But e.g. in the software industry, "enterprise" sales is a byword for "total bullshit":

It's created by Lockheed Martin which is likely payed cost-plus.

My argument is not about who should have free speech.

Hillary doesn't argue that new laws should be passed for that purpose

Citizens United wasn't a newspaper.

One article blamed socialism

who thinks he should be able to sue newspapers for writing hit pieces on him,

But he did preside over a large expansion of the health care system just like Obama did.

Barack Obama is to the right of Ronald Reagan on taxes and health care.

The speech that he's running with talked about rapists? Yes, for

The next victim will probably skip the police and talk to a different group.

As far as the UK and Spain go, I think it's largely about them treating their minorities better. In both countries the last terror act driven with the intention of secession is a while back.

Having an Anti-Vaxxer as president will result in a lot of unnecessary deaths.

That regulation would say what counts as trying to hire natives first.

One company hires the programmer and the other company then gets to point to the existing market and note that there aren't any candidates for the position.

The education myth is just a branch of the blank slate myth. The left won't even consider it - even people that consider themselves model rationalist say things like "too horrible to contemplate" when shown evidence that the blank slate is a

"we really need the H1-B because there's no native who can do the job equally well" Well from an economic perspective that statement is not even wrong (lot's of laws have this problem). Consider the following toy model: Let's

Republicans want to prevent people without valid IDs from voting.

Think about what it means to be biased. What it means for a selection process to be biased against applicants of type x is that it's harder for them to make it through. Which means applicants of type x have to be better to get selected

From a perspective of not wanting repeats of world wars, it might make more sense to wiretap AfD politicians and work against them developing political power than wiretapping current German leaders.

That said, we know as a fact that the fastest temperature increases on record are correlated with human production of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide,

Obviously, poverty is real, and there are people in first-world countries who go hungry.

in many cases, working together is more efficient than working independently

Do you have the numbers on the exact percentages? Would be interesting to look at.

The real reason British resigned control was that they had no more interest in controlling Rhodesia, whether it was ready for self-government or not.

This is a valid reason for treating it differently, if true. Maybe I should amend our ideal to "that your demographic traits should not be held against you by the law without a damn good reason", and so our debate is over how damn good the reason

The only cause of disparity I might expect would be through differing propensity to raise children; but if so, this could be more directly addressed by offering different recognition to childless and child-bearing couples,

How is it that you think the Supreme Court misread the meaning of the Civil Rights Act?

In contrast, against elected officials I would name

It also doesn't explain why the Supreme Court (another form of technocracy) is so much more effective at their job than Congress.

But though I think the relationship between marriage and social utility is more complicated than I fully understand, I do get a nagging sense of doubt about the idea that all the utility is caused by the sex and the romantic love that a couple

Still, I’m not convinced that government funding increased the number of historians or philosophers worthy of notice (even before the culture of political correctness).

Concerning

Principal humanities, such as literature and art

However, is there a reason to think that withdrawing government funding or even abolishing the faculties

3) This unawareness and these biases results in a lot of random statistical noise that is frequently very far removed from optimal policy outcomes.

This is not an argument for selective deprivation. The existence of large concentrations of capital (technically) does not preclude the existence of equal concentration of non-capital e.g. luxury consumption goods.

Associating particular groups with 'bad' has questionable utility

I'd also add that a particular workplace has

I'd also add that a particular workplace has selected its workers, so the average software engineer at your company will have different traits from the average person in the country

Of course everyone has biases, and it's possible to live with them. But people vary in how strongly they harbor various biases, and I would find it very surprising if greater unconscious racism/sexism/etc.

That said I very much doubt that using implicit associations tests would be a good business strategy. Besides my own subconscious biases (the first associations brought to my mind by this idea were “thoughtcrime” and “1984”), I have the following

b) coherence. Multilateral compromises may sometimes induce inefficiency. This doesn't seem necessarily true, but it's easy to imagine cases where pursuing any of several competing visions wholeheartedly would be better than anything in the

Usually polls are collected for statistical purposes. If the answers will not be associated with their identity there would be no motivation to keep appearances. Is there any reason to believe that names were ever even collected?

For those that others find extreme the meaning might perfectly natural to the one that is making it.

Would Silicon Valley be more or less developed if the Traitorous eight hadn't been free to quit?

Slaves, however, are very seldom inventive; and all the most important improvements, either in machinery, or in the arrangement and distribution of work which facilitate and abridge labour, have been the discoveries of freemen.

"The earth is flat" is a sentence that only has 1 interpretation.

It doesn't have centralized lawmaking that goes beyond saying: "Obey the sharia." There no parliament that you can attack.

Part of Sayyid Qutb thinking that underlies the

To me, this view presents a logical puzzle. I can well understand how a Muslim who believes in divine origins of his religion may think that it has one and only one correct interpretation. Thus, for instance, the belief of the Shia Muslims that

I realize that Michael Anissimov has been discredited

Thanks to the new technology, the professional military is again superior to the conscripted soldiers. Most western countries implicitly acknowledged this fact by abolishing draft and switching to a well-paid volunteer force.

On the other hand, I see how teachers who are outspoken about

You should quit the job in order to scavenge more efficiently.

Following your logic, teachers with such beliefs are much more likely to discriminate against their black/female students, and so we shouldn't bother with them.

All I'm saying is that regardless of what are the current average achievements of various minorities, every person should be viewed, valued and assessed as an individual, regardless of what group that person belongs to.

The question is whether your views translate into how you treat your students. Anti-theist/anti-creationist views usually don't, because these are views about ideas, not about people.

No, it doesn't matter.

In fact such prejudices are often part of the reason why one group performs much worse than others in some