He talks about "throw[ing of] slurs" and "denying rights to others", "wishing violence on people because of their heritage", and that type of thing. Does not besetting people with slurs count as "diversity" now?
Do you think these people will be able to do good technical work if they're constantly beset by this kind of thing? Or do you think they will retreat to somewhere where they don't have to do with that?
And secretively hiding who you are is not a solution. No photographs. No video meets. No YouTube videos. Can never discus anything personal. No conferences.
> Does not besetting people with slurs count as "diversity" now?
It depends whom you ask! There are certainly some people both off- and on-line who seem to think that uniformly slurring all white, male, cis-sexual, whatever folks as "oppressors" - and even occasionally suggesting, apparently as a serious political proposal, that "Whiteness" (whatever that means) is something that should be forcibly done away with - is an effective way of advocating for diversity.
Hmm yeah it's quite badly written. Either way, let's just say it's an example of a place where one can look stuff like this up.
"Ending whiteness" does not mean "killing all white people" or "eradicating all European cultures" or whatever the parent comment was implying. (Or am I reading too much into it?) Though perhaps you can find some moron calling for that on Twitter.
Are other phrases of the form "ending ____ness", where ____ is a racial qualifier, also acceptable, then? Someone using that term could similarly argue that they're not advocating for the eradication of ____ people - just the identity and behavior associated with ____ people.
Are you arguing that calling it "whiteness" is a bad branding move by the sociologists? In that case, I fully agree. There's other similar bad branding moves like "toxic masculinity" or "racism = power + prejudice". I wish they would change those words.
Or do you mean that sociologists who speak about "abolishing whiteness" secretly mean "abolishing the behavior and identity of white people"? No I wouldn't agree with that. I think they mean what they say, and when they tell you their definition of "whiteness", that's what they're referring to. Not some other thing.
Going from "hey, maybe we shouldn't kick trans people in the teeth?" to some rant about "help help I'm oppressed because I'm white!" is quite the stretch. Why don't you just come out and say that We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children? God this site truly is infested with white nationalists up to its tits these days.
Don't do business in Europe if you don't like it. It's not hard.
And if you must use these kind of loaded terms, insisting you MUST be allowed to do business on YOUR TERMS and your terms alone is pretty much how colonisation started.
Besides, homeopathy has been studied for ages with tons and tons of quality studies.
Did it get rid of all the homeopathic quackery?
They will always have an excuse. If all else fails it'll just be a vague generic "oh yeah, it's just something deeper your science can't measure yet" or something along those lines. The Queen was an amateur hand-waver in comparison.
Never mind it was never very likely to work in the first place, on account of defying basic logic on several levels: like cures like, the whole water memory business, the more you dilute the stronger it becomes – nothing about this makes any sense.
I miss the days when worry about the adverse effects of homeopathy was the top concern...
And if my grandmother had wheels then she'd be a bicycle. You're still trying to spin it as "but you won't be convinced no matter what!" on a story that demonstrates the exact opposite. This is just a pathetic round-about personal attack questioning someone's integrity using a bizarre hypothetical that's the exact opposite of what was actually found.
It's not only "left and green" that have a policy agenda on climate change. Parties in the centre and centre-right do too. Of course there are disagreements on various trade-offs, but it's only really the far-right that strongly objects to action on climate change.
In 200 years time Ken Burns the 6th is going to make a documentary about climate change, and quotes like this will be read out to illustrate just how short-sighted, selfish, and hyper-nihilistic people were.
A lot could probably be done with a simple "a person 1.80m in length must be able to see a 50cm high object 1 metre in front of the car" or something like that. Just making up numbers here and don't know what would be reasonable, but it seems this doesn't need to be that hard?
Weight also matters of course. Hopefully this relatively simple ruling will fix some of that too.
EU Regulation 2019/2144 [1] covers field of vision requirements. This is exactly the kind of regulation the USA wants the EU to drop.
> there shall be no obstruction in the driver's 180° forward direct field of vision below a horizontal plane passing through V1, and above three planes through V2, one being perpendicular to the plane X-Z and declining forward 4° below the horizontal
> For vehicles with high driving positions (driver's eye points more than 1,650 mm above the ground), a 1,200 mm tall cylindrical object with a diameter of 300 mm must be visible when placed 2,000 mm in front of the vehicle
According to Claude a Dodge RAM fails both of these. At 80cm (2-year old, a dog, or someone crouching down), depending on driver position, an object might be obscured by the hood in a comically large 5-8 meter area ahead.
>A lot could probably be done with a simple "a person 1.80m in length must be able to see a 50cm high object 1 metre in front of the car" or something like that. Just making up numbers here and don't know what would be reasonable, but it seems this doesn't need to be that hard?
It's hard because the people pushing for new rules very transparently want rules far beyond what the public wants or considers sensible. If they were simply asking for that it'd probable be done already.
reply