dracht

I live in a European city/country with a lot of muslims and they are nothing but a problem - generally speaking (this one cool muslim guy you know is not a rebuttal), they refuse to assimilate, are an enormous burden on the welfare state and are overrepresented in crime. Demanding similar anecdotes from the OP however is an appeal to authority.

You only have to take off your rose tinted blinders and look at the state of affairs in muslim majority countries to see what happens when they are significant in numbers. Even in a "moderate" muslim country like Indonesia gays get arrested. Do you think these societies are a result of their geographic location or the culture/religion? What do you think happens if you only change the location of the people and they keep their culture/religion?

It's far from a "tiny minority" that holds extremist views - there are plenty of polls (check out those from Pew Research Center) that attest to that. You are gravely mistaken if you believe all religions are the same and equally compatible with western ideals.

If you were to follow the author's advice, next week's article would be about Asian characters on the show (a comedy show) not being portrayed accurately enough for leaving out their faulty human side. You cannot win with these types. It's best not to engage them.

Basically, I like having the opportunity of moving to any country I want, so why shouldn't the same hold for anyone who wants to come to my home country?

Why should your countrymen back home, the vast majority of which have no desire to emigrate, bear the cost of you being able to live in China? I'd gladly give up my opportunity to move to any country if it put a stop to and reverted the disastrous waves of immigration in western Europe of the last two decades.

In the three largest cities in the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague), the Dutch are a minority.

I stopped reading there. You have got to give them credit for being able to inject some "white guys ugh am i right" message regardless of the story. Slate is garbage.

You felt it was appropriate to interject in a conversation about slavery to wonder why none of these people online haven't helped you out financially, which a typical person would construe as asking for money, despite being a woman with the highest internet points (or something). Maybe I don't frequent HN enough to know who's who, but your replies to obstinate read like the ramblings of someone with mental problems (I don't mean that as an insult).

Honest question: what is it that happens to you when you read the words master and slave in the context of computer science? Slavery is horrible and so is killing, but I do not shed a tear whenever the words 'kill/terminate process' appear on my screen - I don't get visions of beheadings, I don't associate it with the act of ending a human life. It's a safe bet to say that no one reading about computer architecture today suffered as a slave, so saying this terminology triggers you is akin to me pretending to be bothered by loud noises because my great-grandfather went through war.

When you hear about a master/slave relationship or a male/female connector, you know immediately what is being described, which is pretty good for a method of communication. If you are unable to interpret words based on their context, I'm inclined to believe it's not the language that's the problem. I doubt that's the case though, I think these manufactured outcries are attempts at social engineering and moves in a game of power (controlling language->discourse->thought).

I suppose it comes down to whether you're arguing what started the war or what started the world war. Without the alliances, Austria-Hungary would have invaded Serbia and that would have been it.

Idealism is a belief in something unrealistic. It doesn't deserve a place on the stage of solutions. Dave Jones from the EEVBlog [0] channel did a bunch of videos explaining why solar roadways are a bad idea.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/user/EEVblog/search?query=roadways

You're arguing from the arrogant point of view that the USA is the pinnacle of civilization and other nations should strive to emulate it.

European countries, and most other nations in the world, have/had native populations that enjoy cohesion through a common culture, history and ethnicity. Being American is a loose concept that a newcomer can easily adopt. Being Japanese or German carries with it more than just having the appropriate passport, and for that reason the integration of immigrants in Europe has failed completely. Turks in Germany identify as Turks despite being born on German soil. Who is to blame - the Turks, for sticking to their tribe, the Germans for sticking to theirs, or the people who forced this idea of multiculturalism on them both?

A quarter of the population in the Netherlands is of non-Dutch origin and that number will grow significantly in the foreseeable future. That change happened in a mere 30 years or so. To say the Dutch people (and Belgians, Swedes, etc) should not worry about being displaced and made a minority in their own country is to tell them to stick their heads in the sand.

Reducing peoples' thoughts and emotions to "they don't want immigration because they're racist proletarians" is inflammatory, intended to silence opposition to failed social experiments. Keeping immigration at a level that doesn't cause unnecessary friction does not mean you want to shove people into ovens. This whole debate is a battle between ideology and pragmatism.

Immigration to solve an ageing population, i.e. a population that is not experiencing constant growth, is a pyramid scheme.

I had a hard long think and I don't recall anyone making a plea for immigration in non-white countries. The Japanese wishing to keep their country filled with Japanese is not seen as a problem to be solved. The white farmers being marginalized in Zimbabwe and butchered in South Africa certainly didn't raise concern with the diversity aficionados either.

That's a gripping account, thanks for sharing it. It's grotesque to me to see people in the west make a case for communism knowing every implementation of it has led to the kind of extreme misery and suffering you described. I imagine it must be completely infuriating to an actual victim of that system.

I assume they're interested in acquiring information and techniques from these hacker gatherings, rather than hoping to find a terrorist there. The attendees are probably/hopefully not the target.

I always feel like people telling me to be happy with my piece of the pie and to not compare it to others is a ploy by those with a bigger piece to keep me docile and content. Do our feelings of envy not serve a purpose? Would Napoleon have become Napoleon had he not envied Ceasar?

If I had to take a guess, I'd say parent training. When we see a cute animal, we want to cuddle and protect it like it's a child of our own. People talk to their pets like they talk to babies. Humans, in contrast to most other animals, require a lot of parenting to reach reproductive age. Taking care of a cat or a rabbit hones a decent amount of the skills that are required (later) in life to produce good offspring.

In order for you to make such a statement, you have to believe what the parent said was completely false or that it is true but shouldn't be said.

If number one: Human evolution did not start 50 years ago. How do you think humans used to live for thousands of years, or how primitive tribes live right now? (Spoiler: it is not a feminist's dream) Are human males not more capable of gathering resources due to their inherent traits? Does evolution not select those most capable of reproduction? It does not take a degree in anthropology to put two and two together.

If number two: If basic evolutionary biology is too hurtful, perhaps it is time to consider whether the ideology that led you to feel inadequate is the social construct that needs to be done away with, rather than commonly agreed upon facts.

Another collection of IKEA hacks: http://www.ikeahackers.net/

I've noticed that Britons, generally speaking, put a lot of trust in authority. They'll shrug it off or rationalize it when their government introduces another perverted law - the NHS works, so it can't be that bad, surely. Britain lacks a sizeable and vocal government-distrusting counterculture like they exist in Germany or the US. How you go about introducing that artificially, I don't know. The frog is being boiled too slowly.

Would you care to elaborate on that?

Have a look at social media to see what the current sentiments of the left are regarding white (males). Pure hatred and death wishes, it's absolutely grotesque. The KKK has nothing on them. Get off your moral high horse.

Is this the tolerance of the left I've been hearing about? 'Love trumps hate' and all that?

You're being disingenuous by equating illegal immigrants with all immigrants - he never said he wanted to get rid of all immigrants. Those illegal immigrants are and were already breaking the law by the way, so his (apparent) intention is merely to enforce it more thoroughly. You knew this. When you engage in dishonest behaviour to prevent any form of concession, then indeed there is no point in conversation.

bitter uneducated whites

Why throw in 'whites' like it's some derogatory adjective? Are bitter uneducated blacks or hispanics preferable? Besides that, people without a college degree are not necessarily stupid or not allowed to have a voice.

Tech is hip, trendy and a desirable sector now - unlike, say, logging or mining. Some people feel like they are not only owed a seat at the table, but that there was a grand conspiracy in keeping them out of a field that not long ago only a certain group of people was interested in.

There's a bunch of ways. Some are obvious (like a call to IsDebuggerPresent()) and some not so much (like tripping some exception that only gets thrown when a process is not being debugged). Youtuber MalwareAnalysisForHedgehogs[0] has some interesting videos about this and anti-reversing tricks in general.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVFXrUwuWxNlm6UNZtBLJ-A

It doesn't matter what your concerns are with Clintons' politics or potentially shady dealings, they pale in comparison to the alternative.

In my book, a blowhard possibly having used his wealth and fame to get sex is nothing compared to the things Clinton has said and done and is accused of. A crass remark by Trump is paraded as a war crime whilst Clinton nonchalantly calling for the assassination of someone spreading inconvenient information is swept under the rug. I'm not American so perhaps it's not my business, but looking at it from the outside it is clear which candidate was able to afford the biggest propaganda machine.

That kind of demonizing and dehumanizing language is not really appropriate here IMO.

Ridiculous analogy. Being rich and famous (=high status, attractive mate) is nothing like holding a gun to someone's head (=threat of violence). A fairer comparison might be "they let you do it if you look like Brad Pitt". Is that less sexual assault-y in your book?

Do you think there would be less conflict in the Middle East if everyone had the same (lack of) nationality? Unless you are willing to engage in mass genocide, eugenics and eternal subjugation to achieve your world of peace, there is little you can do about people that look like each other and live close to each other from identifying as a single unit. The idea of social constructivism has deluded people into believing that any human problem can be fixed by removing words from the dictionary. It's absurd.

Those things existed before and without nations. Civil wars happen despite the participants being of the same nationality. A country is (usually) simply a label for a group of people with a shared culture, language, mindset, etc. Removing those labels is a naive attempt at achieving some global utopia filled with uniform drones.