dmorgan

>Is there a word for market based socialism? You know capitalism with hair cut upside (taxation) and a hard floor protected low side (poverty).

It's what holds in most European countries with a welfare state (and, to a lesser degree even in the US). It has been called various things, from "the third way", to "social democracy".

Though, in Europe (and also in the US), the "free market" guys, neo-liberals and financial interest have reigned supreme since the Thatcher/Reagan era, with the dire results we see today. Kind of like the US economy actually worsened after Clinton, despite him being more "socialist" (to the degree accepted by the american public).

>Why do you think LGBT can't reproduce?

Well, B (and maybe T's) can.

But LG cannot by definition, except if they momentarily act like non LG's by reproducing with other partners against their own sexual preferences.

And that if they _do_ have the will to reproduce, considering that in primates in nature it's a strictly heterosexual deal (and in fact, the male/female sexes were evolved as a means to that very end).

In addition, for several prominent LG thinkers, "gay marriage" and "having a baby" (surrogates, etc), is the losing proposition of adopting/mimicking the dominant paradigm. Essentially it's the opposite of feminism.

>Also without reproduction nobody would be here.

I know that, I was being sarcastic towards the attitude that sees things that formed the bases of society since ever was one, like reproduction, are viewed as "optional" or "sexist" nowadays, because we should be "above that".

Of course we only get to have the privilege of saving that (and still have a human population on the planet) due to overpopulation in other parts of the world, and we still get declining and aging population our own countries for that.

That's also why we get to have our LGBT privilege. In the large scheme of things, a mostly LGBT society would mean a dead society, because of no reproduction.

Well, you would have to deploy serious code for projects with far-reaching financial consequences when things go wrong first...

People also sell buttons.

>This is such a stupid strategy. The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. After all, there are lots of angry people all across the world that hate the Western world and want to hurt it, but most can't.

Put this way, it's even more stupid. It's as if people go about "hating the west" for no reason (or because their "religion tells them so", which is a Glenn Beck level argument).

A thing called colonialism did exist. Some hundred million people were killed in invasions and wars and while fighting for their freedom, and some 2 billion people were living under foreign occupation.

And then you had a thing called post-colonialism, that does exist. With hundreds of interventions and resource-grubbing all over the world. With so called "banana republics" set up. And with countries thousands of miles away of some areas, have the audacity to believe they have "strategic interests" in those areas, and that it gives them the right to intervene, get their resources for cheap, place puppet governments, etc. You know, like some country in the American continent controlling Philippines or killing people in Vietnam.

What sets the Arabs apart is their vast oil riches. Without that, they wouldn't have the money or power to do anything to the West.

Arabs, as in "arab states" could not care less about "doing anything to the west". What sets those people apart is indeed their vast oil riches, that had provoked unprecedented resource-grubbing, puppet government establishment and invasions western powers.

Does anyone imagine what a foreign power invading the US would mean to the US people, and under some BS pretext at that? But invading Iraq under the BS pretext of WMDs, wrecking the country in the process, killing hundreds of thousands, taking control of the oil and leaving them in a state of civil war by playing into the competing tribal and religious interests, is somehow "normal", because they are "arabs".

So, the people there have a lot of reasons to "blame the west". It's not like they have any spectacular resources, either. WWII era guns and ammo, and cheaply made stuff, while the "west" kills them with drones and 21st century military technology.

>The minute that crude oil loses its relevance to the Western world, the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power.

Actually they had a huge empire, including parts of Europe, even before the crude oil gained relevance.

The west managed to turn them to "a bunch of desert nomads with no real power" precisely when it wanted to get ahold of cheap labour and later the crude oil.

>Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people.

No, it's not just that.

Western politically correct liberals, the kind of people that likes to hell-ban dissenting opinions on social issues on HN too, is all for self-censorship on lots of issues, even without involving the "scare of militant Islam".

People also get the equivalent of "hell-banned" from the media, or get fines and prison terms and such for non-PC talk that has nothing to do with muslims. If you count "hate speech" in that, a loosely defined term that can mean anything, it gets even worse.

Yes, because "free speech" is nice and all, but there are some opinions that you should not have, even on a liberal place like Hacker News.

One should not be allowed to divert from popular opinion (be it popular in society in general, in some conservative circle, or merely popular within the hip crowd), even if he is not being trollish and is providing arguments about it.

In issues where most HN people agree, you should not dissent, because we have already reached the absolute enlightenment and correct opinion on things such as "sexism". No need for discussion or argumentation any more on this front, except to agree with each other.

I propose we call those "hell-banning" provoking arguments, "thought crimes".

Which reminds me of the 3rd most popular article on HN today:

"Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony."

Yes, and it's kind of true.

Achievements are only relative.

>I think the latter is a pretty damning point, given that reproducing is pretty important to the human condition.

Not according to 21th century hip ideology. You're insulting all LGBT guys by saying that.

This pedophile over there? He's playing in VERY HARD mode, and yet he made it to a congressman.

See where the analogy breaks down? Playing "hard mode" doesn't mean you're also doing something worthwhile.