Greyparrot

You cannot create a job without capital, even if you are only working for yourself, you need materials and tools and a place to work.

Failed Socialist countries have a disproportionate demand to capital ratio, and thus have few jobs available, even though people are literally DYING to work.

If you are going to exclude immigrants from socialist countries, you won't have many applicants.

Not to mention that productivity is not necessarily a product of your DNA.

There's this nagging little thing called "free choice" where people can choose to be lazy. How do you code that out of DNA..and should you? I know a lot of stress free, happy, lazy people.

I know it's so terrible. 150 years ago the Republicans imposed personhood on the negro slave, and now they want to impose personhood on a fetus? A clump of cells? Where will it end?

@Alec

I will debate you.

Or at the very least, for euthanasia abortions for genetically unviable or barely viable fetuses.

Not really accurate.

Anti-abortion advocates are pro fetal rights to varying degrees.

Pro-Abortion are for the restriction of fetal rights to varying degrees.

This kinda ties in with the point I was making about people in power labelling with inaccurate labels for the sole purpose of marginalizing diverse groups.

Welfare has grown into such a giant monster of government authority that the government has had to resort to mislabelling wealthy people as criminals and poor people as victims in order to justify their power. The actual rhetoric of politicians on the left is that the rich steal the wealth from the poor. This broad mislabelling of wealthy as criminals is so laughable when you take any NBA millionaire for example. Most of the wealthy NBA players steal exactly zero wealth from the poor. In fact most of them grew up in poverty and worked their way up using exceptional effort, not criminal endeavors against the poor.

Wealth is not a zero sum game, and people from one generation to another move up and down wealth brackets. Most of the millionaires in 2018 were self-made (with a lot of help from a robust stock market). There is no upper limit to how hard a person can work to invest in himself to become productive and create wealth where there was none to begin with. While there may be SOME wealthy criminals like Soros who purchases politicians for the sole purpose of manipulating markets through the force of government regulations, literally stealing from the poor by forcing devaluations on their capital and purchasing it with pennies on the dollar through his hedge funds, the vast majority of the rich plays by the rules and does not use force through the government to steal from the poor. 

So when Bernie Sanders pounds his fist on his podium and demands that the all the criminal rich pay their fair share for stealing from the poor, you know that he is asking for reparations from the all the wealthy to compensate the victimized poor. That is how broad labels were used to transform what used to be a basic social safety net that everyone was okay with 70 years ago into the current welfare monstrosity that eats up trillions of dollars of our budget we cannot afford. The government maintains the broken system by pitting one group against another using fake labels: "Criminal wealthy" vs "Victimized poor." Government knows how to divide and conquer to maintain power, so it's not just limited to only race baiting using broad skin color labels to pit one group against another.

Also, you don't have to answer anything in the US census other than verifying that you are a person living in America, considering the constitution only requires a headcount of people for the purposes of representation. Any other questions the intrusive government asks you can be considered unenforceable mandates. Answer at your own personal risk of loss of liberty.

Don't even volunteer the information that you are a legal US citizen. You have no idea what list the government will put you on and who they will sell that list to for whatever means they see fit.

Before the Jews were rounded up and exterminated, the Nazis kept a census of them and labeled them with visible armbands.

Anyone worried about being marginalized should resist any form of labelling by the government, or by anyone with power and guns.

Fun fact: You can check the box labeled "Black" on any public document and get away with it to get extra free stuff and benefits, no matter who you are or what your DNA is. As long as we live in an institutionally racist country that has policies favoring people due to the shade of their skin, there is no reason why people should not take advantage of such unequal policies. 

The dream of MLK will just have to wait until people stop using color as an excuse to avoid dealing with the content of people's character.

Might have to wait until a few racist generations die off.

You mean check a box that looks something like this?

Most people (myself included) are not curious enough to shell out the money to take a comprehensive DNA test when I can just claim whatever identity I want, and Constitutionally, the State can't do a damn thing about it.

Kinda thought Americans would be tired of the leaders with the same old rhetoric: "yo white people be lik dis..and yo people of color they be like dis..."

But I guess yogurt is the flavor of divisive racist political rhetoric these days with the sweetness of that timeless racial baiting.

Probably something to do with content of character and not color of skin. Jus spitballin here amigo.

Assimilation is not a zero sum game of cultures as long as you have a tribal ghetto to enjoy your "other" culture in. Feel free to speak English in Quebec though and enjoy the tilted heads and raised eyebrows.

Lol don't forget the death throes of Merkel and Macron.

He is European. he just come on the forums to troll Americans cause..jellydonuts.

Oh silly you. People come here for the free stuffs, not to integrate.

Similarly I enjoy the way you, especially you as a person devoted to science, are defending AOC's claims that the reason why Yucca is not grown in the "Communities of color" of New York is because of "White communities imposing colonialism" and not something as basic as the climate of New York.

It absolutely was not the "best description" considering you will find ZERO "communities of color" in NEW YORK where she was filming her rant that grows and eats Yucca.

"Communities of Color" is in no way an accurate description of the communities involved. Neither is the term "White communities"

Considering there are "white communities" in both Central America and Norway, which one can't grow plantains again?

Let's skip the strawman then.

Please do list your sane reasons for the merits of labelling the beliefs of people due solely to skin color.

This will be interesting.

I really don't see any sane points you have presented defending skin color labelling to describe the beliefs of people.

Right. Because resisting broad generalizations of the beliefs of people using skin color as the criteria is an evil racist agendenda solely created by the radical right.

That sounds sane.

Right, go on defending skin color labelling as a sane, intellectual approach to solving problems.

Lots of people are in that camp.

This skin color labelling is what leads to ridiculous, misinformed policy decisions as outlined in this video.

To say that people and communities of a certain skin shade should grow and eat a certain food is NOT a sane, rational position to hold.

I totally agree, and these are great valid arguments that she is saying.

So why the unnecessary and obvious race baiting by AOC by using terms like "White communities and Communities of color"

Why should she shoehorn these divisive terms into an otherwise perfectly reasonable and rational discussion about culture clashes?

I don't care about the mentioning.

It's the labelling of people by skin color and not by beliefs that's divisive and misleading.

Instead of rationally explaining why communities tend to grow Cauliflower in New York instead of Yucca, she resorts to labeling skin color cultural clashes as the main reason.

That's simply not how you should rationally discuss ideas. Skin color labels should not be your main argument.

Not at all, in fact I agree with some of her observations.

I would just wish we could leave the skin color labeling out of the realm of ideas though.

This is a good point, and a very valid one. The current Nationalistic frenzy in America most certainly wants to push for a more unified, homogenous American culture, which means that smaller cultures especially ones without English as the dominant language, are most likely going to be pushed to assimilate into a more dominant culture. It's something anyone from a minority culture would and should fear as a basic tribal survival reflex.

The point I made was that describing these minority culture groups as "people of color" is incredibly misleading and disingenuous as there are plenty of people living in America with various shades of skin that have no problem speaking English, or eat cauliflower for that matter. It's a straight up con job she is employing to insinuate that people of color MUST only belong in oppressed groups, and can never be a part of the dominant American culture.

If she was being honest she would say "people of Mexican, Latina, or Central American" culture....not "People of Color" culture. It's a way of branding people based solely on how they look like, and not where they are from or what their content of beliefs are. I would have thought we had moved past that kind of racist thinking 50+ years after MLK.

To just throw out a term "Communities of color" and assume it is a Mexican culture isn't helpful at all. She is literally walking through a New York suburb in the video filled with english speaking people of color where the environment is far too cold to grow Yucca and saying that communities of color should grow Yucca.

Like I said before, it's misleading at best to label the culture of people based on the shade of their skin, and racist at worst.

She is about to propose massive authoritarian change to the way people in America choose to live their lives with the Green New Deal, then has the chutzpah to say in her video "you don't come into a community and impose what you think is right..." 

And they thought Trump was the ultimate con man....

@Omar

I blocked you for throwing Ad Homs at me in a science thread. While I would have let it slide in a politics forum, doing that in a SCIENCE thread is over the top.

Well it's nice to have such a vibrant apologist for AOC's comments here. Nevertheless, her frequent use of "people of color" is misleading at best, and racist at worst. People of color belong to every culture in the country, not just the culture bubble AOC lives in. 

Also spain is not a race. Mexico is not a race either.

If it's not about race, why would she say "people of color" (assuming skin color is a genetic race)

Are we also to assume people of color must hate cauliflower due to genetic DNA differences manifested in "skin color"? Or people of color can't possibly work in a WV coal mine?

The whole point of this satire is to point out that you can't even have a sane discussion on improving the environment or discussing plants without injecting the race card.

EVERYTHING MUST BE FILTERED THROUGH THE LENS OF RACISM.

Everything.

Food European Spanish ate as colonizers.

AOC is expressly saying that the people of color resist attempts at colonial environmentalism by replacing Yucca with Cauliflower.

The quote from the video "People of color resist colonial attempts at environmentalism" is such a funny claim considering slavery today is only legal in countries with a majority of people of color.

She is not representing. She is translating.

"People of color resist colonial attempts at environmentalism"

Just the same old tired race card getting played over...and over...and over again. Must be nice to be in the skin color race.

El Doggo beat the hell out of you guys.

WTH UK...

Prime Minister gone...

New Anti-fascist Brexit party forms...what is going on in the U of K?

Fathers should not be able to claim ownership of a fetus.

The Congress must pass a constitutional amendment allowing women to own the fetuses inside their own bodies.

It does not matter if the fetus is a separate thing. A woman has a right to claim ownership of the fetus while it is still inside her body.

You have no right to decide what a woman does with her fetus.

How dare you oppose a woman's right to own a fetus?

It might still be testy from its gender reassignment surgery. Let it allow space to vent.

Well said.

I recommend skipping to the 1:07:00 mark.