Do we believe some countries' spy agencies are scrupulous?

I think people tend to have a range of scruples they expect. How someone is targeted is often far more lax on standards than who is targeted and for what reasons.

Which spy agencies go after journalists?

Maybe one of the nearly powerless ones? Australia?

Hmm, nope.

DOGE would have found everything.

This comment doesn’t provide enough context for us to infer what you really mean. You should provide a second clause saying, “if …”.

they took all of the data, including every SSN.

they weren't looking, they were stealing

>"dissolve the people and elect another" via immigration

This is happening almost everywhere in the West, just at different rates.

>The more I do this, the better I get at noticing what I actually think.

Which reminds me of a quote from E.M Forster: "How do I know what I think until I see what I say?"

>It is likely that at least major portions of the Hoover Dam will still be in place hundreds of thousands of years from now.

Kinda sus of this.

It can be hard to recognize the heaps of dirt on the riverbanks. The internet claims the Hoover Dam could last 10,000 years, but I don't believe that for a second.

Dams are not permanent structures without maintenance. If they are holding back water or if water is flowing through them, they will eventually erode and their foundations will collapse.

Because the main structure lacks rebar , it will last longer than most modern structures, but it won't last nearly as long as 2,000-year-old Roman structures made with volcanic ash and lime because it uses Portland cement.

There is bigger and more immediate problem. Hoover Dam ends with siltation long before concrete erodes. The Colorado River carries massive amounts of sediment. Eventually, the lake behind the dam will fill with mud, turning the dam into a giant waterfall. Once water starts flowing over the top of a arch-gravity dam rather than through controlled pipes, scouring at the base will undermine the foundation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask "who had what idea".

It's hyperbole and in response to black people who don't think it's OK to be white.

This is once again misunderstood.

People are correctly pointing out that the phrase “it’s okay to be white” is used as a dogwhistle.

They are not literally saying that it’s not okay to be white. They’re saying that those who speak that phrase are projecting their racist ideology. People who say “it’s okay to be white” think that white people are under attack and that white people need to re-establish dominance. To them, equality is a threat.

> think that white people are under attack

Yes, they think that.

> and that white people need to re-establish dominance. To them, equality is a threat

No. When a specific group is singled out and attacked, whether they’re white, black, or brown, man or woman, that can not be a basis for equality.

Of course now we are getting into the persecution fetish. The entire premise of white people in America facing any kind of race-based setback is laughable.

American political parties have revolved around platforming persecution fetishes for decades now. Real struggles are inevitably exploited by individuals who leverage identity politics for their personal gain. This has played out in every group who currently or historically suffered some injustice, I don’t need to list them all, and now we can include whites on that list.

But it’s not up for debate that white college applicants, particularly from poor and middle-class backgrounds, were discriminated against by top universities who implemented race-based admissions policies. The numbers are public. There’s simply no question.

I agree that that might have been what was going through the minds of the some of the people being polled but still: Scott Adams is allowed to extrapolate from the result of the poll. That doesn't make him "off the rails."

wow, racist much?

People of all races can have legitimate grievances and harms. Im sure some racist black people said "black is beautiful", but that isnt a reason to forbid anyone from saying it.

Context is key.

“It’s okay to be white” isn’t really the same as saying “black is beautiful” because of the context.

“It’s okay to be white” is spoken in the context of a majority group that has complete societal power over other minority groups, and is speaking the phrase in response to legitimate questions on the majority’s privilege over and treatment of those minorities.

It also makes a lot less logical sense for the group with the upper hand to complain. It’s distasteful: it’s like saying “It’s okay to be regional vice president! as if you are blind to the fact that you boss everyone else around.

”The white majority justice system incarcerates black people for marijuana possession at a higher rate despite a similar use rate.”

”Yeah but it’s okay to be white.”

Immigrants move where the money is.

The question is whether we're a nation or an economic zone.

>There is a saying about how US citizens trust companies but not their government, and how Europeans trust their governments but not their companies.

Almost always easier to pick a new company than a new government.

> Almost always easier to pick a new company than a new government.

As long as the company you left doesn't buy the company you just picked.

As long as you have decent antitrust regulation with teeth and you ignore all natural monopolies.

That's what democracy is supposed to fix