SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Microsoft founder Bill Gates has called on Europe to stop demonstrating generosity towards asylum seekers to avoid an overwhelming migrant influx. He also advises European states to make Africans' way to the continent much more difficult.
During an interview Germany's Welt am Sonntag, Gates, one of the richest people on the planet, warned of the grave consequences of exceeding generosity towards refugees coming to Europe, whose numbers would only rise unless something is done.
"On the one hand you want to demonstrate generosity and take in refugees, but the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this – which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa," Gates said.
While Germany has been one of the pioneers of the open door policy, it cannot "take in the huge, massive number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe." Thus Gates advised European nations to take action in order to make it "more difficult for Africans to reach the continent via the current transit routes."
Source: https://www.rt.com/news/395356-migrants-overwhelm-europe-gates/
(Score: 3, Informative) by Lagg on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:32PM (47 children)
I don't know if the editors are gullible or like the sort of outrage RT tends to encourage because what benefits the state helps websites that publish it. I remember a time when people could recognize this sort of thing and were instantly suspicious. But of course this hasn't stopped fringe places like SN from being complacent whores similarly to the Russians and stirring up creepy motherfuckers into creepy motherfucker fervor [twitter.com].
It doesn't surprise me in the least therefore that RT - being a state propaganda parrot that panders to complacent whores - focused on the fact that Gates said we should stop dem immgrants. The real message was that opening the door and throwing money at it to stop the root problem forcing/compelling people to immigrate and enter illegally is futile and dumb. Which to me makes sense. Because economic reality doesn't care which direction fear mongering goes in.
Anyway, the recurring preference for something I had thought was recognized for what it was - a fucking propaganda machine - creeps me out as much as the casual acceptance of its stories without much citation. If you have to look at such a site to confirm your assumptions you probably are making dumb assumptions.
Meanwhile, in reality, mere months ago Gates expressed an opinion [theatlantic.com] that clearly shows his actual opinions on immigration are more complicated than the idiots at RT and other tabloids are presenting it. But don't let that stop you from being whores, by all means.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:43PM (24 children)
Ok champ, point us to a media outlet that ISN'T a "propaganda machine". CNN? NYT? FNC? Bitch, please! Don't make me laugh. Or do you like state run media, only when they agree with you like NPR, BBC or DW? Or are you an Al Jazera kinda guy? Oh, you point to The Atlantic like it isn't equally biased? Isn't that precious. Yes RT is Russian propaganda, we all know that. We also know the others are just as deep into the propaganda business though and have resigned ourselves to simply reading widely and trying to sort through the lies and agendas. That is the world we live in, thankfully we have the Internet to help us.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Lagg on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:53PM (21 children)
Oh do fuck off you self-assured little whore of a man. There's really nothing worse than someone who's bought and doesn't know it. You know damn well you don't look at any of those sites. I don't have to even look at news sites because whorish consumers of them will always make sure the items end up in my feed that I have to cross reference when it looks immediately fucky and go "oh, okay, this was total spin". Also, the BBC and co. don't use basic manipulation and misinformation tactics that I've seen used in SEO by corporations trying to push a lie filled agenda. And I cannot believe people don't notice that either.
And no the internet will not help you if you're willing to buy into the scurry boogeymans summarized as The Left(TM). But yes it does help me, because I can see through lies in this new era of spin. You buy into it with enthusiasm. As is quite clear by the fact that you use other state propaganda as an excuse.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:06PM (6 children)
OH NOES! jmorris has been nailed!!!
I knew we should not have let jmorris immigrate to this site. If only he had tried to succeed in his native website.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:29PM (5 children)
Oh please, jmorris' problem if he doesn't know what to expect from me just like I know what to expect from his posts by this point.
This is also what pisses me off to no end. People with generally thick skin utterly fail to understand the concept of spreading rot. This is the only thing I can come up with when I read responses like this. I claim nothing but ignorance on how the human brain works but still the concept that people can be fooled repeatedly by recycled techniques is bewildering. This is the same shit the fentanyl manufacturers do even. The ability for people to pass off RT like it's in the same vein as the other places is astounding. Can I remind people that they propagate a total hoax of a battle suit by Star Wars SEO and passed this off as real [snopes.com] in a dick move way most tabloids wouldn't touch.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:47PM (1 child)
If you don't like RT, you can read the interview in the other link provided, from an accepted Western MSM source.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:01AM
Oh I loathe RT, its pre-election readership, its staff and especially its masters. Oh and the complacent citizenry that allows it to exist and revels in it who use terms I don't even understand like "Western MSM". Which is why I will continue to note their utter failure at journalistic integrity and incredible lack of credibility even by tabloid standards. Every time I see it. From the same recurring editors that fucking know better.
I can already guess what Gates' actual opinion is based on past articles, and it's not as simple or stupid as presented. It's a practical disease science based one and one of economy. So personally speaking: Ain't a thang. Sorry to those of you that have to choose between the site ran by people who like being fisted by Putin versus the random german one with a paywall. :D
Oh and I just discovered a primary translation source for this was Breitbart. I'm sure they have no agenda. They seem like great guys. Not people trying to sell ugly trinkets to trailer trash.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:57PM (2 children)
Just look at this story:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/12/giant-antarctic-iceberg-breaks-free-of-larsen-c-ice-shelf [theguardian.com]
They actually include multiple interviews with scientists saying "they looked into it and as far as they can tell the iceberg is not related to climate change", yet it ends with something about Paris climate accords. This is the real nature of fake news.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:29AM (1 child)
from your link (bracketed text in original):
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @02:10AM
And then read the next sentence where they say "it was looked into but no that explanation doesn't fit".
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:51AM (3 children)
Dude, chill out. Everyone's views on immigration are more complex than is commonly expressed in a tabloid article or SN comment, perhaps even jmorris
The rule of law in classical liberalism enables social liberalism; yin and yang. The mass importation of fighting age, male, muslim migrants into Europe will end badly. Anybody denying this is a complete imbecile. Not only should recent arrivals be sent home but George Soros should be paying for it. Every last cent!
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:15AM (2 children)
My issues are based on the fact that RT is a tool of the state and disease of the mind spreads far. RT and co. are the people hackers are supposed to fight and hate. Cyberpunk is befalling us all without the benefit of the cool aesthetic and people are fine with it. Is it not a sign of intentionally poisoned discourse on a large scale that what was in your head was fighting age muslims - and what popped into mine upon seeing Gates' comments were things like Africans and Mexicans? Which I am going to suspect was on his mind too because the former is one of the climbing "demographics" (for lack of better word).
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:57AM (1 child)
And your point is?
(Hint: All 'media outlets' are tools of the state, one way or the other, and their output has to be 'read' with whatever particular 'spin' they're known for, it doesn't matter what 'colours' the state flies, the state is the state...your Washington bureaucrat has more in common with a Moscow apparatchik...sorry, counterpart than he has with any mere US plebeian...sorry, citizen)
Really? WTF has code to do with this?
Oh, FFS! 'Cyberpunk', those sort of 'hackers'...talk about gullible and naive...
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:03AM
You seem to have misplaced your ADHD medication for as much sense as this post makes to me. But no, there are hackers of all kinds, shapes and interests. Code is one. And the general tendency to loathe shit like this and even specific affiliation is something well noted as a common attribute [catb.org]. Thank you for proving my point about something in the spirit of it having been lost though. :D
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday July 13 2017, @02:53AM (6 children)
I can think of a few things that are worse. But I think what annoys me most about your line of reasoning is that it's bragging about your advertised price tag - like we'd care enough to pay. While I can see occasional advantages to viewing human interactions in terms of markets, maybe it's not such a good idea to exclusively do so. Nor do I get the same tingle from telling others how their subpar news sources make them inferior humans and corporate tools.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:17AM (5 children)
You shouldn't make that assumption because as is implied - everyone is bought. But I'm safely bought by my own ego and I guarantee you that any sort of bitching, ranting, name calling and deserved labeling of whores I use. Will result in better results for the world and my own mental health than allowing propaganda pushing entities to go unaccounted for in my conscience even if never read or noticed. At worst, I certainly won't mislead people on what my true thoughts are will I? But by all means be annoyed at me for calling out state propaganda as itself and calling people who recognize this better than I do while still consuming it complacent whores. Don't be annoyed at the complacency and misinformation itself.
Anyway, I have no expectation from people beyond personal responsibility. It won't harm me if people don't want to have it. I just get to bitch more, gain my 15 minutes of satisfaction, everyone forgets and life goes on. Rinse & Repeat. I mean I'll be long dead by the time this sort of conditioning actually has a predictable effect on society. No reason to really worry about it right?
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:57AM (4 children)
Which is quite a useless observation to make. What is obtained in return for this "bought"? Are you someone's slave (you know as the word actually means, not some ridiculously watered down meaning like "wage slave"), forced to do the whims of some master, no matter how base or cruel they may be?
Reminds me of buying orange juice. "The fool! For this pittance of money, I have quenched my monstrous thirst." Meanwhile the other guy is thinking "Yet another sucker buying overpriced fruit juice. Cha-ching." Each one has "bought" the other and spun it up into a sordid tale of victory over the gullible. But it's a drink and a little bit of money changing hands. Nobody gets a slave for life.
To return to the RT example, they sell a few eyeballs to a few advertisers. Maybe some business or the Russian government gets to plant some propaganda with moderate success. What's missing here is a discussion of the effectiveness of the approach, particularly when you get a bunch of parties with conflicting interests all pushing their own narratives. The exercise is no doubt advantageous to the parties who run it, but where's the evidence that it's running our lives rather than merely being an influence? Or is that merely another narrative that's kicking around and which you've happened to buy into?
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:27AM (3 children)
No my remark goes along with what you're thinking I assure you. Look at how I approach discussion. I just take no issue with acknowledging it because I'm honestly a lot more personable(?) than I was two years ago.
In terms of why places and technique like RT's bother me and creep me out is they do work. That CERN narrative was known and didn't die quickly. The US government will inevitably respond to the star wars suit. That's just the recent examples. These pieces make it to the outside world and my token crazy uncle is an instance of it. What "fake news" connotates and triggers currently is a direct result of propaganda distributed via RT and was successful in that they twisted it into a convenient power word to talk about the very thing exposing their nonsense in the first place. For a less direct example (in that I don't think he is smart enough for government work) Alex Jones made popular the claim that Michelle Obama is a man. Or at least made it popular with aforementioned uncle. Who is probably in the target audience for Trump.
I'm not even sure I can blame him for it either because his sources are other people. He thinks this shit is organic theory. Just like people thought other bullshit [wikipedia.org] was organic. It's a real thing and though my way of going about expressing my distaste with it is not graceful and unlikable. It's still something with prior art and not just a matter of opinion. If this sort of manipulation was possible pre-internet why should it be any less so now? Conflicting narratives don't really mean much. The goal isn't necessarily supporting any one narrative, it's isolation by what I can only call noise saturation. Isolation and chaos is their MO.
For the record, I know how this sounds. But fact is I didn't buy that Russia was still up to this shit until I saw recent concerning signs. You'll note by a journal timestamp that I did not in fact start taking the extent of the manipulation seriously until recently. But this isn't the normal corporate bot engagement crap that is common currently.
Oh and per that post by those horrible fucks at Gab - RT knows what it's doing when it reports on things. They know they don't have to try to imply things because if they mess with wording well enough people will come up with their own bizarre ideas. Look at how far that post and its comments were from Gates rather simple message of "don't let everyone get sick and die because of moral quarrels".
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:00AM (2 children)
Their head of state is former KGB. Of course, they're up to this. I just don't buy that it's as effective as people seem to think it is.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:56AM (1 child)
Well I suppose I didn't buy it more because it would mean Putin's capacity to hold a grudge is absurd. Anyway, the effectiveness has been historically proven. It's just that the nature of it puts people in a position where doubt is so common that the truth slips through the cracks. You're entirely correct if you think it's sloppy almost-incompetent throwing shit at the wall because that is basically what they're doing to see what happens.
Is it more effective if it points people on a particular narrative or because it fatigues them into not seeing facts? I have reason to suspect the Russian people - and I mean a big ol' chunk of them - are well aware of how the news works there. But they're so fatigued by it that nothing can be assumed to be true. Which is why what I'm seeing now is frustrating to no end. There are compelling arguments [newsweek.com] for this.
Lower level effects: Try reading anything whatsoever on twitter - even harmless news posts. The bot push was more successful than even they expected. Because they underestimated the ability for Americans to pick up a flag and run with it if someone does it first. It might seem inconsequential now that I can't even bother reading twitter post threads. But precedent starts somewhere. And it's a truly ugly (but familiar) way of stopping dissent. Additionally I feel like an alien for how far apart people's current definition of "liberal", "leftist" and "democrat" are compared to mine and are actively being used to describe character. It's commie hysteria all over again. All of this freaks me out because I only missed 6-9 months of 2016 due to family issues. That's efficient public opinion forming right there.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 13 2017, @08:55PM
Absurd? Not seeing it myself. Seems a straightforward case of tit-for-tat as the scenario of alleged Russian interference is presented. Clinton pushed against Russian interests when she was Secretary of State, and received payback when she is running for president.
What does "proof" mean here? Let us recall that Clinton ran a remarkably weak campaign despite spending almost double the money of the Trump campaign. Meanwhile zillions of actors knew of how to game Twitter (for example, I read of a climate change bot back in 2010 that replied to climate skeptic tweets and a smart phone app that could generate climate change talking points on demand and even tweet them). And of course, there's the huge mass of people who tweet and such. The Russians wouldn't have been acting in a vacuum, but in a very crowded environment.
We have to ask why Russian efforts are supposedly more successful than other efforts? And in particular, did it really happen as claimed? I'm just not seeing it.
Twitter has always been crap for discussion. I don't see this alleged difference between then and now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Thursday July 13 2017, @10:52AM (2 children)
I honestly can't tell if this is supposed to be sarcasm or not. jmorris certainly spouts more than his fair share of vile crap but for once the guy had a point. All news has a bias. Mainstream media live in their own echo chambers. They all distort facts by omissions and cherry picking and sometimes lies or misrepresentations of the facts that amount to lies. If you want to get any kind of approximation of the truth all you can do is combine and cross reference information from as many sources as possible. If the facts presented by a particular source make you uncomfortable just think for a minute and make sure that's not due to your own biases. Apply the scientific method.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:48AM (1 child)
Read their articles and [rt.com] point me to the one in the same vein [rt.com] on the BBC. You're going to be searching for a while. I make no defense whatsoever for any outlets but if you're going to make the really stupid assumption that I favor any of them including the BBC because I picked one out of a comparison I might as well put at least a representative example of what I'm talking about.
I do apply the scientific by doing my own research. Hence, I don't need to read any news besides as a jumping off point. This is also why I'm not overexposed to the point that I can't recognize REALLY obvious bullshit when I smell it. Apparently everyone that buys into RT's crap can't. Because other places not being objective means RT is on the same level of non-objective right? Or are you seeing this fear mongering anti-science bullshit that includes bible quotes on the same level as the talking heads on BBC and co.? Am I the one with the biases?
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:42PM
Good man. So what were Bill Gates's thoughts on the immigration issue when you interviewed him? I'd like to cross reference it with what I'll ask him in my own interview next week.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:51PM (1 child)
One America News network (OAN or OANN) stays pretty factual and doesn't bury uncomfortable stories.
Some cable systems have it. If yours doesn't, put in a request. (the more people who ask, the better)
There is also an app which is WAY less invasive than CNN's spyware.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday July 13 2017, @12:15AM
Yeah this is actually one of my "secret" references now. It's rather conservative - but not something I inherently take issue with and frankly probably good for a balanced perspective.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Wednesday July 12 2017, @10:47PM
Sure immigrants have made this country great. Doesn't mean we should let in parasites. Just like the old fable teaches us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2_dhUv_CrI [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 12 2017, @11:50PM (5 children)
"(Full, very MSMish-sounding disclosure: My wife works as an adviser on gender issues to Melinda Gates’s office, but she was not involved in the drafting of the letter.)"
"The world, Bill and Melinda tell Buffett in their letter, is becoming a better place."
"“I live in an upper-middle class neighborhood where the average income is $100,000, and every single person living there is living better than John D. Rockefeller lived,"
Perspective. If you're a rich cocksucker with billions to give away, then yes, the world is a great place, and it looks better all the time. How the fuck would THESE people know whether the world is becoming a better place? Maybe if they lived in the ghetto somewhere, their views would change?
One of the crazy things in life, is that so many people take their cues from celebrtities. "Bill Gates is rich, and Bill Gates votes for X and Y, so I should vote for X and Y!"
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:27AM (2 children)
Why is a ghetto a better place for perspective than the home of a rich person? They both are local and would thus, fail to provide any sort of global perspective. Further, what is the point of noting that there is a ghetto somewhere? Was the ghetto not there before?
We can get more objective than looking for slums or mansions. I have my favorite example [voxeu.org] for this sort of thing. It's a study of the world's income distribution over the entire population of humanity, adjusted for inflation. The key result is that it shows two thirds of the entire world getting at least a 30% improvement in income over the 20 year period 1988-2008 (which at the time was the last year for which the article had data). The median income went up by roughly 60%. While this graph no doubt hides some losers, it implies that the majority of the world has done much better over the last 20 years.
So yes, I think there's a reason to believe that the world is for real getting better right now.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:06AM (1 child)
The point is that global statistics are largely irrelevant in the minds of individuals. They do not have a direct bearing or relevance to one individual's successes or tragedies. We are all individuals and most living things are very self-centered and selfish. To someone starving in the slums, an increasing global percentage is cold comfort. What I'm trying to say is that a global numerical analysis certainly has a significant part to play in forming a complete perspective, but the qualitative characteristics of the lives of individuals should form part of a full picture too. When you're talking about quality of life, you should consider subjective experience as well as objective global quantities.
For homo sapiens, in the short term, perhaps. If you pick a random species, your odds of having been human to begin with are 1 in several million at best.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 13 2017, @09:28PM
And I don't care. If we're going to evaluate how well things are going, we need to consider the whole not some individual's mind. What happens if the individual in question wants the world to die by nuclear war? That doesn't strike me as a good enough justification.
How about the billions of people who are doing better by the current world. Does their opinion count?
I don't think so. We need to remember that worry and other negative human emotions act a lot like an immune system. They appear whether or not they are needed. And just like when the real world immune system can turn against its body, so can these negative emotions turn against the people who have them (and convenient targets nearby), no matter that there's nothing really to worry about or hate. So I think there's a hard limit to how happy and well-adjusted peoples' subjective experience will be. That's why I completely ignore subjective experience and go for objective measures that actually mean something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @09:44AM (1 child)
The poor in the US ghetto are probably living better lives than the poor in feudal europe (or even the poor in India).
The blacks in the US ghetto might even be living better lives than the blacks in USA when slavery was legal. The US cops are still murdering blacks, but back in the old days it was worse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes#Violence_against_slaves [wikipedia.org]
So things could indeed be getting better on average, with some reversals etc.
That said, if Trump starts global nuclear war[1] then things will get worse for quite a long while.
[1] There's propaganda about NK, but seriously NK can't start a global nuclear war - they don't have enough nukes.
(Score: 1, Troll) by bradley13 on Thursday July 13 2017, @02:53PM
"The blacks in the US ghetto might even be living better lives than the blacks in USA when slavery was legal."
They have supermarkets full of food, they have shelter with electricity and heat, and modern civilization provides them with luxuries unimaginable even a few decades ago. In purely material terms, they live better than the wealthy did 150 years ago.
US blacks have a different problem, specifically, they have a culture problem. Studying hard in school is "acting white". [jstor.org] So is having a good work ethic. [nationalcenter.org]
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @01:41AM (11 children)
There is a difference between what kind of immigrants a country permits entry. A college educated Australian will differ from a immigrant that can't even read and think subjugating women is natural..
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:04AM (9 children)
I've seen plenty of immigrants and plenty of assholes from over the border, but the absolute worst case of this is a result of being raised on catholic "values" that I might as well blame ancient spaniards for. I have little doubt Islam has similar bullshit to Catholicism because that's the nature of religious oppression. But I don't make the error of thinking either group is more or less educated than each other and particularly more educated than me. Willfully ignorant is a better descriptor. To me encouragement of intuition is the solution to both issues. Not giving them more targets to hate and martyrs to blindly follow.
Even if they really can't read and really do think women should be subjugated, do you not consider yourself someone who would change their opinion based on evidence? I was raised on old style "thou shall obey" christianity and fully believed for a portion of my life that God was over family and women were to obey. That changed very quickly when a seed of doubt was planted. But no one actually gave me that chance. I had to discover it myself. This idea that people are inherently bad and ingrained in hate is another symptom of the wider poisoning I feel I'm witnessing currently.
Also: College educated is rather elitist and presumptuous of one's own culture. What I have seen on campuses in the last several years does not scream inclusiveness and desire to understand the wider world. The people featured in What About Me [youtu.be] are more aware and educated than half of what I've seen produced at campuses I've been at in America. We're going to be learning one way or the other - and harshly - that education goes beyond the paperwork.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:22AM (3 children)
Cultures which subjugate women have rapid population growth. This puts them on track to dominate the world. In the end, women WILL be subjugated.
A bit of relatively mild western-style subjugation (for example, USA pre-1960) is a lesser evil than allowing a greater evil to win.
There is a cultural choice: go back to the year 1950, or go back to the year 700.
Catholic values at least don't include: chopping sex parts off of kids, marrying a 6-year-old (to be consumated at 9), stoning adultresses, tossing LGBT off of buildings, chopping off hands, crucifiction...
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:22AM
I'm pretty sure all those things have a reference in one of the testaments. I can tell you for sure there's a reference to child slaves and stoning. Oh and there's circumcision. This overlaps into overarching christianity I know - but I have never known an actual orthodox catholic before.
In any case, there are two things I can't deny: Christianity was the religion that chose to walk the path of least resistance and evolve to be acceptable in moving past the old testament. Islam has not made the same choice. This is something its practitioners will someday have to deal with. The other thing being that women are eventually turned into a resource and property. But then that brings up its own questions. Does that mean our societies suck and we should just go screw around in the jungle again until we figure out something that works? Maybe.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:45AM
Threw out people with hostile cultures in combination with rapid population growth then?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @08:04AM
No, in the end, or to be more precise, not in any end, women will cut off your Johnson, and keep it in a pickle jar, Lebowski!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:21AM (4 children)
Oooo, the arrogance! Those poor ignorant Muslims, if they only knew better. They must not have the internet. That must just be completely unaware of the rest of the world's views on their views. They'd do better if only they knew that they were wrong, like I know they are! Give me a year with an Muslim fundamentalist and he'll be joining me in pride parades! You are seriously invoking a myth of the noble savage [wikipedia.org] here. Here [wikipedia.org] is a list of hijackers in the 9/11 attacks. Look at the bios of these people. Engineers, architects, foreign educated (on scholarship), the majority from extremely well to do families, etc.
As you get older you begin to realize that much of what you choose to believe is not based on evidence, but based on cultural values. We believe that women are fully capable and deserving of equal treatment not because of our upbringing (I was also raised in a rather backwards household) but because of our culture. But it's somewhat interesting. If we actually look at the evidence and ways of quantifying this view, it tends to run contrary to our views. Of course we dismiss this since the evidence is just tainted by bias. In declaring bias we ignore the fact that the countless thousands (millions?) if human cultures throughout time have almost all seen the exact same result of women falling behind. Nonetheless, we continue to see things as we do because we feel that we must be right. Now as adults, it's difficult to even imagine see things from any other perspective given access to what we know. How could somebody not believe this? If you spent a year locked in a room with 100 Muslim Imams you're going to still come out believing that women are just as capable as men and deserving of completely equal treatment.
There's no particular evidence that's changing our views, it's just what we have come to believe. And it will unlikely ever change. The same is true of other people and other cultures. Traveling abroad was a particularly eye opening experience for me. For instance I was really taken back by one thing in Buddhist culture. I had multiple people, wealthy educated and otherwise perfectly intelligent, literally laugh at people with various physical deformities. Some guy with deformed legs trying to walk was the most hilarious thing to them. I came to learn the reason. You probably know that in Buddhism it's believed that if you are a good person in this life then you'll be rewarded in the next life. What we don't really get in the west is the corollary. What does it mean if you are in a terrible position in this life? It means you must have been a bad person in a past life - so seeing somebody struggle to walk is suddenly just hilarious since they're being punished for all the awful things they did in their past life. And I emphasize these were very intelligent well to do folks. They spoke English better than some natural speakers, but just the so radical difference in our views was something that's shaped my life and views ever since.
You are a product of your culture. As are we all. Don't think you can shape people to your culture anymore than you are willing to consider the possibility of them shaping you to theirs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:41AM
Great, deny people with Islamic beliefs internet access. And throw out people that exercise their non-western interpersonal cultures in public or that makes kids.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:54AM (2 children)
That's bizarre, but okay. I base these opinions on my own experience. Basic schooling is all you need to bootstrap yourself into university. Everyone who has something to offer (and in a lot of cases those who have resources as a result) will have that basic education. I'm talking about the smarts that you don't get by being in a social bubble like academia. The important ones, the shit that makes you well adjusted and willing to consider other culture. What I have seen are simply not that as much as they pretend to be.
I'll assume you're trying to come from a good place but that wikipedia link is weird to me, and I also feel like you got the wrong impression about my own circumstances. Which are such that I don't exactly have a good opinion about academia. But part of the reason I'm not willing to judge based on the education that "well educated australian" refers to is that in doing so i'd be judging myself because I can almost guarantee I would not fit this criteria. Even though I'm an otherwise normal american that happened to be around poverty. I still expect to be given a chance and have been.
Also: That wikipedia article is so far off from the spirit of my post that if I understand what you're getting at: is both outdated (these are fairly normal african villages and stuff) and kind of insulting to my own education level. The very notion of this article seems built upon the privilege to think of people that way. Which doesn't even come close in my mind. It was one example of many where you don't need to be abiding by the standard of a "well todo" education to have a message or be free of ignorance. And you can be full of ignorance while having a well todo education.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @02:48PM (1 child)
The point of the myth of the noble savage is mostly about our tendency of attributing positive characteristics to societies we're unfamiliar with, even moreso when we view these societies as less developed.
I'm fairly certain you don't think that if you could just go speak to let's say a racist redneck that you could change their worldview. This is largely because of familiarity and experience. We don't attribute the same obstinance to individuals in foreign cultures who hold similarly egregious views because we somehow think they're different, better. It's all just a misunderstanding or a nuance. If they just knew how you felt and knew what you know, they'd certainly be able to adapt their ways. But the reality is that not only do these individuals hold these sort of views, but in many cases they tend to be vastly more obstinate and dead set in their correctness. Africa, for instance, has had numerous problems with various groups attempting to engage in organized attempts at literal genocide of other groups. Indonesia is a country that I saw a Soylental label as a moderate and successful Muslim majority nation. In reality while we were going through our sexual revolution and the civil rights movement they were engaged in the mass murder of the population [wikipedia.org] in an attempt to kill off "communist sympathizers, ethnic Chinese and alleged leftists." In modern times the country has become increasingly radicalized and oppressive beginning to do things like legally force all women to wear the burqa in certain regions. But again, due to a lack of familiarity or headline with these nations we tend to envision them as being something much greater and better than they are. What mistakes they have are more misunderstandings, or a lack of knowledge - not a conscious decision to behave in such a way.
In America we have a culture that emphasizes individualism. And it does so to a point that I think we don't really realize how much we really all share an extremely similar culture. You attribute your views to yourself. I did as well. But the reality is that your views are almost entirely a product of our culture. I assure you, had you grown up in an African village, or an Islamic nation your views would be radically different. And you would be equally convinced that they were your views and that they were correct. An Islamic you might likely believe that if he just had some time with an ignorant American he could convince you of the value and virtue of Islam. How likely do you think this individual would be in convincing and converting you? This is the fallacy of thinking you can so easily convince him of the correctness of your views. These are things that are not learned but somehow subconsciously instilled as a product of our environment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @08:57PM
No, we don't. Our culture pretends to emphasize individualism, but as soon as someone actually does something different, they are ridiculed and mocked by most people. Our school system in particular is good at crushing those who are different and encouraging mindless conformity.
(Score: 2) by http on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:51AM
They should go to the USA, then. They'll fit right in.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:47AM (2 children)
You should read your own sources. The interview transcript is included at the bottom of your article. What Gates said, and what The Atlantic said he said - are very different.
The interviewer intentionally tried to (and admitted trying to) attempt to provoke Bill Gates into being either negative on the future, positive on immigration, or negative on fake news. Gates dodged all the transparent prods. Gates is not politically correct, though he also does not speak overtly abrasively. In particular though I challenge you to find a single quote from him in any way endorsing bringing low education foreigners, from a culture that has shown -over centuries- extreme difficulty assimilating, to another country as something that could be in any way positive. Because it's not. Once people reach adulthood without proper education, they're statistically likely to end up as wastes of lives. Factor in a fundamentalistic religion that encourages very backwards beliefs, the lack of ability to assimilate, and it's a complete disaster.
Let's compare this to another sort of immigrant. Jews came to the US just prior to WW1 (1914) in large numbers - around 250,000. Many of these individuals were very poor. By the 1920s Harvard was actively restricting the number of Jews they were admitting since 'too many' were making it based on merit which was upsetting the mostly Protestant student body of the campus. They not only assimilated but did phenomenally. In many ways they're a mirror image of the various Asian immigrants of today. Asians are also having issues in that Harvard is once again allegedly engaging in behind the scenes quotas meaning an Asian immigrant who is perfectly qualified might not be accepted due to their 'race'.
The point I'm making is that not all immigrants are equal. Not all cultures are equal. This is something that's not politically correct, but is also completely true. Gates' is careful to not be entirely abrasive, but he plainly recognizes and alludes to this as well.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:11AM (1 child)
I shit you not I spent 5 minutes trying to parse this and figure out what your point is, what I apparently have wrong about my link and how it's connected to whatever that is. But I give up.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @03:37PM
I shit you not you need more education then.