I don’t mind more Bangladeshes. Seems like your whole issue is that they’re a different ethnicity. Kids born in the US are citizens and you have no good reason to think they’re worse somehow.

You think you don't because you don't know anything about the culture and any contact you have with the community is superficial and arm's length. I'm Bangladeshi--my family has no knowledge of even a single ancestor from anywhere else. Bangladeshis aren't just Iowans with darker skin. Our mothers socialize us very differently from birth.

Okay, but I don’t interact much with Mormons either. Doesn’t bother me that there’s a Mormon enclave. Not my thing.

Why wouldn’t they be skilled or motivated? They’re just not tech workers. Even if they were all lazy or whatever, what about their kids?

It doesn’t do more damage though. Our shared culture is like 99% copyrighted media for a variety of reasons. In books for example, the language becomes harder to read, and while many things remain constant across time, old works can become outdated and not address issues relevant today.

Legality doesn’t define whether it’s good or bad for humans or their society.

Religious groups often employ the same rhetoric: Pretend to be victims, mocked and ostracized, which pulls at the heartstrings of people who themselves are (or believe they are) mocked and ostracized. Some of the largest and most powerful organized religions in the world have this exact kind of persecution complex at the heart of their scripture and sermons.

Yup. I’m not sure who downvoted me but I meant my comment as a genuine compliment.

>Which happens to prevent immature, dumb and cruel mafias from taking over, the latter are the wet dream of Anarchists, that's why they hate governments.

No, they hate governments because they think they’re a kind of mafia. Which anarchist likes cruel mafias?

> Which anarchist likes cruel mafias?

Those anarchists who aren't dumb must like cruel mafias, this is a conclusion I reach by implication, not by their admission.

Anarchist's believes exclude or at least severely limit the state as a force that can prevent warlords, gangs and mob rule which inevitably arise in any power vacuum.

Ergo, those anarchists who aren't dumb, understand the above and by virtue of continuing to promote anarchy they prove that they like the inevitable result of their political program.

I get the sense smart anarchists don’t want no organization, but organization with borderline zero coercion, and they’ve got complicated ways they imagine that might be possible. I also think many consider an absence of coercion the aim, but don’t feel it can be reached; rather, we should approach it asymptotically. I’ve heard some say in response to the warlord point that an “anarchist society” (if such a thing could exist) would police the warlord, but through the spontaneous action of its participants, not with a centralized hierarchy+bureaucracy. Can you point to any specific anarchists as counterexamples?

That bureaucracy is essentially Chesterton's Fence.

That’s just a restatement of the original argument

>Anarchist's believes exclude or at least severely limit the state as a force that can prevent warlords, gangs and mob rule which inevitably arise in any power vacuum.

“They want us to fear birds” is wild man

Good thing birds aren’t real.

They've been beating the bird flu drum for years, and why? Suppose bird flu is a real threat, what is the public meant to do about it? Stop eating birds? There is no pragmatic course of action anybody but highly specialized scientists can take to counter this alleged threat, and yet they keep beating the war drum, trying to make everybody afraid. Fear is the point.

> what is the public meant to do about it?

By this logic, any coverage of international relations is also a conspiracy.

Technically they are dinosaurs man. Ancient fear comes back.

Alfred hitchcock was ahead of his time.

Complexity isn’t really the thing either. I’ve heard a ton of terrible but technical songs. Often the coolest songs are remarkably simple, yet manage to do something that feels new. A modern example: https://youtu.be/ga8K_diGviw

What I’m hearing is “it’s different music.” Why does this justify a reduction to “sounds with a beat”?

In this case, I see multiple parties resorting to pedantry over a legitimate point of discussion, reducing to mud slinging over semantics. The point stands.

What’s the point that stands? How do you justify the initial framing of “sounds over a beat”

The distinction is simple: music, as examined already during the times of Pythagoreans, invokes a soothing feeling of harmony, peace and belonging, while the mentioned "sounds with beat" (a non-technical term in this case) invoke body reactions like dizziness and anxiety. Check for yourself at a nearest shopping mall vs a concert hall.

I was pretty clear in what I said about music. I wasn't the one who made that remark, so I don't have anything to justify except my own statements.

Ever since humanity crawled from the muck it’s had some dude yapping about how uniquely cool and special humans are because it feels good to do and to listen to. As we’ve learned more, we’ve realized that the underlying principles of our thinking apparatus are more similar to those of animals than we thought and we’ve continually found more high-level capacities, like surprisingly complex language, in various animal species. In my opinion, it’s valid to want to talk then about a non-dichotomous view of species’ cognition and, personally, I like it because it’s a whole lot less boring.