chuckee

> Epic Games is a privately held company, and not traded on established securities markets or readily available on secondary markets.

But suppose it were publicly held, with Sweeney holding majority ownership. Why would that distinction make his criticism of this tax scheme invalid? It seems to me his criticism is still perfectly valid, it only applies to a smaller set of companies.

That they have to tell the truth in the ingredients list does not give them a license to lie everywhere else.

How could a competitor benefit from using an honest quantity of real strawberries, if the only place they can effectively advertise that is in the tiny ingredients list that nobody reads?

Thank you for the fast catch. Since it was still within the edit window, I've tagged the story as likely fake.

While I believe white privilege is overstated, the sibling comment is correct that these are not mutually exclusive. https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/23/can-things-be-both-pop... makes an analogous point.

> European inhabitants fled the various forms of intolerance at home, and then declared and fought for their independence when the rulers tried to extend their intolerance into the new lands.

So what exactly was this "intolerance" that the UK tried to extend to the US? Does it still exist in the UK? What about in Canada, that waged no war for independence? What about the countries of the former Soviet union? Were they fighting against "intolerance" in WWII, and were beacons of tolerance after their victory? Heck, was the US? If I recall correctly, at the end of WWII, the US still had segregation and a whites-only immigration policy, which would not change until the Hart-Celler act 20 years later. Is that your idea of a tolerant society?

As long as you keep "tolerance" sufficiently vague, you can spin any tale you like.

How does that paradox square with the transition of intolerant societies into tolerant ones? Where intolerant attitudes were not only tolerated, but the norm?

If this was really a paradox, such a transition should be impossible. But since such transitions took place, the same forces that enabled them can also prevent a society from becoming intolerant.

Of course in practice this paradox is only ever invoked by those that get to define what counts as "intolerance", or those that agree with the current definition.

> advocating for the precise same set of values

The problem isn't advocacy, but quoting. They did use [brackets], so I hesitate to call the quote outright falsified, but since brackets are intended only for clarification, their use in this case is definitely deceptive.

I prefer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test#Inkblots myself, for how much meaning they evoke with such a restrained use of ink and color. The mark of a truly adept artist.

Facebook won't need to resort to such crude methods. They can algorithmically suppress positive stories about a candidate, boost negative stories, and do the opposite for his opponent.

Without a leak from Facebook, you wouldn't even know they did anything at all, let alone be able to prove it.

Story choice in traditional news media has a similar bias.

If the media were inclined to, they could report on a new hate crime nearly every hour. As population grows, anecdotes become increasingly meaningless, yet the general public still treats them as meaningful.

Very useful if you own the press.

..for the conservative views they allow on twitter.

Pretending local or user-controlled solutions don't or can't exist is a big tech favorite.

> French oversight within the Antiquities Service in Egypt did not end until 1952, after almost a century of colonial control.

Century? "Ottoman Egypt (1517–1867): Egypt was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1517, after which it became a province of the Ottoman Empire." [1] Does it only count as colonialism if a European country does it?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Early_modern_period:_Ott...

> By 2017, when Trump claimed that “crime in Germany is way up” because it had taken in “all of those illegals”, the number of overall recorded crimes was decreasing. Last year, crime in Germany sank to an 18-year low.

The Guardian would make a much stronger case if they showed how the per-capita crime rate of people with a migrant background is no higher than for other Germans. Possibly income adjusted, or looking only at non-property-related crime. Sure they refuted Trump's claim, but we shouldn't use Trump as a guide for these discussions anyway.

That is if we buy into the blinkered view of looking at migration only via the economy and crime-rate.

But how often is it well publicized?

The car is already spying on you. I think the question is: It shouldn't be spying on you.

The data belongs to the car owner. If the owner wants to disable data collection, so be it. If anyone else wants that data, they can ask the owner for the decryption key and access to their car to make a copy.

I don't think it's even remotely reasonable for devices that we own to betray us. My car should protect me, not the manufacturer.

Now what makes you think I'm miserable? Because white advocates in movies are portrayed as irrational and violent, filled with hate for everyone that's different, like in American History X?

Have you ever considered that movies and media might be deceiving you?

> the idea of a white ethnostate is a hateful, racist one.

Surely you mean any ethnostate is hateful and racist, not just a white one? Such as the hateful, racist states of Algeria, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Finland, Sierra Leone, Lithuania, and Turkey? All nearly homogeneous at the granularity where 'white' is a single group.

> I definitely winced a few times on re-reading it a few years ago.

You expected the insane AI bent on torturing the last five humans forever, to be more respectful of present-day sensibilities?

> openly promote the idea that whites are superior and deserve to dominate society.

From what I could gather, the idea they're promoting is for whites to have a separate society, and not dominate anyone. But since they're so open about promoting, as you say, whites dominating others, you should have no trouble finding an example proving me wrong.

How does sharing code silence him?

Jefferson more than just didn't live up to his ideals by owning slaves. His ideals themselves would be anathema today:

Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [negros] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

Rather conflicts with the narrative that the US was founded as a melting pot nation.

While I don't know how exactly the SPLC arrived at their categorization, the "self-described" part is false. The 3rd paragraph of their "about" page shows:

> We also believe that whites, like all racial groups, have legitimate interests that must be defended. The defense of those interests is white advocacy. We seek to advance only those interests that we recognize and would defend for all other racial groups. We seek no advantages as whites — only the expression of preferences for our own people and culture that are taken for granted by people of other races but denied to us.

Now this paragraph may be a lie, and the SPLC may be correct that they are hateful supremacists. But they're not self-described as such. Again, I welcome evidence supporting this, but I don't feel inclined to go through their website to find it.

Not if they include a debunking. Right now we only have their word, which isn't worth much. Though that is a wonderful catch 22 they can use as excuse. We should be content to know only that the banned party was guilty. Of what, exactly, is not our concern.

Google broadly and secretly [1] defining hate speech, and removing based on that definition, is exactly the example you asked for: content removed for having the wrong politics. That they won't even tell you the exact politics, but leave you guessing, makes it worse, not better. What might be an entirely factual, dispassionate video, becomes in your mind a foaming-at-the-mouth murderous screed, because all you know about it is that Google (known for being straightforward and trustworthy) called it hate speech.

[1] We never get to find out what their interpretation of their stated rules is in practice, only who is guilty of breaking them, and only in the few cases that are high-profile enough for us to learn about.

Yes, that is what Google says, without citing any examples of what the hate speech in question was. This way they can censor any politics they like under the pretense of hate speech.

American Renaissance's entire channel. That has, as far as I'm aware, never called for violence, or spread misinformation, though I welcome news to the contrary.

> Camera technology can overlook and exclude people of color. We're committed to reversing this bias with #RealTone on #Pixel6.

I had heard that film was, in the early years of color photography, biased to correctly capture the skin tones of its inventors. But I was not aware any smartphone cameras suffered the same bias. Does anyone have a source for this? Google didn't bother with one, apparently thinking simply bringing up the possibility is enough:

> A lack of diverse testing means that today’s cameras can carry that same bias, delivering unflattering photos for people of color. - https://store.google.com/intl/en/discover/realtone/

Interesting standard. So only genocides during "regular times" count? And as long as there are tensions, you can't say things are working out? Anything short of perfect harmony might as well be civil war and genocide?

You have it backwards: ethnic violence is more prevalent in diverse countries without boundaries separating different groups: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Look at ex-Yugoslavia. Is it not working out? Are the people worse off in their separate countries, than when they were genociding each-other under a common flag?

"Good fences make good neighbors" wasn't invented out of thin air.

I find the appeal to religious freedom contemptible. An animal does not suffer any less if it has to be conscious during its slaughter for religious reasons, rather than secular ones.