Respectfully, Fascism is a *collectivist* ideology. It has far more in common with communism, socialism, and progressivism than it does with a fundamentally individualist ideology like true "classical" liberalism.

I always suggest that people who try to deny this watch Triumph of the Will. It helps explain how the Nazis *saw themselves*. They were absolutely a progressive, collectivist ideology.

There is no one so far to the left that, eventually, they will not be attacked -- from someone even *farther* to the left.
Go ahead and laugh. You'll laugh, you good progressive -- until the surreal moment when it happens to you.

And Hitler agrees with you on the importance of breathing. So?

This isn't a troll. It's exactly what happened.

Pretty typical Slashdot. The one comment here offering actual useful, relevant information is responded to with this inane rambling.

Hint: You would have looked better if Mark Sanford had been governor of NORTH Carolina. Or if Clinton had been indicted for getting a blowjob, rather than for perjury and obstruction of justice (both of which he was clearly *guilty* of -- the politicians of his own party just declined to *impeach* him for it).

More generally speaking, in a thread about ignorance, your whole post doesn't exactly come across as Nobel Prize-winning stuff. I guess maybe it felt clever to you when you wrote it, but I feel like I should advise you it doesn't really come across that way to others.

lllll AJ

Isn't this argument by anecdote? Exactly what global warming scientists hate?

>> Their economics expertise is unquestioned.

Well then. I guess that settles that!

So here we have a paper about *sexism*, garnering a review that is egregiously, over-the-top sexist in nature.

So, this would suggest to me (not by any means an expert) that the reviewer was quite aware of what he was saying -- he was being sarcastic, and/or trying to be funny. In other words, the over-the-top sexist tone was deliberate.

Wise? Probably not. But people often try to make points in misguided ways, and of those, sarcasm probably leads the pack. I'm reminded of the Justine Sacco controversy. Sacco, if you recall, was the flack who tweeted: "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just Kidding. I'm White!" So all the Right-Thinking People were all outraged. Except, Sacco is a Good Progressive. Her tweet was (obviously, to some of us) an attempt to sarcastically tweak White Privilege. (Picture her saying it while rolling her eyes.)

Same idea might apply here.

Hey, Mr. Science: Were you trying to give us textbook examples of both Argument Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority?

Save me your sputtering but nonsensical reply (which is what you guys ALWAYS respond with, every time, without fail). tompaulco presented facts. Are they correct? I don't know - but I know even less after your reply, which just makes everyone who reads it a little stupider. If the information exists to refute it ... well, why not present THAT, and really look smart, instead of spouting your textbook examples of logical fallacies?

You know, you probably tell yourself, "I'm not a complete asshole in real life. It's just kind of like this persona I play when I'm online."

Well, you TELL yourself that....

I'd like to be able to ask Facebook:

"Out of all the hundreds of millions of Facebook users, which ones look the most like me?"

Wouldn't that be cool?

No, no, he was talking about Japan, right? Or, no, wait -- Switzerland?

Well, let's see what Google ("World's most peaceful countries") gives us.

Iceland tops that list, followed by Denmark, Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, Japan, Belgium and Norway.

[Scanning list for diversity] ... Well ... let's see ... Those are some startlingly homogeneous cultures. I guess New Zealand is a bit diverse? No, not really -- 69 percent are "New Zealand European." OK. Canada? Well, according to Wikipedia, their largest non-European ethnicity is Chinese at ... 4.31 percent.

Bottom line: Evidence that more homogeneity means more strife = ... zero.

lllll AJ

I don't understand. I've read that for most large companies, at least, wages and associated benefits are their primary expense. Is that not true? I didn't read it in some libertarian fantasy newsletter -- it was on Forbes or the WSJ or something.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) just announced that it will be spending $31 million to "enhance diversity in the biomedical research workforce."

$31 million seem like it would buy ... a lot of diversity ... I guess.

Maybe some of the money could be diverted toward actual research like this.

lllll AJ