China's 'one child' policy is only surpassed in damage by Mao's Great Leap Forward. Some highlights:
- Chinese and international analysts commonly cite a government‑linked estimate that the policy prevented about 400 million births through a mix of contraception, sterilization, and abortion.
- Forced and coerced abortions: Local officials often pressured or forced women who became pregnant without permission to abort, sometimes very late in pregnancy.
- Sex‑selective abortions: When ultrasound made sex‑determination possible, many families aborted female fetuses because of a strong preference for sons.
- Infanticide and abandonment: Female babies were disproportionately killed, abandoned, or left to orphanages; scholars describe this as an epidemic of female infanticide tied to the policy and son preference.
- “Invisible” children: Some second or third children were born but never officially registered, which denied them schooling, health care, and legal protections.
- Skewed sex ratio and “missing girls”: China’s overall sex ratio shifted markedly toward males; by 2016 there were about 33–35 million more men than women.
- Surplus men (“bare branches”): Tens of millions of men could not find wives, which researchers link to higher risks of social instability, crime, and trafficking.
- Rapid population aging: The birth decline created a top‑heavy population pyramid with too few young workers to support a growing elderly population, worsening the dependency burden.
- Labor‑market effects: Studies find that only‑children often have different social and psychological traits and may earn less, suggesting long‑term effects on productivity and workplace behavior.
This is the real danger of religion. When you train people from birth to turn off their brains and submit to authority without question, this is what happens.
Not quite. Religion, when taught properly, can serve as an innoculant against corrupt states, as it ingrains a kernel of understanding that man, and all his works are flawed, falling short of the perfection only attainable by the divine. There is always something higher worth maintaining loyalty toward. Like most things though, practicing that doesn't make you super popular with "leaders of worship" who wield their position in a human institutions as a tool to their own ends.
I agree wholeheartedly. Religion, practiced as designed, is extremely positive in my experience. I think the issue is that religion is and has been abused throughout history. I’m really not sure how to deal with this issue though. It seems the Abrahamic religion are quite vulnerable to this kind of abuse, likely because a core part of the doctrine is submission to authority.
I’ve never seen a Buddhist led genocide for instance, and I think a big part of that is the emphasis on looking inward for answers instead of outward.
The common thread is groups of people = atrocities. Religion and government are two common properties that emerge from groups of people, but there are also countless examples of atrocities that involve neither.
That's because this is a pretty mainstream opinion now. I'd say... a quarter to a third of the population holds such beliefs.
If you ever shook your head at theocratic regimes such as Iran, well maybe look a little closer to home. "But... the people in charge of Iran are hypocrites, they do nasty stuff at home behind closed doors."
Again, may I point to Mom: "we have mullas at home".
People believing the president of the United States has been ordained by God, and can therefore do no wrong, should be extremely concerning to EVERYONE, no matter what team your rooting for.
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
Barry Goldwater
He had a few more pertinent quotes on the issue, but he recognized the very problem he was courting. You cannot have a debate with God.
The preachers lost control of the Republican party in 2016. And if me from 10 years ago could hear me from today saying that I wish they were still in control, he would have a stroke, but I do.
Correction: you cannot have a debate with people who have set up their politics as a God.
In the scriptures God is depicted as someone who sometimes is willing to have a debate, and reason with people, of course not to learn anything, but to explain why things are (or must be) the way they are.
In some instances, God is even depicted as willing to listen to man and do things he otherwise would not have done, so long that they don't deviate from his fundamental purpose.
This has been the case for a long time. What's new and weird with this "sports" game is that the side with the umpire in their pocket has suddenly decided the game is bloodsport.
Oh from their point of view it always was. You can't explain the last decades in any other way. It's been brewing over time and as long as the blood spilled was mostly foreign blood on foreign soil it was all fine. Now the masks are dropping and suddenly it is plain to everybody what was plain to outsiders looking in for a long time.
While the danger has increased recently, the targeting of minority groups in America has always included targeting those outside of the group perceived as defending the group (including simply by opposing the discriminatort targeting.)
And often the biggest reactions against the targeting of minorities are not triggered by acts against the minorities directly but by the acts against majority-demographic activists working on their behalf.
Each time that Obama expanded a domestic policing organization that then went to American cities and executed citizens, the same thing was said about him, yes. All zero times.
The people of Minneapolis are defending their right to accept foreigners into their community. Do you genuinely think those people are being paid? That all those protestors don't genuinely feel that way? That the majority in that state don't, as the polls say, want those people there?
If you really think that people in Texas and Florida have the right to say who gets to live in Minnesota, why?
I think most people would agree that the country has a right to enforce its border integrity -- after all, that's sort of a prerequisite for being a sovereign nation.
But not with an unaccountable, unidentifiable, largely-untrained, and "absolutely immune" paramilitary police force, forcibly deployed in cities that don't want them there. Cities that are, in any event, nowhere near any borders.
This isn't really about immigration enforcement. If it were, then what ICE was doing under Biden was more effective than what Trump is doing now, just going by the numbers. There is a widespread conspiracy theory, to which I wholeheartedly subscribe, that maintains that Trump is deliberately trying to provoke circumstances that will justify his use of the Insurrection Act or other quasi-legal shenanigans to ratfuck the midterm elections.
The people of Florida and Texas do not have the right to say who gets to live in Minnesota, but neither do the people of Minnesota. The federal government has sole authority over immigration (but not to murder people while enforcing, obviously). The alternative is ridiculous and incompatible with freedom of movement within the country.
I've seen the latest video and it was murder beyond any reasonable doubt. The ICE agent drew his gun and shot the man in the back at least four times while he was kneeling on the ground and being beaten and kicked by other ICE agents.
That's a fact. I must assume you haven't watched the video.
It is fact and you're wrong. He was being beaten. No doubt about it and I'm willing to die on that hill. I'd even swear this under oath. There is more than one video by the way.
I'm not going to "discuss" this any further though. The evidence is crystal-clear. That's all I have to say about it. (I'm not from the US and don't care much about your internal problems, but I have eyes.)
Why are you so intent on defending these ICE agents. Even if you think ICE is doing good stuff overall. If you actually cared about justice you would be at least calling for the officers involved to be suspended.
I dont know what murder people are referring to, but if its Alex Pretti, I would like to point you to the analysis by Bellingcat, currently posted on reddit. Its clearly a murderous execution of a man that is on his hands and feet. You will not let me choose lies above my own eyes.
The main group of politicians encouraging the destruction of law and order is the regime currently squatting in the White House, rejecting any sort of accountability for the revanchist militias they have sent to attack American civil society. And no, it doesn't matter that the wannabe tin-pot dictator gave them "law enforcement" badges as both they and their leadership clearly have no respect for the highest laws of the land.
His attempt to “de-arrest” someone occurred immediately before he was fatally shot. That stands on its own as the proximate cause of the outcome. The video from a week earlier merely establishes a consistent pattern of behavior.
He was not peacefully protesting. Repeatedly showing up to protests, engaging in violence, and doing so while carrying a loaded firearm fundamentally undermines that claim. Carrying a weapon imposes an elevated duty of restraint: when you are armed, you have an inherent responsibility to avoid escalating conflict, precisely because your presence introduces a far greater risk of serious injury or death -- including to yourself.
Literally fighting with federal agents is the opposite of restraint and satisfies the elements of criminal conduct irrespective of political motive. Anyone lionizing him is engaging in vapid propaganda. He was not a peaceful protester, he was not a responsible gun owner, and he consistently engaged in criminal behavior that ultimately led to his death.
Legally speaking it probably depends on law enforcement actually being in their right to grab the other protestor in the first place?
In practice I had experience of protests in 2010s Russia, and legitimacy is another huge factor there. E.g. even if the law enforcement was in the legal right to grab the other protestor, is it ok that they had the right in the first place.
I'm not saying either of these apply, but that because legality and legitimacy of grabbing a protestor is often unclear this de facto is a normal behavior at a protest and should not have any severe punishment attached to it.
In the US, there is no civilian privilege to physically interfere with an arrest, even if the arrest is later found to be unlawful. Legality is and must be adjudicated after the fact; real-time obstruction is in and of itself a very serious criminal offense.
What may be common at protests is irrelevant, other than perhaps raising the question of why riotous behavior has become an accepted norm among certain demographics. Such behavior as Pretti demonstrated is not — and has never been — constitutionally protected.
Physically inserting oneself between officers and another person constitutes illegal interference, not protected protest, and predictably escalates the risk of serious injury or death — especially in a volatile crowd, when the interference is violent, and especially when the individual is carrying a loaded firearm.
There’s simply no legal right to obstruct law enforcement. Doing so is a serious crime, and, as clearly demonstrated by the ultimate outcome of his consistent pattern of behavior, extremely dangerous.
Which is precisely why the conduct is illegal in the first place, why engaging in it was unjustifiable, and why characterizing it as “protest” is politically motivated sleight of hand.
Of course you're right to be suspicious. The Trump administration has already used AI-altered videos to bear false witness in at least one instance we know of, so it's a good idea to hunt down multiple sources. (That, incidentally, is one reason why it's so important for citizens to film ICE and other so-called "law enforcement" activities in the first place. Multiple sources need to exist.)
In this case, the footage is consistent and unequivocal: an execution-style killing took place in cold blood under color of law. But I'm sure that won't always be true.
‘The organizers of the exercises were forced to ask Finnish reservists, who were playing the role of the enemy, to go easier on the Americans.’
Since World War II, the U.S. has fought five major foreign wars (Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Iraq, Afghanistan), with a poor win rate of about 1 win (1991 Gulf War) and 4 non-wins (draws or losses). In smaller interventions or “gray zone” conflicts, the pattern worsens: 9 wins, 8 losses, and 42 draws out of 59 cases. This creates a perception of frequent losses.
Since World War II, the U.S. has mostly been fighting asymmetric warfare against insurgents and guerillas. This has caused a paradigm shift in our armed forces, to be more prepared for these types of conflicts, for street-to-street fighting as in Fallujah, and wary of threats like IEDs and suicide bombers.
Perhaps our pivoting has left them less prepared to fight conventional warfare on open battlefields against symmetric adversaries? I don't know.
That's not really very fair. Besides the "draw" in Korea all the other defeats were political rather than military. Second Iraq war is more of a pyrrhic victory as well.
Is it a victory at all if it’s not political? Then what are you trying to accomplish? These are rhetorical questions. The problem is that leaders or frameworks have not been able to adapt as fast as technological progress.
The U.S. military exists to perpetuate and enforce U.S. policies, and not just for its own sake. You can’t rule over ashes and bones, you can’t rule if you’re ashes and bones. Politics are the point.
Yet ticket prices will continue to increase and service quality will continue to decrease. Flying has become such a miserable experience that I avoid at all costs.
Another 14,000 workers joining the search for tech jobs that don’t exist. The job market has been slim pickings for at least a year.
My advice: you’ll likely not find another job that’s equal in compensation and responsibilities as what you had, at least not anytime soon. There seem to be a number of smaller companies out there looking for talented staff, but who can’t offer as much.
You can be pessimistic and say that these companies are vultures, trying to snag talent for less. That may be the case for some, but others just don’t have the revenue. It’s worth a shot and better than being unemployed for a year or more while you blast your resume into a black hole. Start in a lower position and work your way back up in that year instead.
This seems to be an issue of 2nd terms, amongst other things. Trump doesn’t have to worry about running again so went mask-off. I remember W Bush acting the same way, but less insane. We need the ability to shut this nonsense down when it appears, which it will continue to do. ICE shouldn’t be out there doing whatever they want until a judge tells them it’s illegal or unconstitutional. They should have prior approval before stepping foot in the street.
The US has a white supremacist problem. We’ve been told that for decades BUT this past decade has shown many of us that we’ve been underestimating it, and flagging it as a problem with older generations who are dying off anyway.
Attacking countries without congressional approval, and kidnapping their leader, should have seen Trump and his team in handcuffs within hours.
We can fix this but we need to be aggressive and unforgiving. We’re dealing with people who think only whites can be American. And they’re in power.
Pick one.
reply