>While there are complicating factors, in general, probabilities add linearly. So for the average woman in the US, who lives for 77 years, she therefore has a 1% chance of being sexually harassed during any 1 year of her life.
Obviously the average survey respondent was not 77 years old, so the math here is wrong. Other assumptions we could make: prepubescent and post-menopausal women are not being sexually harassed at the same rate as women of reproductive age.
I think your point would stand with steelman math, so why strawman it?
Because my 5-year-old daughter has experienced something akin to sexual harassment. Its grim out there, but its far grimmer in Antarctica, and other isolated places where victims have little recourse in the moment [0].
I went out of my way to provide as conservative of numbers as possible, so if that's a strawman, I don't know what to tell you. Even a cursory glance at incomplete statistics [1] on the subject show that the per-year rate of harassment at the peak ages is commensurate with the per-contract (again 4-6 month hitch, so double or triple that rate to get the per-year average) rate of all women in Antarctica.
If your "energy security" is dependent on a belligerent state, you don't have energy security. This was something Trump himself has repeatedly criticized the Europeans for, so if you lead with "Trump was right" follow that thread.
The US has no power to stop it anymore. Nuclear non-proliferation relied on America guaranteeing security and coordinating the rest of the world to ostracize any country that didn't play by its rules - that's out the window. Countries that feel immediately threatened will go for the bomb, and other countries will do nothing to interfere so they keep their own options open.
Poland has already announced it's looking to acquire nuclear weapons.
I feel like only a few years ago the EFF was a non-partisan organization but for the last year every article of theirs I read has a distinctly American progressive perspective. Anyone know what’s behind the change?
I’m struck by the complaint about loosening moderation, right next to a complaint about censorship. It’s a very unprincipled take from an org I used to respect.
I believe this is the wrong place in the thread. Did you mean to comment to the parent?
I agree that the American political parties currently represent rather niche positions that most people don't feel aligned with - they're pretty poor generalist labels for the various constellations of moral sentiments that we find in society.
Could it be that red states aren’t passing privacy laws? No snark intended. Privacy seems pretty “anti-business” when you consider that it’s a type of regulation in any form. I share the same idle curiosity because I’ve followed the EFF for years too, but the more I think about it: did they ever stand a chance with Republicans?
It also seems like big tech is aging into or adopting a kind of partisanship. These companies are so unfathomably large it’s almost difficult to look at their market impact as positive. Mind you, I’m not trying to make a particular case here. I’m only espousing a general attitude. The share of the S&P 500 that they collectively occupy alone is looking increasingly concerning.
The democrats are basically the institutionist and "status quo" defenders of American hegemony at this point. Doesn't matter how "left" you go, they are basically the 'conservative' now.
Also, saying the EFF is nonpartisan? The EFF always had a strong political point of view. If you label it right or left, that's your problem.
Are you kidding? They have literally been the most progressive tech advocacy group in history. I’ve been donating annually since it was founded. They’ve been consistent. Maybe you’ve moved more to the right?
Can you provide examples? I don't feel like opting out of data collection is a very good example there.
I definitely feel like the ACLU took a turn for the worse in that direction a few years ago. I'll be sad if the EFF is also headed that direction - they've struck me as one of the only ones that's still willing to stand on principle
Being in support of free speech doesn't mean being explicitly tolerant of every possible opinion or political/philosophical/ethical viewpoint. I can assure you without any doubt that EFF is not sitting there fighting for someone to advocate for genocide, for example.
Further, defending privacy and free speech also means protecting from people/institutions which would act against privacy and free speech, i.e. the "paradox of tolerance" is very relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Religious: the body is connected to a spirit and should be protected.
Familial: the body is scared to individuals who knew the person.
Cultural:; the body represents a current people, and to exhume it makes them feel dehumanized.
Legal: the body is property and property rights are to be respected.
Seems like with ancient Egyptian mummies none of those are relevant. The modern Egyptians have moved on from the old faiths, none trace their lineage to those mummies, culturally they are proud of them, legally there has been too much churn for the old claims to be relevant.
I actually was under the impression that Lyme disease was a new world disease introduced to Europe after contact, but it seems it was endemic to both continents for thousands of years prior, not clear where it originated as the sources contradict each other. Seems like Europe is more likely.
>In all, 33 different combinations of the housekeeping genes were found. The study's findings appear to show that Borrelia burgdorferi originated in Europe but that the species has been present in North America for a long time. The researchers suggest its re-emergence there in the 1970s occurred after the geographic territory of the tick that carries the bacteria expanded, for example through the restoration of woodland.
>A team of researchers led by the Yale School of Public Health has found that the Lyme disease bacterium is ancient in North America, circulating silently in forests for at least 60,000 years—long before the disease was first described in Lyme, Connecticut, in 1976 and long before the arrival of humans.
AIPAC is funded by Israel, and by it's own description AIPAC is an organisation made up of pro-Israel zionists. Oh, and the "I" in AIPAC stands for "Israel".
Everything they said was true and you did not even attempt to explain why or how they're wrong.
> AIPAC is funded by American Jews.
No shit. Name a single larger demographic with a protracted interest in defending Israel, I'll wait.
> Nice try hiding your hatred.
There are two governments on Earth that deny Israel's violation of international law. They are Israel and the United States. It is not hatred to oppose Zionism, it's global consensus.
> It is not hatred to oppose Zionism, it's global consensus.
I don't care what your global consensus is. Jews are entitled to their homeland, just like any other nationality, like Belguim or Paraguay. To say otherwise is hatred.
> AIPAC is funded by American Jews.
>> No shit. Name a single larger demographic with a protracted interest in defending Israel
Exactly - no shit. Jews do have a protracted interest in defending Israel
- so that there is a place to go where they can be protected from genocidal maniacs who are creating this "global consensus" with intent of wiping them out.
> I don't care what your global consensus is. Jews are entitled to their homeland
Evidently. You seem rather incensed that I even mentioned the hundreds of nations that oppose Israel's existence on non-religious grounds. The nations that observe international law, the eminence of criminal justice, the treatment of minorities, the protection of journalists, the (repeated) violation of Syria's border and the displacement of Israel's remaining native population.
Simply put, I agree that Israel's natives are entitled to their homeland. It's unfortunate for the Jews then that they are not the Arabs.
> so that there is a place to go where they can be protected from genocidal maniacs who are creating this "global consensus" with intent of wiping them out.
For the courtesy of the Jewish people I do not conflate Zionism with Judaism. Anyone examining Israel's history can very easily distinguish for themselves the extremists and the oppressed.
