HexagonalKitten

> The steam explosion would have resulted if they were unable to prevent the core from melting through the floor to water below.

But it only creates a significant explosion if the building is intact, which it wasn't at that point. You were talking about a kiloton level blast. Had they not drained the basement it would have made the disaster worse, but nowhere near as much so as you think.

> Perhaps you may just now be getting the sense that nuclear disasters don't just last 2 years?

The part of it that would give liquidators a lethal does in a few minutes, no that didn't last two months, let alone two years. The first few weeks of running onto the roof and pushing a few shovel-loads of debris back over the edge into the reactor room before being replaced by the next guy were much different than the people calmly walking through the woods looking for bits of ejected core. Still dangerous, but orders of magnitude less.

> You have no clue what you are talking about. I literally gave you the source

Your source wasn't worth anything. It was nonsense they came up with before they knew the scope of the problem. Evacuate Tokyo. Lol! Not even close. Not even if all reactors had been impacted. It was redacted because it was wrong, not badly covered up so that people like you could find it as part of some strange conspiracy.

> Spent fuel rods remain radioactive and hot for years to decades

Many fission byproducts have a halflife and minutes to months. The first day/week/month/year of a spent fuel rod's afterlife are the most dangerous. If rods sit for a while (6m - 2y generally) they're safe enough to transport to a secondary pool.

> Maybe you are just now learning that nuclear power is dangerous?

No, I knew radiation was dangerous when I first read about the demon core accident. But nuclear power is still about 100,000 times safer than traditional power. You just refuse to value distributed deaths such as miners and pollution sufferers.

I like textualism. The point of the supreme court isn't to get everything right, it's to kick badly written law back to the legislators. How do you know the text needs fixing if you don't stick to the text?

Sometimes it is just thrown out to cover bias, but that's not its fault.

A law can be so blatantly and obviously unconstitutional that everyone can see it and refuses to arrest or charge people for breaking it. It's pretty easy to construct test examples, "Bob Smith must pay 2x tax", or "Black people can't do X".

The supreme court doesn't make a law unconstitutional. It already was or wasn't. They provide notice to the system that the law will now be seen as unconstitutional or not.

If they get it wrong (lets say we know because another SC overrules them in the future) it doesn't change the constitutionality of the law, just whether it's enforceable or not during those periods.

The SC isn't supposed to concern itself with justice, that's a sticky matter for the legislators. Their job is to make sure that the legislators followed rules (wrote laws which do not contradict the constitution) and that those laws are properly applied.

Yes, every individual judge has their own skills and opinions and as such, sees the legal question slightly differently, and has different legal interests and thus knows some law more than other. We have a nine as a balance between not having enough diverse backgrounds such that we might be missing the critical input some day weighed against the group being to big to be convenient.

> why do we end up with split votes that so often fall down partisan lines?

People are flawed. Let's say some injustice caused you to get into law. You're likely going to be more familiar with that area, and more sensitive to its harms, than another judge. You may not be voting your ideology, you may be there (as a justice) because of your ideology, and you may have your honest beliefs because of your unique experiences.

I often read opinions I don't agree with, but I can see where the justice just had a different life than me and sees things differently.

> Supreme Court opinions literally called opinions, if they are apparently objective?

The only use of objectivity in this thread is yours. But if someone did use that phrasing, they'd mean that the justices should decide the same on the same issue, no matter if it helps a nazi or a nun. Justice is supposed to be blind.

> Oh I see the problem: it doesn't seem like you know what you are talking about.

Sorry, I couldn't afford your webinar.

> Chernobyl was a potential kiloton-level steam explosion

No, the building doesn't appear to have been structurally sound enough to have enabled a larger pressure explosion than it suffered.

> They also exposed 600,000 people (the "liquidators") to direct contact with life-limits of radiation in the clean up.

Well, closer to 250k were actually sent to the site. But do you think they all died? Or got cancer? Because they're being examined by international scientists working on the effects of radiation on people. If thousands of them died or went missing they'd know.

> I also love the nukers going hand in hand with the oppressive soviet-era government in covering up the immense toll of Chernobyl, because it suits their argument.

Let's say that you were right, that there were 600k (not 250k), and that they all died (as opposed to ~70), that's still only 60 weeks of normal pollution deaths. Even if you were right, it's not as big a number as you think it is. And that's in one of the more primitive countries that has nuclear, when it was going through it's financial and political death throws.

> In Fukushima's case, it was the fact they had decades worth of spent fuel rods that if they weren't able to keep them cool (which was a possibility in the first weeks after the disaster) would have ignited

No, it's that they had these spent fuel rods in the reactor building. It seemed easier because they didn't have to be moved as far, but proved to be a really bad idea once the reactor building was irradiated.

But it was never near the china-syndrome levels you describe. There was a plan to basically poke a hole in the wall with a really long crane, and then just fill the pools through the hole in the wall. They did equivalently dangerous work at the time and nobody get more than trivial exposure.

> This practice of storing spent fuel rods onsite is also very common in the US, and it is a huge problem waiting to happen.

Not so much. The Fukushima problem was storing them in the reactor building. If they were stored next to the plant, but not in it, there wouldn't have been a problem at all. Most plants store spent fuel outside the plant. (Often there's short-term storage next to the reactor waiting ~1y for much of the the fission byproducts to decay, then the fuel is moved to the nearby pool.)

> Great excerpt from suppressed Japanese report on Fukushima:

You know, most suppressed reports are really just wrong, and were not released because of that. Sadly, because conspiracy theories are fun.

The report was from 2011, when they were in the midst of it, and knew comparatively nothing. They now know that even the minimal evacuation zone wasn't needed and people even a few km away would have been safer staying at home.

> Gee, evacuate Tokyo.

No, that's ridiculous. That's at the level of an engineered disaster, where you take all the fuel and light it on fire and then let it continue to burn. That's not a realistic failure mode. Yes, a plant could catch fire (Chernobyl) but by the nature of a large containment rupturing explosion, you've usually got a place to pour fire retardant in. And we now know that meltdowns tend to create an elephant's foot type of barely-warm slurry by their nature. As they melt into the concrete and steel they naturally dilute and eventually don't have the heat to continue melting through the containment. Fuel geometries mean that an explosion would likely not remove even a large minority of the fuel from the reactor building, and fuel ejected from a reactor is unlikely to burn - whereas fuel in a critical configuration in a reactor, would. Such as in Windscale in the UK.

In so many ways, Fukushima was never close to a worse disaster. Further, many existing (by the time of the accident) safety designs would have already protected the plant. Spent fuel should have been outside, and the generators should have been nearby on the hill as opposed to barely above sea level in the basement. The electrical room (incoming power to run the backup pumps) should have been above ground, allowing the generators to be bypassed if they failed (or were flooded, like this time).

I think they did want it broken, they seemed to treat everything like a game.

My guess is that they didn't count on the errors and that made things much harder.

The time to send random message is after the successful decryption of the first few. Drop a few hints in the early messages so that they're valuable to the police, then hit them with the time waster once they're hooked. Tell the public it has the answers and claim the cops aren't even trying, etc.

I wish whatever you were doing had peaked. We need less of it.

In fact, this is a good question. As described in this thread (a transposition cipher layered over a substitution cypher) this is something easily crackable. And in fact, in the video we see an example of that easy automated cracking, once they'd figured out a roadblock issue.

They touch on the actual difficulty in the video, but it obviously bears repeating - errors. Zodiac apparently screwed up in a few places, dropping a characters, misspelling words (maybe intentional), and so on.

These days we tend to think of cyphers as mechanically perfects, and it's easy to not realize that this was created by an amateur with pen and paper.

> are you suggesting that experience of one set of engineers with mastery of obsolete technologies 40 years ago is somehow a gate that a current company needs to pass through and excel at before they can compete

Yes. Not a gate, but a bar they need to clear. Audio is not easy, and I disagree that most of the skills in question are obsolete. The electronics, sure. But the NC algorithms and driver are old yet still unsolved fields.

Of course, as you say, billions of dollars and poaching those employees will help them do it in less time.

> Tesla is up against companies with literally a century of experience.

And Tesla sucks at stuff that years of experience helps you get right. Like doors that close evenly, and windows seals that don't leak. The simple, little things.

> You just took what you originally said, and said it again

Only half of the last sentence, the conclusion, was repeated. But with space not being at a premium, I would happily restate something from up-thread because it can make it easier to read and reply to.

> If the worse-case engineering disaster ... millions would have died.

No, I don't think so. I think you'd need an engineered, as in intentional, disaster for that. Like terrorists.

And engineering disaster (improper planning) is what Fukushima had. That's very unlikely to be improper enough to kill an entire city because engineering mistakes tend to be planned for to some degree and mitigated by building redundant systems.

Very unlikely to cause a disaster, as in almost impossible even if you tried to form the same materials into a bomb.

Assuming their costs are about 50%, and that they need to make ~$8B profit / year, they'd need to collect $16B to make $8B, so that's about $100B in rentals at 15% take. Plausible, because the USA alone is ~$90B, but why does it seem stable? If AirBNB starts to charge enough to make $8B profit per year why wouldn't you rent your suite with VRBO?

The margins can get paper thin because nobody seems to want the profitable extras - just CC processing and a listings site. I know people who rent vacation property and they do not lack for potential customers. They're on all the services, but also Craigslist, etc. They value the services for easier money handling, slightly less customer service required, and a few smaller things. But certainly not enough to warrant more than a 5% cut, but ~15% seems more common. This seems to usually be obfuscated by charging the guest, not the host, but it's still money that's not on the table for them.

They often break the rules to deal with this by suggesting customers contact them directly and pay by money transfer, so the industry is already price conscious and willing to undercut partners. Not a friendly place to expand into. And customers tend to price conscious and shop around, so it seems likely to stay this way.

Uber, to contrast, benefits from their network effect because most customers are time, not price, conscious and thus only check one service. For AirBNB you have months to shop around and contact the host out of band.

Worst operating failure, or worst engineerable outcome?

I mean if you took the nuclear fuel and fed it to people one lethal does at a time - yes. You could kill tens of millions.

But both reactors experienced almost the worst possible operating failure and this is how low the casualties were. Fukushima is leaking into the ocean and still not expected to cause a single radiation-based death.

Vastly more people have been (/will be) killed by runoff ponds of coal ash slurry rupturing and running into rivers than from radiation from power plants or spent fuel.

At 10k pollution deaths per week, for even just ten years, no. A nuclear reactor couldn't meet that (5M deaths) even if you left the switch in 'boom' mode and went home for the night.

It isn't quite that easy though because it's night for all 5x at once, for instance. So you need to have transmission capacity for the 4x you don't use locally, to send it elsewhere when it is sunny, and to import 1x at night from your sunlit neighbors.

> generate green hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2, killing several birds with one stone.

This is great because it means we can use guilt-free hydrocarbons where they're important. Like rocketry and airplanes, making lubricants, plastic bags, etc.

> overbuild would give you massive amounts of "free" electricity. I'm sure the world would find something economically useful to do with it.

Generating proofs of work for a blockchain collectible card game? :D

> Can you build a nuclear reactor in less than a decade cheaper then storage and renewables? The evidence indicates no. But if you can, the world would love that, just demonstrate it's possible.

Sure, the USA got to the moon in less time, in the 60s. As a technical problem it's easily doable. Even in quantity it could probably be done. (There are some questions of making many of the larger parts at once, such as the containment vessel, and if enough factories remain which are capable of it - in the USA. If it was worldwide, that's not an issue because China now has that capability.)

On the political side, it's either impossible or pretty easy, depending on the motivation. It's currently impossible because of the nuclear boogeyman and all of the obstacles that opponents can throw out. (It is implied that these obstacles have no ultimate merit.)

However, if we had a focus on pollution-related deaths, which are like a never-ending global pandemic - 10k deaths per week from coal pollution alone - then we'd probably find the will to fix it.

Considering that (estimated lifetime) deaths by all Nuclear (including Chernobyl and Fukushima, but excluding bombs) are less than one week of pollution deaths, it'd be an easy sell if we actually looked at numbers.

In the Lazard study, do you see what they budgeted for non-panel costs in utility-grade solar? In residential the cost of the panels is often quite a lot less than the total system cost.

> Until then, it's hydro, batteries, renewables, and demand response full speed ahead.

Hydro is almost tapped out, and not carbon neutral. But I agree we should build it everywhere possible because it is dependable, and comparatively cheap.

Batteries are not gonna happen for grid-scale power. A few terawatt hours (a minimal estimate for the USA's storage needs) would be every battery produced in ten years, even with a ramp-up, and the pollution from the mining and manufacture would be huge. They're a great solution for certain storage solutions though because they're solid state unlike flywheels and pumped hydro storage. Places where convenience weighs heavily will adopt batteries.

Renewables are absolutely the answer - as much as they are. Any generation that can be peaky, should be solar and wind if possible. Like if we built desalination plants they'd be a great use of intermittent power. Or if they're just charging the storage layer. Neither is free of pollution though, like batteries they merely front-load it and appear green when operating.

You're 100% right though about full speed ahead. I'd rather start on solar today, which I don't fully believe in, than spend years arguing and be stuck where we are today.

Granite, for instance, has a 1200c melting point which sounds good. Its large grainy structure might cause porosity issues. And it's main constituents are silicon and aluminum, both of which do transmute under neutron bombardment. (An expert could say if they transmute to anything you really don't want around, and how long it'll be there.)

I think ceramics are an answer to the porosity and similar issues. Consistent structure, no inclusions or other weaknesses. But they would face the same transmutation and induced radioactivity problems as stone of the same material.

So, what's your conclusion of one day of posting history? Far-Right? Alt-right? Full on Notsee? Transphoooooobe? Paid Russian?

As far as group thinker goes, lol. I'm in the 5% side, against he 95% braying mob who dox and torment people all the time. This used to just be common sense, for instance that you can't medicate children to be the other sex, and now people insist that up is down. I'm saying what I said ten years ago, and barring an actual change in human biology, what I'll be saying in another ten years.

But since you brought up immigration issues, do you expect to see an alt-right person (such as you seem to believe I am) saying that race is not an issue? That immigration shouldn't be stopped? Where does that fit in your categorization? Could you describe what a moderate, liberal, Parisian view would be, such that you could judge mine against it?

> It's hard enough to convince people that it's worth their time to add their real voice to the cacophony of voices being recorded on election day. To risk imprisonment to add a couple more voices makes no sense.

But the voter fraud being alleged now isn't one or two ballots. It's ballot harvesting here, and lost SD cards there, voting machines not properly recognizing votes, and poll watchers not being allowed near tables. In any of these cases thousands of votes could have been altered, added, or removed.

We need to take this seriously, investigate, show that the fraud (which is inevitable at some level) didn't change the election (hopefully), and tighten up the rules for next time.

Stuff that should be bipartisan. 1) Voting machines suck, even when they only count. 2) Recounts can't be on the same machines as the first count. 3) Counts must stop unless poll watchers are able to watch. 4) Poll watchers should have to make a positive assertion that they could see, and did watch, or the votes should get recounted. 5) All disputed votes, either the ID or the vote marking, should be kept separate and recounts should involve reexamining the entire vote.

> I think the Blaire White across a room scenario suggests that pronouns are more useful in a referential sense if they're used in a way that aligns with gender presentation

I think we should have defined what we think of as gender expression. I think it's stuff like affectations, hair styles, makeup, "gendered" clothing (dresses), etc.

Harry Styles wore a dress recently to much acclaim. He was lauded for expanding the male repertoire.

> I also don't think it's just me, i.e. I don't think most people are much more prone to 'seeing' someone's true biological sex in this kind of scenario than I am.

I saw a man, in a dress. And I think that's what everyone saw.

The difference between Harry and a transwoman is - intent, which is invisible. I only know Harry isn't trans because the article told me.

> I just think that thing lines up with "gender presentation" a lot better than it lines up with "biological sex" in the cases where those differ.

I would have agreed. Ten years ago nobody was going out of their way to queer everything. If a man wore a dress they either lost a bet or wanted to be seen as female. But now, in a world where nothing signifies sex, how can I read your gender expression?

But now a dress isn't part of gender expression anymore and is simply a garment. I guess we're expected to just move the bar and say that because Harry wasn't wearing a dress and lipstick he's a guy not a transwomen but that feels fleeting.

> I don't think one is expected to just recognize [Moon Gender] based on presentation. Hence, the practice of being explicit about preferred pronouns in circles that care about about this.

But that makes a mockery of the entire idea of gender expression. Now it's just people demanding special labels again.

The whole ideology is pushed as a unit and lives and dies as a unit. Either gender expression is a thing, and there are a finite but large set of them, and sex doesn't exist as a binary, and trans babies are real, etc, or it's not.

> We’ve established that an IP address is not strong evidence for identifying an individual.

Well no, we haven't. There's one standard of evidence for conviction and another for a search warrant. You'd never get a conviction on that alone though.

> in any case, without providing evidence that the IP address is _only_ associated with the accused, and _not_ with any others with similar opportunity and motive

Because no other fired employee lives at her address? But that's not relevant because they got a warrant to search her address, not simply her person.

> I disagree with your contention that the fact that all users of the system used a shared username and password doesn’t complicate the case.

I do agree that it's not open and shut, but I don't think that the specific fact of the password being shared will complicate this case further.

Having the IP provides the linkage to her that is otherwise lacking because of the shared account.

> for example, any others with access to the shared username and password who might want to access the data for similar reasons, or wanted to frame the accused for hacking and put an end to the her very public/politicized efforts

There's even less evidence from which to come up with conspiracy theories than simply to blame the accused. Sure, it could have gone down in some complex and unlikely way, but why are we discussing zebras instead of horses?

And, any investigation of a conspiracy to frame her would necessarily start with the only clue - that the communication came from her IP.

It's not straight anywhere though. It came over years of watching CP defend literal incel terrorists beating up lesbians who refuse to have sex with them, while gaslighting the victims and defending the attacks. CP didn't coin "Cotton Ceiling" but they sure go on about it. If kinkshaming is bad, what is it to personally shame lesbians who reject men?

And I didn't lead with it, I used it to explain why I found your reference to be less than compelling.

> So if you were talking to me and saw someone who looks like Blair White across the room, and wanted to single that person out, do you think you'd spot that person's biological sex and say "him over there" to me rather than "her over there"?

You and I are already talking about Blair so I'd say 'He'. But If I thought it might be ambiguous I wouldn't use either. Like I wouldn't use a shirt-color if I couldn't see it clearly, or thought that you couldn't.

And I won't use people's chosen pronouns but I don't pick fights either so I'd sidestep the issue in their home or at their event.

But if you mean, would I spot Blair if I didn't know them? Ehh, I dunno.

Do you think this means I'm reading their gender expression? Doesn't that implicitly assume that there are only two gender expressions then, such that I'm being fooled into seeing the other one? This whole angle feels like it'd be labelled regressive, and it brings up the question of how one would be expected to recognize 'Moon Gender' at all.

It feels like it'd be simpler to just say that I would be mistaken about their sex.

This is a pretty bad article.

Their expert isn't: "Butler, at the University of Florida, said making an IP address that appears to come from elsewhere isn't that complicated."

And the legal analysis is weak, but that's apparent from the title: "Experts: evidence to support search warrant on Rebekah Jones' home flimsy"

Yes, search warrants are to search for evidence. If the evidence wasn't flimsy they'd have had an arrest warrant.

It offers as a defense that there were no damages.

"What (Jones) did, didn't cause any damage," she continued. "Normally you don't see prosecutors prosecuting for computer crimes something that didn't cause any harm... it seems to be a very sketchy use of discretion to try to use this very serious statute against somebody who didn't cause any harm to your systems."

But it neglects to recognize that the damaging act is the message, and whatever actions or defamation it may cause, not the stolen CPU time.

It quotes the EFF to say that an IP alone isn't good evidence, "It's a thin read to just use the IP address, and it's one that we really, really discourage," said Cindy Cohn, the EFF's executive director. But it misses that they had an IP and it coincided with a small set of people who had access and motive.

They note that the police had an IP, but no linkage of IP/customer/date. This does allow challenging the warrant, but doesn't make it instantly null and void.

It says "Cybersecurity and digital rights experts also said the fact that the emergency system in question relied on a shared user name and password further complicates the case."

No, it doesn't. Fired people are not authorized users. And they have an IP address which points to a specific one of those users, so that's not complicated.

It then attempts to conflate misuse of data with unauthorized access of the system at all by claiming that this case is similar to Van Buren v. United States which is about a police officer using his authorized access to do something which was forbidden.

I have no opinion about the case but this article is trying to give me one. Not facts, it just wants to skip straight to opinions.

It's supposedly the assumption that matters. I read it that Kepler was bothered by the rudeness to most people, assuming neutered pronouns for everyone, for the hypothetical sake of the 1%. (Note, the 1% are not here asking for this of course, because they don't want to be associated with these behaviors.)

Rules for thee, and not me. That's bad enough, but when someone is speaking for an entire population and using language like hate and shame they aren't helping anyone.

You seem like you intend to be helpful, but I don't think you're as surrounded by these politics, or the disingenuous arguments, as I am. imho, Contrapoints is a homophobic monster who supports shaming people with "genital preferences" (ie, gays and lesbians.) If you want a sane person who just happens to be trans, try Rose of Dawn. They're honest and sincere. Bair White is also reasonable, and often gets threats and hate from the community for being unwilling to join in the nonsense.

Ultimately the rift comes down to lying. Do we have to deny truth to be kind? I say no, and I'll leave this rough paraphrasing of Blair. "Am I male, yes. Of course. I'm a transwoman and I wouldn't be trans if I already was female. Do I wish I wasn't, yes. But am I offended, no?"

As for Contrapoint's "seeing gender", that's just simply not the case. For one thing, I grew up when boys were allowed to like pink, so most of people's signifiers don't stand out to me.

I'm super behind being sensitive, but if you're six inches taller than the others, have a beard, or breasts, etc, those are sex linked traits. Not size entirely of course, but often enough that the 10% male is larger than the 90% female. It's gaslighting to assume we can't differentiate between the sexes.

> If you're open to a real example, the "pronoun police" at my workplace suggest that when writing about hiring candidates, we use singular "they" instead of "he" or "she", in order not to call too much attention to the gender of that person when those evaluations are read by decision makers. The intent is to reduce any possible gender bias in hiring.

I am, and I like that. Like the example of hiring musicians after a blind listening. Kind of the whole schtick of that music show where the hosts spin around only after listening to the artist. fwiw, that's actually not considered progressive anymore because it amplifies the homogeneity of choice. Because of this or that factor, many cellists are one sex, or the QA department skews heavily towards one demographic. Without active HR grooming you don't get those SV pleasing diversity numbers where you have a numerical microcosm of the country. But yes, the idea of a meritocracy and blind hiring is always refreshing.

> To my eyes, in this thread, the person who is harping on pronouns the most, seems to be closest to having a mental breakdown over them, who can most accurately be described as "pronoun police", and who shows the greatest explicit tendency to control others' use of pronouns, is also the person who in the first place corrected an in-the-wild usage of singular "them" to "him".

Have you cared for groups of children? Like all bullies, SJWs try to make the victim appear the aggressor. As a current example, Letitia Wright got taken in by pseudo-science, but people attacked her (viciously!) for retweeting it even though she had been victimized by the "hoax". "You're pushing a message that KILLS PEOPLE! F you, cword", and so forth. Presumably if they found anyone taken in by Letitia's post they'd attack them too. Simply put, none of this is what you'd do to actually fix a problem, or if you actually cared about people.

In our case, look at how the person who used "them" responded to the criticism. They went straight to trying to ideological slander.

>> It seems like you dislike trans folk. I'm not sure what they did to hurt you, but I suspect your fears and hate are the result of conditioning.

Accusations of transphobia. That's not the kind of allyship that anyone needs. In fact, that's almost exactly how a troll who wanted to make people hate each other would act.

Yes, this is obviously a non-problem, but by their own rules, the OP assumed someone's pronouns. And when called on this they didn't respond reasonably but lashed out with essentially accusations of hate. If they intend to be helpful they should check themselves before they wreck their allies.

That's not my assumption, but thanks for offering.

> framing the argument in general terms is clearly specious.

No. It is a general argument because it applies to everyone, everywhere, no matter your skin color or country.

If you had two potential immigrants, identical, and from the same country, would you not pick the one with a solid work history? Would you not pick the one saying "I'm looking forward to a great new life in <Your Country>" as opposed to the one bad-mouthing it? Which one would you assume would get the most value out of being there, someone who hated it, or someone who loved it?

> a thinly veiled and obvious proxy argument against Muslim and Indian immigration into Europe, itself a proxy argument about maintaining white racial and ethnic homogeneity.

No. You obviously just watch the USA news about Europe. For one, the actual racists aren't concerned with Indians. So you're just out of touch. There is racism, but ... it's complex and interwoven and generally more about the countries you traditionally fought against rather than some simplistic color spectrum. The USA is odd in that almost all racial strife comes from the Indian wars and slavery, both populations of which are internal and visible. In Europe you have silliness like Greeks hating Turks and vice versa, but being essentially indistinguishable by others.

But there is a huge "invisible" backlash against unrestricted Muslim refugees. Invisible because it's not the far-right narrative you hear. It's progressive people. For gay marriage, racial equity, etc. And they don't want religion bans or anything, but they do want ideology tests. For instance, there's near 100% support for asking "Do you respect women as the full equal of men, and could you follow the orders of a female police officer?" or such. The recent terrorists would have been blocked by such a screening. There is an obligation to take in refugees, but not to do so blindly. If you do take in a known criminal, perhaps jail them while they await the chance to return to their home country...

Your attitude is insultingly out of touch to, for instance, the victims and families of the UK child sex scandal. It's not a happy fact, but it is a fact, that 97% of those arrested were Pakistani. If you call that racist you crap on the victims, and you crap on all the non-rapists who should have priority over the criminals. Similarly, to pretend that Europe hates Muslims craps on all Muslims (the vast majority) who don't chop off the heads of people they disagree with.

Which assumption? Can you quote it?

From my reading, you're the one assuming that white protestants are going to do better in these tests and that is racist etc.

Also, like most people, I differentiate between immigration and asylum. Asylum is like taking your neighbor in after their house burns down. Immigration is like inviting them to stay as a roommate. There are very few people I wouldn't extend a helping hand to, but not a lot who I'd want to live with.

If you take them at their word, why is it disgusting?

What is wrong with cultural compatibility? Why shouldn't a country want people who will help, and not want people who won't? Is this not what countries already do by trying to find productive workers instead of future welfare cases? By turning away people who have committed sexual assault or other crimes. By looking for people who say good things about their host country, not who denigrate it.

One problem in understanding the actual issues with mass immigration is the intentional conflation of culture, religion, and race.

Religion and culture are HUGE parts of a community's behavior and race almost isn't at all. To use the largest and most brutal example, the UK rape gangs are 97% Pakistani. It isn't because of race, but because of religion and culture. A religion that doesn't respect women and a culture that doesn't respect the law.

The two people I know who got banned from FB for pointing this out are a Pakistani expat and a Qatari Arab. It's not a racial thing. They both very persuasively show that it's structural issues in both the country and in Islam that make this almost expected behavior. Much like how the thin-blue-line might seem noble to police but obviously just leads to abuse. So these people trying to criticize their culture to improve it, much like everyone calling out the USA, christians, police, etc, were shut down by the white people who assumed they were being racist - towards themselves... Much doublethink.

When you come along and call out reasonable issues as 'coded racism' you're never going to stop the rape, and at best you're just going to cause racism. "No," they may think, "I didn't say that person was X race, but you are, and you're really defensive about it. Maybe you're on to something." But it almost feels like that's the goal these days. Accelerationists picking fights in everyone else's name, trying to burn down the system at all costs.

Your rhetorical style is very harmful to the people you claim to support. You received criticism for your interactions and you immediately redirected that towards hatred for "trans folk" in an effort to smear the person who said it.

> What harm is it to use singular "they"?

That's not what the OP is saying. Because of course there's no harm in any pronoun. But there is societal harm in acting high and mighty about how saying "they" is somehow making a better world and then acting like a prat when called on it.

> regressive labels. ... people will be all sorts of genders. They won't be bound by yesterday's norms.

No, modern twitter activism is just making a bunch of crap up, and this over-concern on properly labelling everyone's gender expression just harms actual transexual people with actual body dysmorphia.

What people who harp on pronouns miss is that pronouns are not used to refer to someone's gender but their sex. I can see your sexual characteristics from across the room, and referring to them is a good way to narrow down who I'm talking about. "That's her there, the tall one in the red dress". Nobody is going to say "That's zir, the one who is only sexually interested when they're romantically attracted to someone, and whose gender expression varies with the weather." Not only is it a bunch of totally irrelevant and inappropriate discussion for most settings, but it's invisible and thus worthless in a referential sense.

The pronoun warriors are invariably not sexually dysmorphic, they're just deconstructing their parent's mores. They're today's goths, not some miraculous new human evolution. If they manage to do something new and valuable - if for instance Harry Styles actually looked good in a dress - all they'd end up doing is expanding the normal dress code for men, they wouldn't actually be creating a new identity. And this isn't helpful because society explores these things (copying elements of one sex's traditional styles in the other sex's new style, etc) via fashion designers and manages to do it without attacking each other's moral character and making queer/intersex people into political pawns.

> It seems like you dislike trans folk. I'm not sure what they did to hurt you, but I suspect your fears and hate are the result of conditioning.

If they had displayed any hate, and they did not, it would have been caused by conditioning from vocal jerks, not from trans people living their lives.

> Would you be a stuffy gender policeperson, or will you just let people be who they are?

Okay, in what way are people not already 100% allowed to express their gender? (In the USA, Canada, etc...)

To someone in the Q-adjacent community who has been through Tumbler and Twitter, you're incredibly transparent. Everything you say is divisive, rude, harmful because it distracts from actual problems, and because it makes this nonsense seem important. You're clearly a justice warrior, not someone who works for justice.

> You've got a lot of fear and anger. Reflect on it. Let it go.

And you're doing this in the name of a community who was doing just fine on their own. Trust people to speak for themselves. Don't pick fights in their name.

Since the LGBTQ institutions have been taken over by the woke they've pushed gendered nonsense and the public isn't blind. Mental breakdowns over pronouns, putting men in women's prisons, etc. Your behavior here is part of a pattern that has reduced LGB acceptance over the last few years, and while Trans acceptance is superficially up, it's at the cost of hateful wars against transexuals, for instance.

I know an ~60yo MTF who was savagely attacked online, under their actual name, for saying that they were tranSEXual because they knew they were biologically male and wanted to be a woman. They were told their language was hateful and they were "killing us!" even though they nearly lost their job, and were being bullied in a way that actually causes people to kill themselves. This is an actual person who spent the last four decades living as the other sex, fighting actual discrimination back in the day, and the mob wanted to cut them down for not toeing the woke line.

The effect of this allyship is similar to Portland, where white Antifa activists are using BLM as an excuse to riot. There's a 'funny' video of a black officer saying he's been racially insulted more during the BLM riots than in their entire career before that. He continues to say that every time a black person tried to speak to him - to ask about his actual views and rational for being an officer - that white BLMers come and physically block their interaction. The rioters don't want anyone to find a middle ground and solve anything because they're using black people to justify their anarchist cosplay. "Oregon Public Broadcasting reports Wednesday that black members of Portland’s Black Lives Matter movement are tired of their anti-racism demonstrations being hijacked by the mostly white “Antifa” anarchists and are working to separate the two movements as protests continue."

Similarly, I've never seen the pronoun police display actual concern for anything other than their ability to control people.

Reflect. Stop. Thanks.