to other classes/races/sexes who have been and/or still are discriminated against? Would you say "learning to live with it is a good skill" to a straight white woman? An African-American man? A Jewish person? If the answer is no, investigate more closely the location of the fecal matter.
Living with abuse in its many wonderful forms is a skill that queer people learn early on. The ones who don't, wind up with obituaries that politely avoid stating how or where they died, and a closed-casket funeral.
I had a white blonde hair, blue eyed student ask me what I thought Jesus looked like the other day. After first clarifying that Jesus wasn't a Christian, but a Jew, I proceeded to say he probably looked more like bin Laden than the student. Needless to say, this student from the backwoods American South was not happy with that, but I thought it was hilarious.
The downside of this though is that unexpected positive results sometimes get buried. For instance, clinical trials have to report all adverse effects but not positive effects. We've had drugs tested for symptom X fail to have any effect, while causing bald people to have their hair grow back. Yet the company we were testing it for wasn't interested and those results never made it into the public domain.
i would assume that the positive results still get reported somewhere in the paper? so other people could still pick up on it in the future.
if they’re positive enough then the drug company will fund another study with that as the primary outcome. that seems prudent too: it should be the primary thing you’re examining so that you can design the study correctly, rather than a simple “oh and by the way” side note
That wouldn't happen. You would simply declare, that you want to check if the drug does cause hair growth, and then run a test explicitly looking for that.
Unless you're looking for the effect from the outset, you can't be sure that what you saw wasn't actually random. There's a term for what you're describing, it's p-hacking, and it's explicitly the very thing declaring what you're looking for before you run the test is designed to prevent.
Like many science related topics, there's a XKCD about p-hacking that describes a similar scenario to your example: https://xkcd.com/882/
All white people do have some innate starting advantage due to their whiteness. That isn't to say they don't also have disadvantages too, for instance poverty, disability etc.
Having white skin though gives you an advantage in a system that prioritises whiteness over other colours. Its not racist to discuss this.
Compared to a black person living in the same place and going to the same school and having the same number of living parents with the same jobs and same dedication to success, probably very good. Please remember to keep other factors equal when comparing aspects of demography. Otherwise you've just strayed off into the wilderness of logical fallacyland.
What percentage of farm land in South Africa is currently owned by white people? Answer: 72% How does that compare to the demographic breakdown of the South African population? Answer: White people make up 9% of the population. Question: In what year did SA repeal The Natives Land Act of 1913? Answer: 1991. What did The Natives Land Act of 1913 do? Among other things, it made it illegal for non-whites to buy land except from other non-whites. What percentage of South African farmland was owned by white people in 1994? Answer: 86% So how much land could non-white farmers own just because they weren't white? Very little. How long ago? Very recently.
So if you're a white South African farmer, your enduring privilege, like it or not, is that non-white South African farmers were almost certainly not allowed to buy that land until very recently. It's much harder to be a farmer without land. So then we need to ask, how did this white farmer in South Africa get there?
It's important to recognize that your life is structured, harmed, hindered, buoyed, and improved by violence that happened even before you were born, that you had no control over, and that you would even not choose to support today. That doesn't mean you live in a vacuum.
>Funny that all these Middle Eastern rulers follow the same pattern of tyrannical rule and are undone by it when they are eventually taken down tyrannically by much bigger tyrants
You mean Funny that all these Middle Eastern rulers are propped up by the West and only replaced when its politically expedient.
Let me give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest he's not talking about direct population control. I think this is reasonable because, well, nobody suggests this.
By giving food and economic aid to African countries (the small portion that actually goes to the people after the dictator filter) we subsidize their birth rate in an unsustainable way. Specifically, if the Western counties that support them have an economic crash, for example, and become no longer able to support them, they'll be left with mouths they can't feed. Mouths they never could feed on their own. It will be a tragic loss of life.
The thing is population growth is sensitive to needs - people reproduce more for their needs whether more farm labor or "social security". Giving people security paradoxically causes people to reproduce less if they can be sure that three survive to adulthood no need to go with eight children unless they have a farm.
Essentially humans are K/r adaptive - if they are risky they go r (quantity). If they are safer they tend to go K quality.
I agree that the dependence on outside help is dangerous, but I don't see why they could never feed themselves. Africa is still a fertile continent, and it has a much lower population density than Europe or Asia.
If you want to understand it, read Diet for a small planet. It is famous for being a vegetarian cookbook, but that's only the last half of it. The first half is a political piece about how no country at that time was incapable of feeding its own people -- assuming they stuck to traditional local diets, had peace, etc.
Starvation is often caused by war. It is often essentially a means to beat one side without going to battle.
When aid is sent, it may rot on the docks or be resold to fatten the pockets of local corrupt politicians.
When it gets distributed at all, it is typically Western fare. You now have locals who could afford the traditional local vegetarian diet craving hamburgers and French fries that they can't afford.
When loans are given to developing countries, the need for hard currency to pay it back means locals raise beef to sell to other countries to pay the loans while people go hungry at home.
Etc
And I have just realised this book is part of why I didn't really want a handout while homeless. This book is why I understood I needed earned income of my own, not charity, and how insidious charity can be in destroying your ability to make your own life work.
Giving aid to counties essentially guts the local economy. Local businesses cannot compete and therefore the local economy never develops. The people become entirely dependent on outside help even when otherwise they would develop their own economy and self-sustaining systems. When you take that aid away, there is famine and death. Foreign aid is one of the biggest causes of poverty currently but slowly people are starting to realize that giving aid and gutting local economies is much worse than not giving at all. There is an excellent documentary on this on Netflix I think but the name escapes me right now. I think they even convince Bono that what he is doing is causing more harm than good (giving fish rather than teaching how to fish). It definitely is.
Wow.. talk about subtle.