SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The ABC news website (an Australian national news service funded by the Australian government) reports on a group of high school students from Sydney Australia who have managed to recreate the active ingredient in Daraprim for a mere $20.
Daraprim has received a lot of coverage recently after Turing Pharmaceuticals who owns the patent, initially raised the price of the drug from $13.50 to $750.00, though they have since stated that the price will be reduced.
From the article:
For $US20, a group of high school students has created 3.7 grams of an active ingredient used in the medicine Daraprim, which would sell in the United States for between $US35,000 and $US110,000.
Pyrimethamine, the active ingredient in Daraprim, treats a parasitic infection in people with weak immune systems such as pregnant women and HIV patients.
In August 2015, the price of Daraprim in the US rose from $US13.50 per tablet to $US750 when Turing Pharmaceuticals, and its controversial then-chief executive Martin Shkreli, acquired the drug's exclusive rights and hiked up the price.
Since then, the 17-year-olds from Sydney Grammar have worked in their school laboratory to create the drug cheaply in order to draw attention to its inflated price overseas, which student Milan Leonard said was "ridiculous".
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:25PM
When did the word "Controversial" change meaning to be "Awful piece of shit we'd all be better off without"?
"Controversial" alt-right leader
"Controversial" 2016 presidential election
"Controversial" police shooting
"Controversial" Subway spokesman
(Score: 5, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:40PM
It's funny, because controversy suggests that there's another side to the argument, but yours seems to be the modern definition of the word.
I think it's just one of those words that (at least, to me) has stopped being a word with meaning and has become a sign that a person using it is parroting their programming, not a salient point. A proverbial buzzword.
See also "problematic". Previously used to describe things that were a problem. Now it describes the user as someone with no real problems and too much time on their hands.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Arik on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:50PM
Like the boy who cried wolf, there are people who misuse this term so badly, so often, so shamefully, that people start just tuning it out as noise.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:06PM
No, it's definitely still racists, they just now find internet echo chambers on the internet where they all say what you're saying right now back and forth to each other. I've yet to any serious amount of people be called racist outside of the context of them spewing some bigoted bullshit of one flavor or another(I'll admit, not all of it literally fits the definition of racism, in that there are other bigotries that could explain it), and then giving exactly your justification no matter how racist what they said actually was.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:30PM
kanuread?
Cause it sure sounds like you're replying to someone that said racism doesn't exist.
It absolutely does exist, it's making a big comeback, and overuse of the term until people don't fear it anymore is a part of why.
I don't think that's a good thing, quite the opposite.
Racism is stupid and inefficient and actively harmful, I want it to die for good.
"I've yet to any serious amount of people be called racist outside of the context of them spewing some bigoted bullshit"
We had a discussion on this very board, not so far back, right after the election, where certain posters repeatedly, vehemently, said Trump was a racist. No might-be, no ambiguity, full-on flame racist. So I asked, repeatedly, for a single example of his racism. And I finally got two. He's against the EPA and he wants to build a wall.
Now as I said then, the wall is stupid but *it's not racist* and the more people keep misusing the term like this, the more it loses its sting, and that only plays into the hands of real racists and real racism. And the EPA? This has nothing to do with race. Except to people who are so racist in their own outlook they think EVERYTHING is about race.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:33PM
All those words and you didn't say anything remotely true.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:50PM
It [racism] absolutely does exist, it's making a big comeback, and overuse of the term until people don't fear it anymore is a part of why.
And your witty reply:
All those words and you didn't say anything remotely true.
So the claim "racism absolutely does exist" is not remotely true? The claim "racism is making a big comeback" is not remotely true? And the claim that "overuse of the term, "racism" until people don't fear it anymore is a part of why" is also not remotely true?
So Arik's assertion that "Racism is stupid and inefficient and actively harmful" is not remotely true? Arik's expressed desire to "I want it to die for good." is not remotely true? Arik's saga of asking for examples of Trump's racism? Not remotely true? Arik's claim that he was eventually told "He's against the EPA and he wants to build a wall" is not remotely true?
You might see where I'm going with this. Surely, you aspire to be more than the SN village idiot.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:57PM
Don't worry. Your job is safe.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:02PM
Look, all your telling me is that racists need to bleed in the street before they learn that other people's lives aren't their playthings.
I'm totally down with that. Bash the fash.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:51PM
You're being purposely obtuse, here. I know you're doing it on purpose because you're bright and can't be doing it by mistake. Please take a breath and bring back your A game. The world has entered a period of upheaval whose outcome none of us knows, and none of us can afford to parrot rote gibberish like dullards. If any of us want to demand others reason, then we have to demand it of ourselves, first.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:55PM
The incredible fascist and xenophobic attitudes on display in the world right now are the future's biggest issue, period. I've been struggling with just what costs need to be paid for it to stop. And I'm absolutely not joking when I say that the ideas at Donald Trump's core base are approaching the point of requiring actual violence to resolve.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 02 2016, @01:12AM
I've been struggling with just what costs need to be paid for it to stop.
For starters, stop being part of the problem. Having a double standard where your bigotry is good and mine isn't, just encourages more of it.
And I'm absolutely not joking when I say that the ideas at Donald Trump's core base are approaching the point of requiring actual violence to resolve.
Sorry, but I think you're nuts if you think violence is going to fix anything. I think a huge part of the problem is that you and whoever you can get on your side wouldn't be any good at it just like you aren't any good at understanding other points of view or arguing your own point of view. In order for violence to work to your favor, your side needs to be better at it through some combination of power, competence, numbers, intel, etc. As Sun Tzu wrote:
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
And in a democracy, if you're already winning, you usually don't need to "go to war". My view here is that a huge part of the problem is a large population of people have formed who simply don't understand other people and other belief systems. This even manifests at leadership levels. For example, we have the following three infamous examples (Trump, Obama, and Clinton):
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they're killing us economically.
The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
I know there are only 60 days left to make our case–and don’t get complacent, don’t see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think well he’s done now. We are living in a volatile political environment.
You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.
Now some of these folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.
Notice how the people (Obama and Clinton) supposedly on the side of rationality have just as much trouble as Trump does in dealing with out-groups. The problems of bigotry are very widespread and openly practiced.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 02 2016, @01:39PM
Then you're going to lose badly because you're not discerning the real reasons for their revolt. There are some Trump supporters who believe he's the second coming of white Jesus; they think the Klan has "a lot of good ideas" and have pondered moving themselves to the American Redoubt (as a Montanan I despise that). They are the minority. Glossing them to encompass the whole, as you have been, is quite mistaken.
Most of those who support Trump because of what he has said about immigration see it as an economic and perhaps cultural issue, not a racial one. Immigrants take jobs many Americans have relied upon. This argument is as old as the hills in the United States, and has never been untrue. The cultural component of that concern can be further defined not as a hatred of Chinese food or more burrito stands, but the structural malaise that plagues third world nations with their culture of graft, corruption, and lassitude. Again, glossing that as nothing more than base racism is incorrect, and proceeding from such an incorrect assessment will lead you into grievous error and failure.
Me, I think his victory was a shot across the bow of the elites. So far, based on his cabinet picks, it appears that Trump himself does not understand that. He will learn it the hard way.
But for him and the rest of the elites to learn it the hard way, a precondition of teaching it to them is to not labor under false dichotomies that have divided you and us from our natural allies, each other. As an exercise, read Huffington Post and Drudge side by side for a month. Excise the stupid labels, "left," "right," "communist," "racist," "fascist," "liberal," "conservative," from what you're reading and you'll see that both sides are pretty much talking about the same issues, in the same way. In other words, look for the commonalities instead of the differences and you'll be amazed that the ill-intentioned have been able to bring such a great country to its knees with such trivialities.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday December 02 2016, @04:15PM
I accept what you're trying to say is sincerely intended and reflects what you personally believe is true.
It is nonetheless the case that bigotry lies at the center of his core support in spite of your beliefs. That sounds like an argument from assertion, but I really don't feel like going on to construct that case that white nationalists both drove and deeply aligned with his platform for the hundredth time; the election is over.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:14PM
Why do you have to be so full of shit?
I've not heard liberals say anything remotely like what you're saying, and I live near one of their capitols, San Fransisco. How does the idiocy of arguing about climate change and anti-EPA positions have anything to do with racism? They don't, and I've not heard anyone say that. You act like the fucking victim with far right positions being attacked as racist, when the facts of the matter are that enough far right people say racist shit that we created a stereotype. I don't need stereotypes, because I have *fucking ears* and can hear the bigotry and racism directly from people's mouths.
Trump IS a racist. I'm one of the people you allude to. You want examples? Seriously? Talk about confirmation bias to the extent you have your head shoved so far up your ass just so you can't hear his words.
Mexicans, Muslims, and anybody LGBTQ has reasons to be offended by that piece of shit. How dare you defend a racist by saying nobody has provided any evidence, when the man himself has provided so many pieces of fucking evidence over 20 years, caught on tape no less!
He doesn't like black guys touching his money, but would prefer some jews instead. Actually said that! Do I really need to inform you about what he said about Mexicans? What he said about Muslims? Racism isn't the same as misogyny, but we know how much respect he has for anyone with a vagina. No, I'm not solely referring to his disgusting juvenile pussy grabbing statements.
The wall is not inherently racist, but the entire drive and campaign to create it *IS*. Why are they doing it again? To "Make America White/Great Again"? Or because Mexicans are dirty criminals, rapists, and drug pushers?
Dude, fuck you. You're running with a pack of racist and bigoted assholes and no amount of whining like a victim and attacking the left is going to erase the racism and bigotry of the actual statements made by the people you support. The near entirety of the Republican Party platform (as decided by them) is a racist and bigoted attack that we all see for what it is; The rise of White Nationalists and their new political party.
While you may not be racist, you're so fucking stupid and full of confirmation bias that you can't see the others that do. You support them with the full weight of your intelligence and eloquence, while simultaneously arguing against that which they promulgate themselves directly. That's very sad.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:50PM
Did I hit a nerve?
"I've not heard liberals say anything remotely like what you're saying"
I don't believe I used the word 'liberals.' These people are really not liberals, there's nothing liberal about them.
"He doesn't like black guys touching his money, but would prefer some jews instead. Actually said that!"
Really? He told an ethnic joke? How dare he!
Assuming he really did say that, I don't see a source.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're coming unglued and frothing at the mouth over a common joke.
"Do I really need to inform you about what he said about Mexicans? What he said about Muslims?"
Yes, exactly, give me a quote and a link to a reliable source for something, anything, that he's said or done that shows him to be the racist scum you keep screaming that he is.
I've seen the one guy that says that decades back he worked for Trump and 'everyone knew' he was a racist. Yawn.
"The wall is not inherently racist"
Good.
"but the entire drive and campaign to create it *IS*. Why are they doing it again? To "Make America White/Great Again"? Or because Mexicans are dirty criminals, rapists, and drug pushers?"
Because they are concerned about illegal immigration, and most of our illegal immigration comes via Mexico. And yes, I'm sorry if facts offend you, but it's a fact that some illegal immigrants who come through Mexico (many are NOT Mexican btw) have turned out to be dirty criminals, rapists, and drug pushers.
And you can't just say that people who are concerned about illegal immigration at the moment are ipso facto racists. That's absurd! There are real problems and real dangers that people are reacting to. We need, we as a nation, we need to have a serious conversation about those issues, and that can't happen as long as some of us just start stamping their foot and screaming racism at the top of their lungs so no one else can talk the first time someone disagrees with them on a political issue.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by edIII on Thursday December 01 2016, @09:56PM
1) The statement about black people was not an ethnic joke. He was serious. Don't even fucking try to pass it off as a joke. From the International Business Times [ibtimes.com] (you can Google for a minute for sources, but I don't think you want to see the truth):
2) You're being deliberately obtuse to ask for a citation about the his statements about Mexicans. It was part of his fucking campaign you fucking moron! I'm not giving you a citation to this, because it's on FUCKING VIDEO and played repeatedly throughout the whole fucking campaign! Seriously, LOL dude. Do I need a citation that the sun rises every day? Your request is similar. Look it up asshole. Trump Tower Atrium in Manhattan on June 16, 2015, in his own racist words.
It's racist to make the generalization that the people coming in across the border are all rapists and criminals. He didn't buffer his statement in the way that you did. He didn't care enough about how racism affects others (as you seem to), and he made a wide sweeping generalization, and that is often what you find with racists and bullies, of which Trump is the epitome of both. You restating it in a better way doesn't change the reality of how Trump acts and speaks, and only speaks to your character, not his.
Never said that concerns about immigration are racist, and you stamping your foot up and down like a victim saying you want a conversation DOES NOT FUCKING JUSTIFY THE RACISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We can have that conversation, and it isn't racist. It becomes racist when you add the generalizations to it. If ALL Trump did was say that too many criminals are coming in through the border and he wants to work on practical immigration reform and building very strong and imposing physical structures for security that would be one thing. He didn't though, and the bulk of his argument was a racist, ignorant tirade about immigrants. When asked about it, he didn't apologize, he didn't rephrase, he didn't do anything but double down on the hate.
It's possible to have an intelligent reasonable discussion about immigration reform, but your complaints are fucking ridiculous. As long as you remove the racism and bigotry from your own statements, we could do so. The moment you start sounding like a KKK recruitment speech, the conversation stops.
Again, the only person not able to have the immigration conversation IS YOU.
For the record, there are exactly TWO possibilities with Trump:
1) He is a racist
2) He's not a racist, but loves saying hurtful shit to get a rise out of people for whatever reason. In other words, he is a troll. We elected a troll as President who will say racist hurtful shit just to get attention.
So which is he? Neither of them bode well for our future.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:27PM
"Look it up asshole."
So, he's such a racist that he just vomits racist filth every time he opens his mouth, but it's too difficult for you to find a single link to a single clear occurrence of this. I'm guessing you spent quite a bit of time looking for it and couldn't find it cause it ain't there.
"We elected a troll as President"
Doh. You hadn't figured that out yet?
But I still don't see any "hurtful racist" things he's said either, just him trolling people who seem to think their job in life is finding things to be offended by. If what he said was actually uniformly offensive to, for instance, latinos, why did nearly 30% of latinos vote for him, hmm?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:55PM
You can keep trying to change reality, but it wasn't a joke, it wasn't an anecdote. I can see that it is simply too painful for you to accept that the apparent political party you support has been overrun by white nationalists.
What is stunning is that you continue to ignore the actual statements he made while starting his campaign. I provided citations, which directly attribute those as his words. If they're lying, it's a libel/slander case, and the child emperor just loves those lawsuits. He would actually win too, but........ he can't when they have him on video.
You don't see it because you don't want to see it. I've been impartial from the start of this whole affair, and gave Trump a legitimate chance to persuade me. HIS statements persuaded me otherwise, not some liberal agenda, not the democrats, not the big bad MSM, but HIS FUCKING STATEMENTS WHERE IT WAS DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE AS A QUOTE OF HIS WORDS. You do understand what that means right? It's not a 3rd party analysis of something that happened, but actual simple journalism where they repeated those words and properly attributed them to Trump. ONLY his words and actions swayed me about his character.
Whether or not somebody voted for him, has absolutely zero bearing on whether his statements were, or were not, racist. Look at yourself for the explanation. People that will support their party and excuse absolutely anything so that the party may win. You can't generalize all Latinos as Democrats or liberals, and Republican Latinos actually exist, as well as Republican African-Americans, women, gay men, lesbian women, etc. Strange how we see the super Trump haters, that also happen to be Republican, start towing the line the day he formally gets the nomination? Yeah, your question is just impossible to answer, when he insults somebodies family deeply, and that person STILL supports him. So they didn't vote for Trump you idiot, they voted for the Republican Party, and there is a substantive difference. You're clearly smart enough to know that, so again, it's deliberate and wilful ignorance of the facts.
You elected a racist that is putting together a cabinet of white nationalists and nothing you can say will alter the reality of what and who these people are. Actions speak louder than words, and words are now recorded and quoted.
Deal it with it mother fucker. You support racists and bigots and are continually complaining about a lack of evidence loudly in the face of citations being given to you, and it makes you look like a stupid asshole. You even admitted to it, but then tried to change reality (a usual behavior in our post-truth world) by saying he was a troll that we shouldn't take seriously.
I guess you went with #2 huh? :D
*golf clap* *golf clap* *golf clap* *golf clap* *golf clap* *golf clap* *golf clap* *golf clap*
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:36PM
It was literally an anecdote about a bad joke.
"What is stunning is that you continue to ignore the actual statements[...]"
It's quite astonishing that you just put out two more sizable paragraphs of this rhetoric but you still haven't cited a single sentence!
"Whether or not somebody voted for him, has absolutely zero bearing on whether his statements were, or were not, racist."
Oh I do not agree. I think that the hypothesis that 29 out of every 100 voters in this country who identify as Latino/a voted for a man who is openly racist against them and regularly vomits offensive filth towards them is a rather extraordinary one, actually. It begs for proofs.
"Look at yourself for the explanation."
You know nothing about me, and I have no idea what you mean.
Your ranting has degenerated to the point I don't think you even know what you're saying.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 02 2016, @02:39AM
No, it literally was not. That was Trump complaining about who was touching his money, and then he confirmed the statements when asked. At best, we can't tell between trolling and racism. Combine that with the lawsuits against him in NY for discrimination specifically against black people, and that is hard to accept as a "joke".
Those are his statements sir, and there are lists with hundreds that have been circulated. Quotes, I think is the term right? As in, he fucking said them. Since he loves to sue the fuck out of people, and is a gazillionaire, why doesn't he attack those lists? BECAUSE HE CAN'T WIN, BECAUSE HE SAID IT.
Still not going to. I gave you the date, time, and place. If your such a stubborn mother fucker, or just plain ignorant, that you don't know the opening lines to your candidates campaign, that reverberated around the world (especially Mexico and their media--habla Espanol?), I'm going to let you reel out that rope to yourself for as long as you want buddy. It only makes you look like a true asshole, because it's a well known fact worldwide.
You can have your citations in multiple languages, news outlets, and countries. Take your pick. All attributed as a direct quote, from the very man himself, starting his Presidential campaign.
It's like you would demand a citation that J.F.K was shot :) Keep it up, that part is entertaining as hell.
I thought you were smarter than that. You do understand that one action has nothing to do with the other? I can say "niggers should hang", get elected as Mayor, and it does not mean that I wasn't racist with my words. How do any subsequent actions remove the character that can be attributed to the words?
My statement again, "Whether or not somebody voted for him, has absolutely zero bearing on whether his statements were, or were not, racist."
So by you not agreeing, this means that if somebody did vote for him it has bearing on whether HIS statements were racist? Think about that again, and this supports my point that you have issues with reality when it comes to politics.
I know exactly what I'm saying. You have problems because you can't reconcile your positions against racism and bigotry with the stark and unpleasant fact that the bastion of your political beliefs has been taking over by people that have, and demonstrate, racist and/or bigoted views.
You asked how somebody could still vote for him, even though he has said racist and hurtful things about them. That answer is political affiliation, and a mixture of fear and hate of the other side.
Additionally, if you want a further explanation, both major choices were complete shit on their own. The Democratic Party platform was just less scary, and for the record, it won the popular vote. Depending on recounts, it may have one the EC. So don't act like the election is over, or not even controversial, or providing a mandate for jack shit.
What the election said loudly was that we were all pissed off and very afraid.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:03PM
There is in fact a lot of racism (and sexism, and plenty of other -isms) out there.
It all stems from the simple fact that everyone regularly has to answer this question: "There's a person I have never seen before in my vicinity, how much of a threat/opportunity do they present to me?" In the absence of any other information, people use whatever they can immediately observe about other people: What clothes are they wearing? What is their hairstyle like? What color is their skin? Do they have breasts/wide hips or broad shoulders? How fat are they? How symmetrical is their face? Do they look like they are carrying a weapon? An average person goes through this in under 10 seconds when they encounter somebody new, and doing so well is an important survival skill.
Where that goes wrong, though, is that people tend keep that impression even in the face of evidence that counters their initial reaction. And that means that the portions of that initial judgment based on characteristics that in many cases have little-to-no bearing on the threat/opportunity question can still affect the assessment forever. Why do you think salespeople place so much value on a first impression?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:00PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday December 01 2016, @09:13PM
There are things that make a big difference:
1. Don't teach kids that skin color etc are good predictors of behavior. Pre-verbal babies and toddlers don't show significant signs of racism.
2. Actively show kids people who don't look like them being kind and generous. Ideally in person (my folks did that), but barring that even intentionally anti-racist TV programs like Sesame Street help.
I should point out that a real effort on the first two factors is one of the big reasons that younger people are substantially less racist than older people in America: There was a big push in the 1970's and 1980's to try to do precisely those steps.
For adults, it's harder, but still possible:
3. Put adults in situations where they have to work together closely with people who don't look like them. A classic example of this is the military: It's really hard to hate people for their skin color when someone with that skin color saved your life in combat.
4. Give adults as many non-hostile interactions with people of other races as possible, so they begin to see members of those other races as individuals rather than a group. Although this can still get some really interesting effects, like "Grr, I hate all those Mexicans!" "But what about Miguel at the corner store? He seemed fine." "OK, Miguel's cool, but the rest of them, grr!" "But what about Miguel's wife Maria?" "Ok, she's fine, but the rest of 'em ..."
Affirmative action and community policing are some examples of attempting to implement those two ideas. They are substantially less successful than the stuff targeting kids.
One other thing that's vitally important: You can't do this in a way where you're announcing what you're doing is anti-racism training. You have to do it in a way that doesn't seem intentionally anti-racist.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday December 01 2016, @09:32PM
Affirmative action has tremendous drawbacks. Community policing seems to have multiple meanings in practice.
I seriously doubt that there is anything the government could *do* positively here about it that could balance the damage it did in only a few years back last century. The knock-on effects of that period have continued for generations and show no sign of petering out.
Perhaps because we keep expecting institutions that make money from it to honestly work to end it?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:26PM
For adults, it's harder, but still possible:
3. Put adults in situations where they have to work together closely with people who don't look like them. A classic example of this is the military: It's really hard to hate people for their skin color when someone with that skin color saved your life in combat.
A good family friend commanded a tank battalion in the Korean war. He always maintained that the US Army was the first large organization to be desegregated, by order of President Truman...and that it was a very good thing as far as he was concerned. fwiw, he was white, and after his service became a lawyer specializing in wills and estates.
Never bothered to look his claims up until now, but here is a reference,
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/desegblurb.htm [trumanlibrary.org]
President Truman had been examining the issue of segregation in the armed forces since at least 1947, when he appointed the President's Committee on Civil Rights. By January 1948, internal White House memos indicated that the President was determined to end military segregation by executive order. However, it was not until the delegates at the 1948 Democratic National Convention called for a liberal civil rights plank that included desegregation of the armed forces that Truman felt comfortable enough to issue Executive Order No. 9981 on July 26. The order stated that "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin." The order also established the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and opportunity in the Armed Services (Fahy Committee).
Naturally, there was resistance to this order within the military. Staff officers from all branches protested anonymously and sometimes even openly to integration. The Fahy Committee worked with the different branches of the military to ensure that the armed forces instituted integration in their recruitment and unit composition practices. Full integration did not come until the Korean War however, when heavy casualties forced segregated units to merge for survival.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 02 2016, @01:51AM
What if I don't like gingers?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:43PM
I think the flamebait mod is unwarranted. It's a valid point. Language has been diluted to meaningless pablum. I could throw another term, "anti-Semite," out there as an additional example. It used to mean "a person who is prejudiced against Jews." Now it means "anyone a Jew doesn't like or disagrees with, or who criticizes the state of Israel for any reason." As such, it loses its force because it trains the listener to discount all claims of anti-Semitism as hyperbole; consequently it creates cover under which real anti-Semitism can thrive.
The only remedy I can think of for the loss of meaning is to use language with as much precision as you can muster. Never use "impact" when you can choose any number of verbs to describe a more specific effect, such as "undermine," or "boost," or "erode," or "reinforce," etc.
It can be a challenge at first, but it's a muscle that strengthens with exercise. You can have fun with it, too; every time you feel the urge to use profanity, select a cutting, but clean term. For example, you want to call someone an asshole for eating your last donut, call him a glutton instead.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:50PM
Didn't you know? We're in the post-truth world now, words don't mean anything so you shouldn't take them literally. Instead you should... umm... you should listen to... wait that would be words again. Well, you could use objective facts. Oops, those are made up now too. Oh fuck it, lets all just watch the world burn, that at least will be pretty concrete.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:10PM
Didn't you get the memo? You listen to bellyfeel now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:31PM
I'm lactose intolerant and live in the US. My belly tells me that WW3 has been going on for a while now!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:02PM
Controversy implies conflict, most people dislike conflict.
The only thing worse than conflict is change - most conflict is based upon the resistance to change.
If you want to be controversial, propose a change. Nevermind that all improvements are changes.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:08PM
Not to defend reactionary or even conservative politics by accident: but all damage is change too.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:32PM
Just to jump it to the metaphysical: lack of change is death.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Friday December 02 2016, @07:09AM
I've spent a decent amount of the last 12 hours or so wanting to argue this, but I find that I cannot.
Swim or die, sir. Swim or die.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:47PM
Have you not heard the people defending Shkreli? http://brutallyuncensored.com/Is+Martin+Shkreli+Really+A+Bad+Guy%3F+ [brutallyuncensored.com]
Brutally Uncensored... lol what a joke. Have any larger semi-more-trustworthy sites picked up that drivel?
Shkerli defended the price hike by saying, “If there was a company that was selling an Aston Martin at the price of a bicycle, and we buy that company and we ask to charge Toyota prices, I don’t think that that should be a crime.”
Oh how I love that his "Aston Martin" just got clobbered by some highschool students... what a douche.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:29PM
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:45PM
Alright, I'll just blame you for being a sociopathic piece of shit.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:05PM
what was the last time you voted or campaigned for a politician who firmly opposes patents and copyrights?
When I donated to Larry Lessig's presidential campaign, which the DNC obstructed by playing Calvinball with debate eligibility.
Other candidates don't include anti-copyright planks in their platform because they know they'll lose news coverage that way. All major U.S. TV news sources have a conflict of interest against anti-copyright candidates because NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and Fox News all share a parent company with an MPAA movie studio: Universal, Disney, Paramount, Warner Bros., and Last Century Fox respectively.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:10PM
> Are we to expect that public shaming of law-abiding entrepreneurs will fix the clusterfuck that is medical patents?
This is the same old bullshit "you aren't protesting correctly" concern-trolling diversion.
The answer is YES.
Yes, public shaming of "law-abiding entrepreneurs" will fix the clusterfuck. It isn't sufficient, but it is a necessary part of the process. Without well-publicized examples of how the law is a failure, there will never be any wide-spread public support for fixing the law.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:13PM
Both you and jmorris make the same mistake: The reason why there is only one manufacturer is because it targets a small market and, until Shkreli, had a cheap price.
It's not about patents, it's not about FDA approvals. The drug exists, is already authorized, and was priced by someone who intended to make reasonable money off it.
The old cheap price was not set by the evil government to strangle the previous manufacturer, for [bleep]'s sake!
Some guy got it approved, did his math, and decided that $13.50 was a nice profit. Others looked at it, saw they could legally make a generic for $X, and decided that X 13.50 was not a good ROI given the market size. No government-granted monopoly there, just a an initial investment in getting the generic approved and a production line started.
Now that the asshole (what happened to my beeper?) raised the price so much, others want to make that generic because it will sell for more than $13.50, so it's worth investing the time and capital. But that takes a while. because bad medications are dangerous, so you need a review process.
That ain't government stranglehold, it's the free market at its best/worst!
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:07PM
You are right, I went off-topic there, I just plain forgot this case was not about patents... But I am still of the opinion that blaming and shaming the manufacturers is hypocritical, if not exactly counterproductive. Here the problem appears to be a combination of free market forces and legislation, so let's fix that, so that the next time someone hikes a price like that, patients can sue them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:15PM
Original AC here who called Shkreli a douche, I was going to respond but I'm glad I checked the other posts first. They covered all the bases I can think of :) To re-illustrate one of the points, complaining and shaming is the most effective thing we peons can do. Our votes are unlikely to sway the propaganda and politically corrupt machine, and there is little else we can do. Large protest actions only happen when enough people are upset, so yes, complain and shame all the assholes that think they can get away with being assholes. Just because a system makes it easy for assholes to do what they do doesn't mean I won't call them out for doing it. Should we forgive all criminals because they cry about how hard a life they were born in to? If you say "never" then get off your own high horse.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:57PM
This is exactly upside-down, in my opinion. Shaming does not do shit, not to individuals, not to society as a whole. Some soft-brained children can be shamed into different actions, but that's about it. For a lesson on how well shaming works, look at Abrahamic religions. After 4000 years of near-constant shaming and complaining, we finally got everyone to be honest with their spouses and respectful to their parents, right? Oh, wait... Or how about shaming Trump for everything he said and done? How did that work out? I think your vote is more effective than joining a choir of hypocrites. You dismiss protests, and you don't talk of grass-roots political action, but these are far more effective than shaming, when your vote alone is not enough. You know you can protest all by yourself, right? Shaming is not effective precisely because shamers automatically assert the moral superiority, which is BS. The guy and the company do not have any moral responsibility to price the drug the way you want it, or indeed to produce it at all. If you want price control and/or availability, regardless of market pressures and whims, help to write it into the law. Pointing out character flaws will do absolutely nothing on the long run.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @12:14AM
Why are you so fixated on shaming?
That was your word.
It was the wrong word and it was a mistake to indulge you in accepting it.
This class didn't shame the pharmabro. They exposed his bullshit for everyone else to see.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Friday December 02 2016, @12:20AM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:03PM
> When did the word "Controversial" change meaning to be "Awful piece of shit we'd all be better off without"?
About the time that we started to get so many pieces of shit in the public eye and the media could find no other word to use while preserving an objective voice.
But language evolves, if you use "controversial" to describe enough pieces of shit, it eventually starts to mean piece of shit.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:12PM
Must've happened at the same time "Peaceful" changed definitions.
"Peaceful" burglar/convicted felon shot by police.
"Peaceful" woman running for President of the US.
"Peaceful" protests include throwing rocks and eggs at other human beings.
"Peaceful" people who support the above.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:52PM
It all ties back to the anti-intellectual movement going on to dumb down the populace and make them easier to control. "They" are really becoming the thought police, and the PC movement was such a perfect bandwagon for them to jump on... 20+ years ago such shoddy word use would have these "news" outlets crucified by public opinion, but nowadays most people are subconsciously programmed because you have to be hyper-aware in order to catch the insidious word shaping.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:13PM
Because not everyone thinks that item is an "awful piece of shit we'd all be better off without", and in fact, there's a large part of the population who likes that thing.
Alt-right leader: about half the nation likes him, or at least voted for him. There's no shortage of rabid fans online, and people posting signs on their property/cars.
2016 presidential election: again, a bunch of people (the ones I mentioned above) are happy about the results.
police shooting: a large portion of the American populace thinks that all police shootings are justified. A bunch of them think "it serves them right for not obeying the cops".
Subway spokesman: I'm sure I can find a bunch of people who like him and agree with his actions.
Overpriced pharmaceuticals: There's no shortage of "free market" religionists who think it's just fine and dandy when some corporation gouges people for life-saving medication. You'll find a bunch of them right here on SN.
Even something like Naziism is "controversial": there's a ton of political activists today who are doing Nazi salutes.