Just to clarify, the aforementioned disproportionate representation is with "street children" not homeless youth as a whole.
262 karma · joined August 25, 2010
hnchat.com:f7X20VDdBIG15KJNH7Ih
Another counter-narrative says that climate change is happening but the models to date are inaccurate and overblown.
Another counter-narrative says that man-made or not, it's hubris to assume that humans can do something about it.
And yet another counter-narrative acknowledges climate-change but says that the prescriptions for fighting climate change aren't guaranteed to work and will hurt humanity - in that we should spur innovations that continuously adapt to climate change and boost economic prosperity for all mankind while avoiding worldwide austerity controlled by an earth-worshipping misanthropic orthodoxy. (or something like that ;) )
[1] https://heterodoxacademy.org/2017/08/10/the-google-memo-what...).
To call this problem intractable is an understatement.
ON AVERAGE in Norway (one of the top 5 most equal countries), females prefer more people-oriented fields such as medicine and males will favor more systems-oriented fields such as engineering. Again, this is ON AVERAGE. There are major overlaps in many fields (e.g. arts and research sciences) - and in some fields there is virtually none (e.g. nursing vs sanitation). This is not controversial amongst scientists who do their best to suspend ideological or wishful thinking.
ON AVERAGE in Norway (one of the top 5 most equal countries), females prefer more people-oriented fields such as medicine and males will favor more systems-oriented fields such as engineering. Again, this is ON AVERAGE. There are major overlaps in many fields (e.g. arts and research sciences) - and in some fields there is virtually none (e.g. nursing vs sanitation). This is not controversial amongst scientists who do their best to suspend ideological or wishful thinking.
https://www.fastcompany.com/1784731/regina-dugans-innovative...
JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) is a cross-functional mission-driven organization:
https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/deloitte-review/issue...
On a side note, I would subdivide Philosophy into Epistemology, Ethics, Naturalism, and Phenomenology and reclassify/reassociate accordingly.
https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=d8vQiW5woz_iD_MaFaFAQ...
Note: I am not evaluating thousands of sourced references per day like Wikipedia - nor do I have a partisan political agenda. In this case, I evaluated the source content and it seemed fairly apolitical. Very likely, both of my linked sources used an AP or Reuters articles as their primary source.
Not only. Democratic also (but not only) refers to the rule of law, separation of powers, branches of government, bicameral legislative branch, independent judiciary, and associated checks and balances.
> what's happening in India sounds more like the gradual march of bureaucracy and its exploitation by interested parties rather than a will or even whim of the majority of voters.
Voters are a) whimsical because of and b) manipulable thru appeals to blind emotions (e.g. fear and hope). The antidote is a thoughtful electorate. This requires an educated society but more importantly a highly ethical society.
And so I believe what's happening in India is a program based on the realization that you can't have individual liberty and collective democracy without personal responsibility and civic accountability. There is and will be resentment - so until it becomes a way of life some broad coercive measures are being used to enforce policy. You can call this illiberal or authoritarian - or you can call it pragmatic. The key for it to be perceived as pragmatic is for the central government to swiftly take down any internal corruption. It will reinforce the integrity of such coercive measures and amplify the ethos of "accountability".
p.s. an ideal/utopian liberal democracy might be a fiction but so are all of our aspirations
Also, since we all have a tendency to build our intuitions through confirmation bias it's best to discount our anecdotal intuitions since they may not align with the actual numbers.
There is a popular narrative about what it means to be conservative, liberal, progressive, etc. This narrative is a small simple band in a vastly complex spectrum of views. Unfortunately, we have come to the point where the narrative is being echoed so much that it's impossible to have a conversation framed outside the popular narrative.
We have all been trained and self-trained to pigeonhole each other based on these meaningless labels to either a) dismiss each other or b) rally together to dismiss the "other".
The one thing that we can't do is suspend our emotional biases and sincerely listen to alternate narratives.
So some people sincerely believe Yarvin's very presence is a threat while others find his online philosophical rants to be little more than meanderings.
With that said here's my answer to your thought experiment:
Yarvin would be uninvited if he had been proven (not alleged) to have:
* harmed or advocated harm to anyone * rallied for pro-discriminatory policies * lobbied for pro-discriminatory policies * addressed someone with discriminatory slurs
If he were to deny the evidence then it would be a done deal and he would be banned.
However, everyone gets a chance to repent in my book. So if he had been proven to do these things and he came clean (or eventually came clean) then he would get a chance to publicly apologize online for wide distribution - and again live at the conference at the start of his talk.
---
The real answer to your question is that I would not associate with anyone proven to have done abhorrent things. But I regularly associate with people who have all kinds of abhorrent thoughts.