Josh F

The first link is to a study exposing racism and includes statistics. Now think about it, statistics proving racism are complicated, because racism is a thought. Are black people randomly stopped and frisked more than white people? Yes. Thats proof. I don't really know why I am replying to someone who didn't read what I wrote. If cops were being racist during slavery, and cops were being racist during jim crow, and cops are racist during the war on drugs.... thats proof cops are racist. Just because the crimes were real doesn't mean the police don't spend more man power enforcing those laws on black people, or that those laws don't include a racial bias. The ignorance of the history of police racism in black communities seems to inform the argument. That cops are NOT racist, but that black people are simply more criminal. The system is much more complicated. For example Black people who commit murderer are likely to have already been arrested and imprisoned for drug offenses. Gang culture is a byproduct of the government's actions as well, disrupting the Black Panthers and the welfare state. Drugs which were popular amongst black people carry higher sentences than drugs popular amongst white people. Prison sentences of black men were nearly 20% longer than those of white men for similar crimes in recent years, an analysis by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578304463789858002 It continues... In the two years after the Booker ruling, sentences of blacks were on average 15.2% longer than the sentences of similarly situated whites, according to the Sentencing Commission report. Between December 2007 and September 2011, the most recent period covered in the report, sentences of black males were 19.5% longer than those for whites. The analysis also found that black males were 25% less likely than whites in the same period to receive a sentence below the guidelines' range. So, Black people, according to statistics, are harassed (search and frisked without warrant or probable cause) 400% more than white people. Then they receive less leniency during sentencing, resulting in 20% higher sentencing for the same crimes. "Of the 303 exonerees, 188 were African Americans, 86 were Caucasian, 21 were Latino, 2 were Asian American, and 6 are racially unidentified. " https://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-wrongful-imprisonment More black people in jail have been wrongfully imprisoned than any other ethnic group. In South Carolina, a little over 50% of the inmates on death row were black or hispanic, yet black and hispanic people were 3.5 times more likely to actually receive the death penalty than their white inmates. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/03/racial-bias-us-death-penalty I don't get the theory that cops aren't racist. Have you grown up entirely in white neighborhoods and are genuinely clueless to the experience? If we get that 50 years ago the police were enforcing separate but equal. And those cops were never fired or removed, plus the high levels of nepotism within policing.. at what point exactly did the police stop being racist? And genuinely I think they are less racist than in the past, in large part thanks to the peaceful and violence protests by the black community. The average America commits 3 felonies A DAY. Everyone is a criminal on a daily basis, who the government targets and which laws they uphold are their choice, and they choose to police the crap out of black neighborhoods.

Sorry, that did not help clarify what you're saying. I genuinely do not understand your point at all.

Sure, it is hard speculate motives for the government. I think it speaks to the powerlessness of transgendered people though, and I think the rule is discriminatory and unnecessary. I'm not sure what your point is?

Its cool, no worries. I mean this is going to be speculative, right, but what do you think the reasons are for the government to do that? And also, do you think they could get away with it happening to other groups? Wearing makeup and a wig, for example, is okay for a woman even if her ID photo has her with short hair and no make up. And in application, this will have probably have little to do with pre-op female to male transgendered people. Its mostly about people born men who choose to dress like women but have not undergone or plan to undergo surgery. For some reason if those people "dress like a woman" they can't fly.... I mean rappers dress like women all the time wearing fur coats and diamond earrings, but I don't think they're going to have a problem with this at all. And what does "dress like a woman" or "look like a woman" mean legally? Make up? Jewlery? Skirts? Long hair? Sorry Kilt wearing long hair hippies with red chapstick, no fly for you!

I didnt start this topic, thats not my headline.

chaging what you said, "Transgender people who have either: (a) already undergone gender re-assignment surgery, or (b) provided sufficient evidence that they will undergo gender re-assignment surgery within a year are allowed to board planes when their government ID lists the opposite of their biological sex. " to Transgender people who have neither: (a) already undergone gender re-assignment surgery, or (b) provided sufficient evidence that they will undergo gender re-assignment surgery within a year are prevented from boarding airplanes dressed as they choose when their government ID lists the opposite of their biological sex. Now, is there a case to be made for the government regulating or defining conditions to qualify as transgender?

Yes, I think I understand your approach. Let me refine your description: People dressed in a way which appeals exclusively to people who identify as transgender, are prevented by the government from using a product. The airlines are not making this requirement. And correct me if I am wrong, but the government is not providing evidence for its relevance to security.

The history of gangs themselves are a byproduct of the state. Namely the war on drugs, the welfare state, and the FBI, DEA, and CIA's disruption of the Black Panther Party, the Civil Rights movement, and other attempts by black people in America to police themselves and manage their own governance.

I can identify the history of racism by the police and the entire criminal justice system. Statistics are hard to find, for example cops notoriously perform "stop and search" or "stop and frisk" on black youth, but the only record is of the arrests. So, lets say racially everyone is equally as likely to be carrying around a gram of weed. Black people, because they are stopped and searched more, will be shown to be more frequently guilty of the crime in the statistics. Here are some statistics to back up that claim: http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data The link shows statistics going back to 2002, all with similar results. Black people are about 25% of the population of New York City, but comprised over 50% of all the "stop and frisks" Some important history of police racism include: 1. Rampart Scandal 2. CIA and DEA fund and assisted Contra drug smugglers who introduced crack 3. The targeting of Black Panthers as part of COINTELPRO, Hover's programs designed to disrupt and intimidate black activism. Fred Hampton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Aoki There is also the theory that the drug laws are racist, making drugs popular in black communities (crack) a heavier sentence to similarly dangerous drugs in the white community. So let me make the full historical case.... Now of course on a far enough time line, everyone is going to acknowledge the racism of the state and the roll of the police in maintaining it. Slavery ended about 150 years ago, unquestionably racist. Jim Crow laws were only ended 50 years ago, also unquestionably racist. Enter: The War on Drugs.Literally as Jim Crow left, the drug laws were introduce. After the Civil Rights Act, the police all kept their jobs. The policy continued: to criminalize non-violent black behavior and to disrupt any attempts at self policing or political organization. In other words, the policy went from targeting Black people explicitly, to implicitly targeting black behavior. I could probably go on for days about this topic if you have any questions. Its missing from understanding the entire aftermath. While I don't really know or even care too much about the Brown trial in particular, I am sympathetic to the protestors. I'm going to end this with a quote which also stuck in my mind as a kid who grew up in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots: They said it was for the black man, they said it was for the mexican, and not for the white man. But if you look at the streets it wasn't about Rodney King, It's bout this fucked up situation and these fucked up police. Analogously, the prosecution of Edward Snowden is related and important to discuss, but the issue is the NSA survellance. For these protestors, who may have prematurely or incorrectly judged the particular facts of the case (most of which they did not have when the protests began), but the issue is about the state's continued attempt to manage, police, regulate and destroy Black America. This is a GREAT place to discuss welfare, public housing, and how those tools are also used by the state to control black people... I think thats the angle of importance here, in my opinion There is another thing to be said as well. The drug policies which disproportionally victimize black people are federal. I think that there is a topic worth discussing, in terms of Obama being supported by the black community in huge numbers, yet he has done nothing to change those policies. What these protestors know, now more than ever, is that there are no political solutions to these political problems. And historically, violent and peaceful protests have been the only thing to move any of these policies forward for the Black community. That is to say, segregation wouldn't have ended without the riots and protests that proceeded it. That the rampart police department wouldn't have been investigated if it wasn't for the LA Riots. I also happen to think the police are far far far far less racist than they were in the past, that the looters are opportunists destroying their own community, that the shooting it self was not racially motivated, and that the media are a bunch of race pimps.

Government does what government can do. And unfortunately transgender people are frequently discriminated against, even within the LGBT community a common criticism is the lack of "T" or transgender issues. They are an easy target for government power. They're also incarcerated in large numbers, mostly for vice crimes like drug abuse and prostitution. In prison, they're frequently raped and forced into gang culture. The community faces a lot of issues like depression and suicide as well, in large part by how violently they are treated in society. Even during childhood those children, still normally confused by their own feelings, are the victims of abuse. And in parenting too, there are many families intolerant to their children's gender identity.

yeah socialists are not a majority, they just control the state.

What makes hobbies or someone's choice of entertainment trite or meaningless? I am equally as clueless about sports, so I get that it is boring when someone talks about a subject you're not interested in, but it is not meaningless.

oh right, this falls into the same funny argument I heard about gay marriage. How even straight people are prevented from getting married to the same gender, so it isn't biased against homosexuals. You understand that if the government bans behavior done exclusively or mostly by a specific community is th e text book definition of discrimination. So for example, if the law said no beards, we understand that this law would target men, right? Am I talking to an anarchist right now? I'm not sure what letter of the law or semantics have to do with the state preventing non-violent behavior. This part is really hard to understand. If your point is just about the difference between sex and gender, you're incorrect about this topic. LOOKING a certain way is gender. Being born a certain way is sex. Banning someone from entering an airplane because of how they look is DISCRIMINATION. What is with the cognitive dissonance here? Again am I talking to an anarchist right now? I just have such a hard time wrapping my head around the argument that banning a traveler should have something to do with their sex or gender.

Okay, that is informative. To update my argument, simply forget the part about surgery and everything else I said remains the same. The person has undergone hormones, or simply chooses not to look a particular way. And what could that entail? Basically, the outcome is this: biological men can't wear makeup or wigs, but biological women can. Even in a traditional gender model that is still a double standard. So if their ID matches their face, but says a gender different from how they look (according to this government agent's ideas on how men and women are supposed to look), they can't fly.

How is this topic complete without discussing the history of racism by police? The black community does not want the state to manage crime and justice. The history of racism, from segregation to defacto segregation, is a battle between black communities and the state. Libertarians should be supporting the peaceful protestors in Ferguson. The black community is sucked into de-facto ghettos, funded by welfare, exploited by unfair drug laws, and targeted by the police. Attempts by black people to police their own communities, like the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers, were infiltrated and destroyed violently by the FBI and government. Combined with a new tool to target black communities, the war on drugs, the destruction of the Black Panthers gave rise to criminal Street Gangs. Stef's video is irrelevant as long is it ignored the entire CONTEXT to these protests. And the consequence is going to turn off black people from the important messages of peaceful parenting, and state violence.

I don't really understand how this logic works. Let me break down my own logic. Person X is transgendered. They personally identify as a woman, though they were born men. They take hormone treatment and perform other surgeries to look female. They prefer to dress as a female and to present themselves and be addressed as females. The government writes their sex on their ID card, regardless of their gender. The law says if their appearance, according to an unelected agent of the state, does not match their sex they can not get on airplanes. Even if the photo ID matches the physical appearance of the traveler, has the correct date of birth, ID number, accurate photo, and legal name they can't enter an airplane because it says "sex:m" In a free market there would be a demand for IDs which takes gender into account. This system, therefor, requires the state's monopoly on violence to enforce this regulation.

The issue is that transgender people are preventing from self-identifying their gender when getting their IDs. Thats the real issue. They identify as a woman, but are forced to mark their gender as male, for example. The only way to board a plane is to dress in a way which they are not comfortable, and for some of them this requires more than you might realize, since many transgendered people have physically altered their body with breast implants, hormone treatments, and other hard to disguise surgical changes. They're not entirely cosmetic. To put it into a context you can relate to, imagine being told you can't have a beard. Beards similarly distort and disguise IDs. Now imagine that it costs $10,000 to remove your beard, requires potentially dangerous surgery, and you hate not having a beard... just to get onto an airplane.... because some guys with completely lawful IDs in another country committed an act of terrorism.

This is disgusting example of the state enforcing gender, and something libertarians should oppose. This kind of discrimination is irrelevant to the security of a flight and would not be tolerated in a free market or enforced by airline companies. The 9/11 terrorists boarded those planes with lawful government issued IDs without wearing makeup or high heels. The government is actually making a law saying not only can't you choose to look a certain way, but that genders specifically must represent certain norms. Its extreme discrimination and an invasion of everyone's privacy.

I don;t have children. I'm a huge fan of the unschooling movement, but honestly this particular school would be excellent. The kids that I knew who attended would literally wake their parents up to make sure they got to school on time. This blew my fucking mind. I would cry and beg not to go to school.

When I was a kid I would constantly tell my parents that I was out of there right when I turned 18. The reality was that it wasn't until I was 19, and went to college, that I moved out. Though only a year, I remember the same conflict. The comfort of abuse. At the very least, being inside a house with abusers you know prevents you from the unknown abusers "out there" waiting for you, and the comfort comes from the steady slow drip of emotional pain likely an improvement from how you described your life prior to your 20's. The truth is though that as you adopt the philosophy of voluntary adult relationships, there is no one in the world who can psychologically latch into you without your consent. In my own experience, I realized shortly after moving out that I would prefer homelessness to moving back in, though that moment never came. I can say, give it a shot. You really don't know yet and it is entirely worth it to figure out. And while computer skills or writing skills are useful, the world is in demand of people with job experience and the more of it you have now the more opportunities will arise in your future. Having now ran failed and successful businesses, worked boring retail and exciting jobs, this mix of failure and success IS my real skill, not my programming or graphic design or animating or construction or business management, which while useful, are refined through the trial and error of the real world. The real world is a forge, refining your edge; the comforting slow drip of abuse turns you gelatinous.

I wanted to share a little insight my girlfriend provided me with this afternoon. There is a popular and common phrase in latin America, Gringo Loco. To the uninitiated, this means a Crazy American. My girlfriend made a fantastic observation about the type of people who comprise this definition. She realized they are almost exclusively veterans, government pensioners, and/or government disability recipients. They can be found, sometimes by the dozens, in every town and city across central and south America. And I suspect this trend continues into Asia and the rest of the world. Characteristically they are sometimes drug addicts and/or sex addicts, and always just creepy and socially awkward. In the hostel I am staying in right now we are blessed with two such people who fit this definition. Its almost hilarious if it wasn't so sad. The worse thing is that as a traveler I have to almost prove that I'm not insane to everyone I meet. Its sick to think about though; that the family, society, and government especially of the United States have created a swarm of broken humans wandering the earth, completely unable to connect with anyone they meet.

I got two words for them "learn to fucking type"

Any barriers to entry increase the costs. If mining equipment or just using the network was criminalized, acquiring bitcoin would be higher risk and more difficult to acquire. Bitcoins black-market value is not as a long term store of wealth or its ability to purchase goods, but a nearly free way to launder money.

I was assigned sexually explicit material in 9th grade, a book about Inuit people where it described the women masturbating a man to keep him warm as part of a social custom. We also saw a couple films with some nudity. I was masturbating furiously at that age. Honestly, I have zero problem with this though I understand parents might want to be informed. I think teaching children about sexuality is very important, and ESPECIALLY around puberty. I don't really know the context of this story, mind you, but sex is not evil and I don't see a problem with it being described.

This is one of my favorite pieces of content I've gotten from FDR. I listened to Molyneux's interview with him and he laughed often at very inappropriate moments I noticed. I found his books super dark and depressing, but the truth is often brutal.