eatplayrove

Are these 50% of newborns Belgians/Swedes by some divine right? Why aren't the rest Belgians/Swedes?

Wait until you hear Turks have to pay 120 euros for a tourist visa to Europe...

I did the same, measuring my progress by taking the exams from A1 to B2 every three months, and most of the text I can agree with. But I must say this must be one of the easiest language pairs in the world (speaker of English learning French), so do not take this as an example in general and do not be discouraged for other language pairs if you're taking longer.

If you took any Indo-European language and created a new language completely contradicting it with respect to any aspect of the language, you'd get something pretty close to Turkish :-) I am really surprised you think Turkish is similar to any Indo-European language. Btw, the Altaic language family is also disputed. The most accepted theory is that Turkic languages are an isolated language family by themselves.

In addition to the other replies to you: almost nobody pays $960k in taxes, but they still get this benefit.

Just to clarify, when I said

> 3 of them not addressing the point at hand, and 1 point dishonest at best

I meant counts of points, i.e., three of them not addressing the issue (points 1,3,4) and one dishonest (point 2) - reasons above. So dishonesty was not related to point 1, sorry if it reads like that.

To further elaborate for 1,3, and 4; I don't contend with his explanations - but they do not address the larger question of whether/why racists/sexists find his blog appealing.

I fully understand your point re reddit, but I think a single person's blog is different than that. A blog is like a book and reddit is like a bookstore if you will, if you go to a bookstore selling a book that racists read that is not concerning to me (wrongly concerning to your mom as you said), but if you bought the book in question (even if non/anti-racists read it too) I would be concerned if I were your mother - just to make sure you are not aligned with them.

I am not saying this is the case (as I have no connection with the blog), but if the claim is indeed true that racists/sexists think the blog is great (which is the main takeaway I got from the article), that needs to be addressed as to why they are attracted there, and Mr. Siskind does not do that. If the claim is bogus, then the claim is bogus, but Mr. Siskind does not refute that they are attracted to his blog.

As to the feminism issue, in the full context, he criticizes feminism with respect to specific points and texts from feminists (which he is 100% entitled to), but then ends with the sentence in question that to me whichever angle you look at it from says, feminism and pure evil are not too distant. As I noted, he could have backed away from the statement easily by saying his statement is wrong (if he thinks so), but claiming it's out of context is dishonest and a diversion.

I have never read the blog, or have any positive or negative association with it, but after all the attention this story has garnered, I just read both the NYT article and Mr. Siskind's response.

The main takeaway from the NYT article is that there is a group of people in whose writings/blog comment sections/etc racists/sexists have found a home, and his is one of them. He does not address this assertion, or what the root cause may be if it is true, or if it is not true, why not. This is the whole point of 1, 3 and 4 in his statement but he does not address it.

As to the only concrete point he addresses (point 2), he does something that is dishonest. He wrote (pre-edit):

> "blurring the already rather thin line between “feminism” and “literally Voldemort“"

and then claimed it's taken out of context. I read the whole article, especially the surroundings carefully to see if there was any context as to which could change the meaning of what he wrote here, but there is none. This simply states that there is a thin line between feminism and evil. If you believe that, then don't delete it. But if you don't, don't tell the reader it's taken out of context, just admit you made a mistake in writing this, or you have changed your mind despite this was what you believed when you wrote the article.

So there are 4 points in the rebuttal, 3 of them not addressing the point at hand, and 1 point dishonest at best. I am not impressed.

I am not criticizing or sneering, but I am astonished that there are people that have never heard of Maradona.

I don't know if this is what you are actually asking but it reads like that.

There are no two Russells, it's the same person, just different kind of works in different periods of his life.

I dislike negatively reviewing an article, but the assertion is misleading. All C++ is doing in this case is type deduction, and that is basically unification.

Sure, this is a very narrow subset of logic programming. But that would be like saying you can do variable assignment in logic programming so logic programming incorporates C++. The things that make LP strong (in particular recursion) is not handled in any way here.

Saw that recently in Copenhagen also.

In French too, la langue is feminine.

Thanks for myself too! :-)