popmystack

>why isn't any other medical benefit made free and literally forced upon you like fluoride is?

Not only does this not have any merit regarding whether or not we should add fluoride to our public water supplies, but the U.S. government (and many others) quite literally already does this.

We add niacin to flour. We add iodine to salt. We add vitamin D to a litany of food products.

And this quote:

>aluminum production produces fluoride acid - a substance so toxic that we cannot dispose of it... So we began fluoridation of the water because the only place we can store it is in your liver"

Is just completely rubbish. He's basically claiming that we're just walking land fills, using our livers to avoid leaving fluoride acid everywhere.

Really? So mobile support, change detection revamp, TypeScript, the removal of $scope, and all the routing changes are all just "meh" to you?

>and then they threw it under a bus.

They didn't just do this "because." There were sound technical reasons to do so. Angular made the correct decision, in my opinion, and decided to cut its losses immediately and right the wrongs within the framework.

I definitely see what you're saying. I guess all I can really say is it's such a gray area for me personally, given the people I've worked with. There are people who demand respect for absolutely no reason, and then there are generally arrogant, toxic people like you're describing. It's an emotional minefield!

>I'm constantly amazed at people who think their genius is so valuable that anyone would put up with their rancid personality.

My opinion has been that if you really value truth, leave your ego at the door. Emotional intelligence is key to discovering things you don't know, from sources that may be less than friendly.

I am not advocating being needlessly toxic. This goes for both parties. But people would do well to learn when to A) Not expect respect B) Know how deal with someone who is disrespectful, but is correct in the current subject matter being discussed.

> then a new company could make a ton of money by correcting those bad assumptions and giving out loans to people who can't get them otherwise.

This quite literally happens already.

Considering renting history is not accurately reported in any meaningful form, I don't know how they disagree with me. Most people probably aren't willing to give up their car, I'd figure those that have credit issues are still most likely making car payments.

It's one thing to say "I see you've been late on a few of your car payments, so we're going to give a higher interest rate." and it's something else to say "You have a few unpaid medical bills/late CC payments so we're going to give you a higher interest rate on this car loan."

I just have a hard time really believing that is the case. Often credit issuers simply look at the totality of everything, instead of appropriately looking the history of the specific financial contract they're wanting to issue.

I didn't ask for them. I have 4 total. Two when I got when I was first starting out. I have two cards which comprise the bulk of my credit (one from American Express and the other Chase), which represent ~50% of that $90k. Both have credit limits around $20-25k.

>but I'm wondering why would anyone want to use their high-interest credit card to borrow even a few tens of thousands?

I don't know, but I'm sure as heck not going to utilize them that much! I am sure the credit issuers wish I did though.

I've responded to similar sentiments in another comment within this thread, but just to note you misquoted me. I am not sure if that was intentional or not.

Then they should be forced to positively report that you are agreeing to the terms of your lease. It shouldn't be a one way street. Right now, there is nothing for most land lords to really see on credit reports except for seriously cases of rental delinquency (evictions will show up, but these are outstandingly rare). You get dinged for them looking at what will largely be irrelevant information to your landlord. How I manage my credit cards has no correlation to how I've how honored my apartment leases. It makes no sense for someone to deny you a place to live because of other outstanding debts, often these debts do not even follow the same financial contracts or have the same importance in many people's lives.

>Citi gave me a credit card with a $3,000 limit as a college freshmen.

How old are you? Just a few years ago, despite making a very decent amount of money and having no marks on my credit, it took an entire year for me to get a credit card. Reason: lack of credit history. A lot of people have similar stories.

>This depends on your definitions a little bit.

The part where you spend money that isn't yours and then pay it off later. That's debt.

Personally, I've learned the game so to speak and now continually get out outrageously good offers for cars, credit cards, home loans, you name it. I have a about $90k~ worth of available credit to me on my CC's alone. But despite having an incorrect black mark for a medical bill that's reported by _ONE_ CRA (the others removed it after I gave them proof that the debt wasn't valid, Experian refuses to listen and because it got reviewed once they won't review it again), I get better offers now than I did when I had a squeaky clean record.

It's an absurdly backwards system. Get debt to get more debt. Hope CRA's don't fuck anything up. Credit card management has no indication how I'll manage a loan (whether a house or car) due to the nature of spending and utilization, but financial institutions treat it as such.

Quite frankly we need "stricter" credit laws across the board.

1. Start out with a "default" score at the very least.

2. Cap interest rates on CC's (20% APR is stupid). No reason a CC should have an interest rate of above 12%.

3. Don't allow medical debts to be displayed in pulls from CRA's. If the institution really wants to see "everything", make them pay a decently high fee for it. They must also explicitly state that in their loan consideration for you, they took into account medical debt. Craft laws around whether or not financial institutions should be able to consider these debts, depending on the loan being offered.

4. Prevent employers from pulling credit history. Your finances are not their business.

5. Prevent landlords from pulling credit history. They are not loaning you money. If they want to pull your credit history, then they need to also contribute to it positively (i.e. report payment history during the length of your lease, accurately).

I'm going to be honest, that seems somewhat naive and poorly thought out. Take both the rule of law and certain laws we have regarding employee rights. In many places, you can't fire someone because you don't like homosexuals and in other places you can't fire people because they have cancer. Both of these are in fact a restriction of freedom to ensure social justice, there by completely contradicting "social justice can only follow freedom". When in our society it is actually the restriction of freedom that allows social justice its place in society (at least in my example) -- and rightly so in my opinion.

I would suggest not using one-off examples that you gave if you're wanting to paint a broader picture, or use it as a basis for a set of foundational principles.

But regardless, I would like an example of what "SJW's" words and statements are being used as thought-terminating cliches in true Orwellian fashion. I'd also like to know why you consider using such terms as "SJW" to be exempt from that (presumably). If "SJW" is politics of language, and you say it arguably is, then why did you employ such terminology in a post about not employing such rhetoric?

Do you not see a problem with your rhetoric? "SJW" is something Orwell would take issue with, especially your use of it.

Would you care to define what neologisms are used by "social justice warriors"? I've never been able to take that term seriously, and instead use it, somewhat counter to your point, as an indicator that the person who is using it will not be reasonable.

Except that's not what happened. It even states as much in the Wikipedia article you linked.

I'm not sure you understand the whole genetics thing.

I cannot even fathom why you think that's less readable than someone's mangled foreach loop.

If you read the article, nothing was being "suppressed". The sources mentioned are extremely tabloid-esque in nature.

This is only biased if we can provide concrete evidence that similar tabloid-esque publications that happened to align "left" of the political spectrum in the U.S. were allowed to pass while their political counterparts were passed up.

If the standard for journalism remained constant, but the sources that were "suppressed" largely happen to be conservative that doesn't seem like a problem with curation, it seems like a problem for the conservative media ecosystem.

I fully expect, despite adhering to basic scientific principles, to be downvoted yet again in this thread, because I already see a lot of the same names from the last time this article was posted and politically charged rhetoric (i.e. "leftist agenda").

Anyone concerned about the truth would have investigated those articles with recent information and found them to be thoroughly debunked as hyperbolic claims with a good bit of nuance to them. But you didn't, because you're not.

You linked to "credible" sources, with some weird standard of credibility which I'm not even sure you believe yourself.

You people have lost the plot, truly.

Because when has hyperbolic stories about immigrants ever gotten out of hand?

I like how there is an influx of new accounts that seem to be commenting on this article, but no where else.

Most of the publications that were being "suppressed" are tabloid-esque in manner. The fact that they are all conservative seems to be a problem conservatives may want to fix.

You linked to extremely far out there sites as your sources, and two of the stories were debunked the day they came out.

Please do provide more examples.

Pointing out that you are misrepresenting what we are talking about is a personal attack? How do personal attacks even lend support for an opposing view point?

I am not sure if you actually read what happened, but this was a case of certain sources being "ignored" because they are borderline tabloids that often push stories that aren't even remotely true. Waiting for another source to pick up the story and then publish it, isn't censorship. It's reasonable.

For this to be censorship based on a specific political ideology following along one side of the spectrum, you'd have to have an example where they let through other sources that are also tabloid-esque but happen to fall along within their opinions and views.

Did the standard for their sources remain relatively constant regardless of the material being discussed? There isn't a clear answer here, but that doesn't make it defacto censorship of one set of particular political opinions. The sources that were discussed aren't credible in any meaningful form. The fact that they happen to be largely conservative seems like a problem conservatives should address instead of calling it censorship.

A good number of posters in this thread seem fine with not bothering to really think of ways that the presented scenario doesn't hold up and completely accept what was stated is what was actually happening. It's a characteristically low standard of evidence and it just so happens that some of you have made it very clear that such a scenario also happens to align with your opinions. It's fantastically hypocritical.

>So you don't care about conservative views getting silenced here.

I am only going to clarify this once more and then I am no longer going to respond to you. I am not encouraging, advocating, enabling silencing of views here. I said I am okay such view points not getting a larger platform or attention, because it's a waste of time. Note that this is not the same as silencing, preventing discussion, outlawing, etc, etc. However, pretending that discussing all view points without considering whether they hold merit or not is somehow a path to better national dialogue is simply unfounded and doesn't make any sense. But that's my opinion, and really wasn't even what happened in the case above. That specific opinion of mine was brought up in response to someone claiming that we should defacto just give everything an equal voice in the national dialogue and somehow not doing so is censorship that will derail rational discourse on a national scale.

>But what if the major media outlet changes it's mind and starts to think liberals are wrong

You seem to misunderstand why this is happening. It's not a matter of opinions swaying. The sources discussed in the article have little to no credibility. The fact that they are all conservative is a problem conservatives might want to address.

Much like the majority of posts in your comment history?

That's simply not how discourse works on a national scale. There are many things that can be given a platform but aren't because it'd be a waste of time. No one is afraid to give these things a platform, it's just pointless. Artificial platforming for the sake of having every imaginable view point with or without merit on the table would be a disaster.

No one is stopping people from having these opinions, speaking about them, or teaching those perspectives. Claiming that this is a cause of freedom of information and somehow making this analogous to Galileo (it's not, not even in the slightest) is absurdly silly.

If you are looking to defend rational discourse and freedom of thought, well, you're not doing that -- leveling out everything on a no-questions-asked baseline is ignorant and becomes borderline satire of unbiased rational thought at that point.

Literally no one has suggested that we silence opponents. I am not sure how you are confusing me and facebook's curation system not giving attention to certain sources and positions based on their credibility and integrity with actively preventing people from speaking.

Whether your statement is based on disingenuous confusion or simple ignorance doesn't matter at this point because you've made your own post largely irrelevant and quite frankly it ticked me off a little bit that this string of non-sense keeps getting repeated as if it's some defense of rational, critical thought when it's the furthest thing from it at the moment.

All positions and view points cannot get equal play time in the larger conversation -- it would be noisy and a waste of time and ultimately be detrimental to progress. That is not censorship.

I don't think it's a case of me misunderstanding, I could have easily provided other examples of view points that are largely not covered or ignored because they do not hold merit. Not that this really adds negates what you said, but I used to be a conservative (and not in the vein of the caricature I was employing), it'd be hard for me to misunderstand a position I once held some years ago.

There comes a time where experience and evidence will just not go your way, no matter how many what-ifs and "if you would just listen"'s you throw at opposing parties. You cannot add credibility to your position based on unknowns and chance.

Making sure there is an artificial level playing ground between two sides is pointless. I don't believe this is a case of people stifling view points, but rather the view point in question just not holding any merit.

Equating that to censorship is silly. Furthermore utilizing questionable sources to further a point isn't going to help your view point either.

I am highly unconvinced that at this point there is some piece of information that will add credibility to conservative rhetoric, economic, or social beliefs. Sure it can happen, it's just unlikely to. Positions do not gain credibility by "what-ifs".

What biased information am I acting on exactly?

>In most cases, I'd rather lose control and slip and slide around on/off a road than get flattened by a long vehicle merging into my lane because my car limited my acceleration.

That is an absolutely insane position to take. How about instead of losing control and going off the road, you take the car off the road in a controlled manner. You're already okay with going off the road... so just do that in case you find yourself in an exceedingly unlikely situation in where it's needed.

Otherwise, I'm not buying the whole "pedal to the metal is going to save me" line.