That's not true at all. This sounds a lot like the random anti BLM propaganda you see on facebook.
The core tenants of BLM are that CURRENTLY black communities are policed in a radically different way than white communities. BLM activists want everyone to have a just and fair policing.
The assertion in that article is that all BLM activists and the whole movement are black separatist and racists because a "media commentator" taunted Tucker Carlson? That article also does not mention that she lost her job as a result of that interview (cancellation works both ways).
While there may be black separatists who support BLM, BLM is not a black separatist movement. Ultimately any black separatists will be frustrated by BLM's goals of an inclusive and just society.
Also, National Review is about as unbiased as Daily Kos, and has other ideological goals when discrediting BLM.
I don't think it's a dumb question at all. A quick perusal of Wikipedia seems to imply it's a complex issue:
"In addition, because of past land allotments, leading to some sales to non–Native Americans, some reservations are severely fragmented, with each piece of tribal, individual, and privately held land being a separate enclave. This jumble of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political, and legal difficulties." [1]
From long observation: no, one thing HN is remarkably bad at, even compared to the rest of the web(!), is taking context into account. Usually that kind of thing is deliberate trolling when it happens elsewhere, but here I can never tell. It seems so sincere.
It's pretty clear to me that it was sarcastic, but sarcasm reads really badly on the Internet. In open forums, it's best avoided -- there are just too many ways for it to go wrong. (Especially when not everybody is a native speaker, which makes sarcasm even harder to recognize.)
I don't think there's a consensus on that. Regarding words that some persons find deeply offensive:
- Some readers feel that using such words should be avoided simply because it's emotionally hurtful to certain individuals. Or because it reinforces beliefs they find abhorrent. Or for the pragmatic reason that it tends to end constructive discussion.
- Other readers feel that having policies against using such words does more harm than good, and stifles free and honest discussion. And coddles individuals who are too easily offended, when they should in fact use it as an opportunity to mature.
I think HN's audience skews more towards that first group. I'm sure other forums exist that skew the other way.
Agreed. The reason its not that way is that schools are mostly state-run daycare programs, setup so that parents can work, not a genuine implementation of skill building.
> I history class was wasted on me in high school because I was a kid and didn't have much life experience. But years later with a better grasp on human nature I think I would have had a better grasp.
would not be
> Schools are mostly state-run daycare programs, setup so that parents can work, not a genuine implementation of skill building.
This is due to the nature of the topic, not its pedagogy.
No, the reason is that the people who teach are naturally of greater experience and age. When you reach their age/experience they are starting to make sense.
The Chinese military has already given the go ahead to start injecting a vaccine developed by CanSino Biologics into military personnel. That's potentially 2 million people. https://fortune.com/2020/06/29/china-coronavirus-vaccine-mil... This vaccine has already gone through their phase1&2 trials. Whereas in the US a vaccine probably won't be available for about a year, it's quite possible that other countries will follow China's lead and accelerate their vaccine development & trials.
Slowing the spread was to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed (flatten the curve) but it was also to minimize the number of people infected before either a vaccine or effective treatments became available. In the US a vaccine is likely still a year off, but we already know more about how to treat this than we did 4 months ago. And in another 4 months we'll likely have even better treatments and protocols.
It's not inevitable that 80% have to be infected within 18-24 months. Other countries have slowed the spread with Hong Kong, S Korea and Taiwan being 3 of the more notable examples.
If you start posting substantive points arguing against socialism / big government you get warned. If you argue about the warning you get banned.
YC is not really any better and the main mod is a self-admitted (although he took it down now) far leftist.
One time I found all the UBI threads and every flagged / mod warned post was someone arguing against UBI (that’s apparent a flame war), but endless idealistic rambling about how great it would be was totally fine.
Isn't that one of the core tenants of the BLM campaigns? "Separate but equal" community policing for African American neighborhoods..