Scam Broker Investigator • Binary Options Trading Scam

Addressing Canada’s Employment Insurance Gap For Self-Employed Workers

Source: TD
Ksenia Bushmeneva, Economist
Dated July 15th, 2020

Highlights


Chart 1 - Workers in More Precarious Employment See Steep Job Losses

Chart 2 - COVID-19 Self-employed to Cut Hours Worked Drastically

EI Leaves Many Non-Standard Workers Behind


Chart 3 - Self-employed Workers Much More Likely to Apply for CERB

Chart 4 - Prevalence of Self-employment Varies by Province

What Complicates Offering EI Coverage For Non-Standard Workers


Chart 5 - Maternity and Family Benefits Available to Self-employment

Chart 6 - Sickness, Disability, and Work Injury Coverage Available to Self-Employed

Some Solutions Based on The International Experience


Chart 7 - Unemployment Benefits Coverage Options to Self-employed

Chart 8 - Old-age Pensions Coverage Options Available to Self-employed

Concluding Remarks


References

  1. “Employment Insurance Coverage Survey, 2018”. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/191114/dq191114a-eng.htm
  2. Sunil Johal & Erich Hartmann. “Facilitating the Future of Work Through Modernizing EI System”. The Mowat Center. https://ppforum.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/PPF-Modernizing-EI-for-Future-of-Work-April-2019-EN.pdf
  3. Antonia Asenjo and Clemente Pignatti. “Unemployment insurance schemes around the world: Evidence and policy options.” International Labour Office. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---inst/documents/publication/wcms_723778.pdf
  4. Sung-Hee Jeon and Yuri Ostrovsky. “The impact of COVID-19 on the gig economy: Short- and long-term concerns”. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/45-28-0001/2020001/article/00021-eng.pdf?st=x8kZDLV7
  5. Sunil Johal & Erich Hartmann. “Facilitating the Future of Work Through Modernizing EI System”. The Mowat Center. https://ppforum.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/PPF-Modernizing-EI-for-Future-of-Work-April-2019-EN.pdf Ibid.
  6. “Evaluation of the Employment Insurance Special Benefits for Self-employed Workers”. Employment and Social Development Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/corporate/reports/evaluations/2016-ei-special-benefits.html
  7. “The Future of Social Protection: what works for non-standard workers?” OECD. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264306943-en/1/2/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/9789264306943-en&_csp_=60072f6c81e5afb306d1ad580d284396&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book#chapter-d1e549 Ibid.
  8. “Key Small Business Statistics - January 2019”. Statistics Canada. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.nsf/eng/h_03090.html#point1-3 Ibid.
  9. “Government Response To The Fifth Report Of The Standing Committee on The Status of Women. Interim Report on the Maternity and Parental Benefits Under Employment Insurance: the Exclusion of Self-Employed Workers.” https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentVieween/39-1/FEWO/report-5/response-8512-391-19
  10. “Evaluation of the Employment Insurance Special Benefits for Self-employed Workers”. Employment and Social Development Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social development/corporate/reports/evaluations/2016-ei-special-benefits.html

End Notes

  1. Since 2010 self-employed workers can voluntarily participate in EI Special Benefit for Self-Employed Workers (SBSE) to gain access to many life event-type benefits accessible to regular employees, such as maternity and paternity leave programs, leave due to sickness or to care for an sick family member. In addition to this, current EI system allows certain exceptions for some non-standard workers. For example some individuals who work independently as barbers, hairdressers, taxi drivers, drivers of other passenger vehicles are eligible to receive benefits through the regular EI program. Fishermen are also included as insured persons under the EI Fishing Regulations. In the case of the self- employed fishermen, EI qualification is tied to income. In order to qualify for up to 26 weeks of benefit, they need to have earned between $2,500 to $4,200 in the last 31 weeks.
  2. The two main reasons for not contributing to the EI program were not having worked in the previous 12 months, and non-insurable employment (which includes self-employment).
submitted by AwesomeMathUse to econmonitor [link] [comments]

[Tabletop Gaming] Internet Man Yells at Book, a tale of r/Shadowrun getting outraged at dumb optional rules

I’ve already talked a bit about Shadowrun as a game and the dumpster fire with a warehouse that is their current publishing company (link here), so here’s a couple stories about the shadowrun community here on reddit.
First, a bit of background. Along with your character’s skills, gear, and attributes, Shadowrun gives you the ability to customize your character with Qualities. These are little quicks, flaws, and character traits that have mechanics and a karma cost (or karma bonus, in the case of negative qualities attached to them). These can be anything from being in debt to the mob to being racist to having a really forgettable face to being able to get invites to go Scrooge McDuck money pit swimming with the CEO of Saeder-Krupp. There’s nothing that forces you to take these, and outside of providing trap options for new players there are some qualities (like the one which makes you roll to determine if you suddenly die at the start of every session) that never get serious play. So nothing to complain about if a really shitty quality is published, right?
That’s not how RPG fandom works.
Enter Shadowrun, a small and vocal community whose favorite pastime is talking shit about the game they play. There’s dozens of us, and the best sort of shit talking about Shadowrun is shit talking about meaningless minutiae that’s totally optional to play.
Your Spirit Animal is an SJW
Around the peak of 5e’s attempts to shed its cyberpunk influence and turn into a near-future urban fantasy game, a metaplot supplement called Book of the Lost was published. The overarching plot introduced by the book was the Deck of the Lost, a powerful magical artifact that amounts to a Deck of Many Things (and which CGL also sold for a pretty penny) that had most of the sub grumbling to begin with. Then someone noticed the Goddess mentor spirit quality.
Mentor spirits are a pretty interesting use of the quality system. Basically, a spirit guide takes interest in you and advises you like a particularly pushy shoulder angel (or devil, depending on the mentor). The quality can only be taken by magic users, and along with giving a general bonus and a bonus specific to your type of magic, they also provide a thematic negative. As an example, the Chaos mentor spirit gives magicians it advises bonuses to social checks to lie and casting illusion spells, but makes them compulsive shitstirrers who’re compelled to spread rumors. Here’s the full text of the Goddess mentor spirit:
GODDESS
The Goddess has taken many forms in many different cultures. This is not simply a goddess; those who follow the Goddess totem recognize the inherent power of the divine feminine. Whether known by particular names such as Diana, Cybele, Ashera, Awilix, Isis, Ishtar, Freya, the Moon, Hera, or even the Madonna, the Goddess lifts up the sacredness of women. Some see the Goddess as providing an equally strong balance to divine males, while others follow the Goddess because they see her as stronger than any male counterparts. Whichever is true, the Goddess is the mediator of sacred knowledge and greater universal mysteries. Goddess reveals the hidden wisdom and strength in her followers.
ADVANTAGES All: +2 dice pool modifier for Instruction Tests. Magician: +2 dice pool modifier for Ritual Spellcasting Tests. Adept: 1 free level of Authoritative Tone. DISADVANTAGES: The Goddess refuses to take a backseat to any male counterparts. Unless you succeed in a Charisma + Willpower Test (3), you will not take orders from a male, or if a male disrespects you, you must respond with equal measure.
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions, but Shadowrun took a look at the new mentor spirit and decided it was a poor taste stereotype of SJWs. Much debate was held in the comments as to why the fuck CGL would print something like this and people generally took the quality the worst way possible. Some of the more constructive comments pointed out that A) making gender dynamics a thing Shadowrun’s otherwise gender neutral cosmology is weird and in poor taste and B) the mentor is disrespectful to actual Pagans who see the Goddess as part of their faith and who the quality does a very poor job of representing thematically. Eventually the writer responsible for the quality stepped in, explained their thought process behind the quality and admitted their mistake. Also someone had the brainwave of slapping the quality on a male character.
And after one thread of people blowing it way out of proportion, the Goddess mentor spirit faded into the background as a subpar option in a sidebar with no ToC reference in an underperforming supplement. But what happens when a writer drops the ball on something a little more relevant to day-to-day discussion about Shadowrun and ropes their super special snowflake character into the mix? Well...
Bull in a China Shop
A few months after Book of the Lost released, CGL dropped The Complete Trog, a book billing itself as ‘the definitive guide for ork and troll characters in Shadowrun’. Now, I can’t speak for previous editions but in 5e orks and trolls have been a touch contentious in the community. They serve as the setting’s systemically oppressed minority that writers can use to write unsubtle plots about fantasy racism and often get coded as POC by a predominantly white, male American writing team. Their starting stats (with bonuses to physical stats and limited mental stats) and place in the system’s default character creation method also make it really difficult to build an ork or a troll as something other than a melee powerhouse (a role they excel in) without being very familiar with the system. Also, the majority of orks have a genetic quirk that makes the age faster, reaching adulthood in their early teens and generally living no longer than 50. This will be important shortly.
Now, considering how much cyberpunk loves its oppressed groups and how orks and trolls could use a bit of love being anything other than a big dumb brutes, The Complete Trog had the potential to be a pretty great book on concept alone. Had the company in charge been anyone other than CGL.
Most of the book is pretty meh, all things considered. The fluff takes a quantity over quality approach and lacks the depth to be more than marginally useful, the art scattered throughout the book is of questionable quality, and the crunch added ranges from dumb to useless to baffling. And then there’s the human lifespan quality. Here’s the text:
HUMAN LIFESPAN COST: 10 KARMA This quality can only be taken at character creation. It replaces the ork’s normal average lifespan with that of a human, so they age and mature at a human rate. It has no other effect on the character.
For reference, 10 karma is 40% of the maximum karma points you can spend on qualities at character creation. For similar amounts of karma you can get qualities that make you a respected member of the mob, a stellar athlete, or a nationally famous figure, all with concrete mechanical crunch to justify the cost. This is just a backstory tax.
As was the case with the designated ‘dumb thing’ in every Shadowrun book, community uproar was in full swing within the day. Reactions ranged from ‘What the fuck?’ to ‘No, really. What the fuck?’ as people pointed out that taking the quality to make you live longer would reduce the amount of karma you could use to give yourself the skills, connections and qualities that longer lifespan would give you. Eventually, the writer responsible for the quality waded into the discussion to explain their reasoning behind the quality, but unlike the Goddess debacle from a few months prior, the community was less than amused with the writer’s rationale.
See, one of the main ways Shadowrun books impart fluff to the player is through Jackpoint- a sort of in-universe private chatroom/article sharing site populated by elite members of the shadowrun community. It’s basically 20-30 psychotic elitist assholes who play peanut gallery to whatever totally original body snatcher threat or obscure corporate plot the writers have cooked up. Over the years, various writers have grown attached to particular characters that they’ve built up within Jackpoint, some notable examples being Red the vampire, Plan9/10 the non-binary, trans-human gestalt, and Clockwork the evil sockpuppet.
There’s also Bull, an ork decker who’s the special character of the freelancer who came up with Human Lifespan. Bull, as far as orks go, is pretty old, and apparently Bull’s freelancer had been getting some questions as to how he could still be alive considering orks age faster than humans. Now, instead of doing the logical thing and saying Bull’s just one of the lucky mutants who has a roughly human lifespan and leave it at that because being long lived isn’t too mechanically impactful in a world where shadowrunners live fast and die young and some other races have lifespans measured in centuries or millennia, or that an incredibly rich shadowrunner spent some of his fortune on one of several age extension procedures that exist in Shadowrun’s setting, Bull’s freelancer decided to write a quality to explain how his special snowflake had lived so long. To make sure the number of ork characters who chose this quality was kept low (because remember, the vast majority of orks don’t live this long naturally), he made the cost prohibitively high.
As expected, the community was not pleased that the reason a rule this bad had made it to print was because a freelancer was tired of people asking about his special snowflake’s age while also seemingly not fully understanding how one of the major systems of the game he wrote for worked. Also despite this rationale given the book includes a character sheet for Bull which lacks the quality supposedly specifically designed for Bull, though this may be because character sheets printed in Shadowrun books are always riddled with errors. Eventually, people realized that, again, this was a completely optional choice buried in an underperforming fluff supplement that was so pointless that no one would ever use it, but unlike the Goddess mentor, Human Lifespan fed into criticisms of the mechanical blocks Shadowrun puts before ork and troll characters, so it still gets mentioned in discussion.
And with that criticism of actual things wrong with the game, Shadowrun could get back to the real things that needed discussion, like whether one of the freelancers was a Trump hating psychic who wrote a bit about hurricane Donald destroying Puerto Rico years before the 2016 election.
submitted by AGBell64 to HobbyDrama [link] [comments]

TrapoChapHouse just released a user survey. It's about what you'd expect. tl;dr inside

As part of a 125000 subscriber special, ya bois in CTH released a survey(archived) of their users. If you've been wondering what makes the average commie tick, there's some good info to be gleaned here.

Data

The survey had a total of 6,672 responses as I write this - this was a self-select poll, so there should be some skew expected, but we can expect this to be more than a representative sample, with a 1.53% margin of error at a 99% confidence level.

Age

Nearly 2/3 (61.5%) of CTH users are at or under under the age of 25, with the single largest group being 18-21, at 26.4%. More than a third (36.6%) are at or below the legal drinking age.
Reddit, on the other hand, has the largest category of its users in the 30-49 age range at 34%, and 22% between 18 and 29. https://www.techjunkie.com/demographics-reddit/#Age_and_Gender.
Chapo's userbase is therefore a great deal younger than most of Reddit.

Gender

Mostly guys - 79.6% male, 12.4% female. This shows a troubling lack of representation, being more skewed Male than Reddit as a whole at 67-69%.
Chapo, for all their bluster, is another patriarchy-dominated space with comparatively little female representation. Yikes. Perhaps women just aren't into advocating murder?
The next option down is mentally ill non-binary with 5.6%, with a smattering of troll answers and "rather not say" claiming the last 2.4%.
Speaking of mental illness, nearly one in ten (9.2%) identify as transgender, with that number going up to 13.1% if we include the "I am unsure" responses. (Quick show of hands, who here is sure whether they're trans or not?)

Race

Mostly white, as if that were a surprise. 77.6% of Chapos are white. Going down the list from there, we have 6.3% Hispanic, 2.8% black, 2.5% Indian (dot, not tipi), 2.3% Arab, 2.1% east Asian, with smaller groups claiming insignificant percentages from there.
This makes CTH less diverse than Reddit, which is 65% white, 15% hispanic, and 12% black as its largest groups.
So, we can conclude that Chapo is not only sexist, it is also racist. After all, big tech has taught us that identity is everything, and it's the color of your skin, not the content of your character, that matters.

Mental illness (again)

Nearly a fifth (18.6%) of Chapos identify as "neurodivergent". If that sounds like some bit of intersectional pomo newspeak horseshit, you'd be right.
The classification of neurodivergence (e.g. autism, ADHD, dyslexia, bipolarity) as medical/psychiatric pathology has no valid scientific basis.
In any case, you can substitute this term for the phrase "mental illness", either self-diagnosed or otherwise, and be correct.

Celibacy

51% of Chapos engage in a bit of the old in out in out, while 49% are some variety of incel.

Language

13.6% of Chapos do not speak English as their primary language. Given the USA's most common language is English, 80% of the time, some percentage of these people are likely not US citizens. We'll get back to that in a minute.
I'd be willing to bet, but cannot prove, these are the people most vocal about how the US should be run.

Religion

Okay, before reading further, just guess what the primary religious beliefs of the average ersatz-communist is.
Guesses made?
50.8% of Chapos claim to be atheist, with a further 26% claiming to be agnostic (a pretty meaningless term).
So, communists are mostly godless. This isn't exactly unknown.
As to the remaining 76.8% of Chapos who don't disclaim religion outright, 7.6% (with some sub-0.1% amount +/- since the chart doesn't go into detail on the tiniest responses) claim some sort of Christianity.
Someone wanna explain that one to me?
Comparing that to Reddit.. there's not a lot of good data. We can make a guess though, given the general popularities of /atheism vs /christianity (and its offshoots like /catholicism and /orthodoxchristianity). The educated guess would be that Reddit skews atheist, but it's impossible to say with certainty how this stacks up vs Chapo.

Country

67.6% of Chapos live in the USA, which means just under a third (32.4%) live outside the country. The largest group of the non-Americans are A FUCKING LEAF (Canada) with 6.6%, the limey Brits claiming another 6.6%, and Old Zealand with 3.6%.

Where in the USA (is Carmen Sandiego?)

The single largest region claimed by Chapos is the Midwest, with 22.7%, followed by northeast at 19.6%, southeast at 13.7%, and the west coast with 11.8%.
If we divide the entire group of respondents into whether they're "coastal" or not, that gets us roughly 56.9% (plus or minus a few, since the region categories are fuzzy).
Either way, the "coastal left" stereotype seems mostly confirmed.

Education conditions

The "do you have a degree" split is right down the middle, with 50.5% of Chapos having no degree, and 49.5 having an associates or better. The largest category, 29.8%, has a bachelors.
5.7% of Chapos never finished high school, and 29.2% started and never finished college.

Employment

Place your bets..
40% of Chapos are unemployed or employed less than full time.
18.5% claim "employed student", but this could be either full or part time. Given what communists think of capitalism and hard work, the answer is likely part, but it is not possible to say definitively from the answers.
If I make the easy generalization and say that those employed students are all working part time, the previous figure jumps to 58.5% of Chapos being unemployed or employed less than full time.
35.6% are employed full time or self-employed. You may now proceed to speculate about what "self employment" is for a capital-hating communist.

Finances

Now we get to the good stuff.
43% of Chapos make less than 20K a year. Given the previous stat that places most of them in coastal areas, likely with high costs of living, I would venture an educated guess that most are below the poverty line.
Remember that 30K a year is $15/hour before taxes. With that line in the sand drawn, it means that 44.3% of Chapos are making at or below entry level wages.
A few of them (4.6%) claim to make more than $100K a year. These users should leave immediately, because they'd be first up against the wall when the communist revolution takes hold.
94.7% of Chapos are in some kind of debt with 48.2% of that debt being, unsurprisingly, student loans. 42.2% of Chapos have a debt value below $1K, with 52.5% having more than that.
71.8% describe their material conditions as "comfortable" or "adequate".

Living conditions

Again, place your bets, and get ready to have a stereotype confirmed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41.9% of Chapos live with their parents!
20.8% live with friends or roommates, with an additional 20% living with a significant other. 13.7% live alone.
Only 8.9% of Chapos are homeowners.

Ideology

Some form of extreme leftism is, shockingly enough, the most common ideology claimed.
This was clearly a "pick multiple" answer because the percentages given go above 100%, but "democratic socialist" was the most common choice with 35.2%, 22.2% communist, 18.1% Marxist, and so forth.
2% actually claimed Juche (the extreme socio-political system North Korea runs under) - whether this was for pure meme value or sincerely held, it's hard to say.
54.2% of Chapos claim to be a member of a political part or organization.

Voting

Only 37% of Chapos voted in the 2016 primaries. Of those that couldn't:
30.4% were not American (shock!) 18.2% were too young 12.1% just didn't vote 2.3% lost the right to vote
(These numbers are roughly the same for voting in the Presidental election, only varying by a few percent)
Speaking of which, 52.7% of Chapo voters voted for Bernie, with 39.9% voting for Hillary during the primaries. WHen it came to the presidential election, 45.4% voted for Hillary, with a full third deciding not to vote outright once Bernie was out of the running.
Maybe CTH should shut the fuck up about American politics if they can't/won't exercise their ability to do anything about it?
If the Dem primaries were held today, 71.8% of Chapos would vote again for Bernie.

Conclusions:

The average Chapo:
submitted by Shadilay_Were_Off to ShitPoliticsSays [link] [comments]

Rigging a System, two-component design

Selection Campaign: more than a binary option, but Janus faced after all. How does a small group control a larger, more powerful group? Perpetrate a hoax via which said small group benefits (cui bono). Every hoax (by definition) is a narrative with a hidden (true) part and a "told," fake part (the official version). hoax = fraud
Hidden Powers, Hoaxes, old as agriculture
Hoaxes are self-perpetuating
Oil Origin Hoax invention of Big Oil
Survey of Creation and Destruction Part 4 HoaxWorld
A monotheist religion from central Asia, is Tengrism is an older version of the Abrahamic set. Interesting that the form of the religion seems to leave a shadow on the form of government favored by the Khazarians; an overt khagan, and a covert shaman. This shadow now looms across a wanna-be Global Empire we contrarians sardonically call the New World Order, the Mandarins of which cast their spells via mass media and secretive control of governments. (Mandarin is a campy expression for a smart, Machiavellian person, but no reference to this is found, the search-link queue is swamped by the language. A similar expression is boffin, but that has emphasis on geeky stuff.)
Hidden Powers, Today
"Hidden Hand" of Rothschild influence vs "Invisible Hand" metaphor noted by Adam Smith (a simple idea, which has been distorted for political purpose) Myth of the Invisible Hand 2016 (note the use of word "nuance")
In (Kolber's) view, (Adam) Smith was an unwavering ally of individual liberty and limited government, while never losing sight of the tendency for large vested interests to manipulate the system. (1) He believed that this tendency must be checked by institutions of government, while cautioning that those very institutions can become perverted in service to large vested interests, as has happened time and again.
The phrase, “Maximize shareholder value” is taught in many business schools as a guiding principle of management, if not an 11th Commandment. It creates what many managers consider to be a moral duty to perform any action necessary to raise the company’s market capitalization. It puts countless honorable managers in a difficult position, as it forces them to compromise between service to their employer and their broader values in life.
Smith's earlier book, Theory of Moral Sentiments is usually ignored, while his magnum opus, Wealth of Nations gets the plum reviews.
Epperson, Unseen Hand, conspirators in charge
major events of the past, the wars, the depressions and the revolutions, have been planned years in advance by an international conspiracy. This view is called the Conspiratorial View of History, and is definitely not the view held by the majority of historians today. The more traditional view is called The Accidental View of History, and it holds that no one really knows why events happen --they just do. In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.- Franklin D. Roosevelt Nassim's Black Swan (some events just happen, their causes were there all along, but not recognized as leading to the consequence, thus a surprise)
Global corruption's hidden players, by Charmian Gooch 2013 14 min | TED
Wanted Dead or Alive (Manhattan Transfer, music audio) 3.4 min shell companies | qra
Rigged Government and insider Duplicity
Societies having overt purposes, but with hidden agendas
This topic is so big, all I want to do here is offer lists. Comments are welcome.
Rhodes, Milner, roundtable groups, extend British Empire
Globalist Agenda
Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan European Endarkenment
Illuminati
Society of Jesus, Jesuits
freemasons, freemasonry
Rōnin, thus Ninja
UN hidden agendas behind benign names
Trilaterals, Trojan Horse
Council Foreign Relations (CFR), a Tragic Hope
9-11; 6-point Star Report
ZOG Collection Monitor
Bilderberg rules the world
Protocols of Anti-Goyim, a tl;dr in 3 parts
Red Shield Bankers secret hegemony credit = virtual money, masters
Yamashita's Gold
Cryptonomicon hidden treasure, planned source for...
Nippon's 1940's plan for Eastern economic prosperity region
Parasite Korean horror picture, allegory for hidden agendas, in 2 layers!
Banker's plan to bring USA to WW1, and grab Israel
Banker's plan to bring central bank to USA, Jekyll Island, start income tax, freedom to fascism
Banker's plan to crash 1920's economy, buy up deflated property cheap -flashcards Rothbard
Banker's plan to coup FDR, S Butler stopped
Trump's "trade wars, tariffs" = modernized Mercantilism to accumulate "human capital" (not gold)
Significant Dualities scroll down to Moral Duality
Professionally hidden Riggards, elected peddlers- My inquiry++
submitted by acloudrift to AlternativeHypothesis [link] [comments]

Kristi Winters' & Kevin Logan's Happy Hour w/ Sargon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x-D2G93Skg
So Kristi Winters and Kevin Logan held a stream recently, and Sargon appeared as a guest, essentially giving us a Youtube Kristi vs Sargon II after their initial debate on the Skeptic Feminist channel a while back, with Sargon joining this video at around the 10 minute mark. And sweet Jesus I think Kristi owned Sargon even heavier in this debate.
The starting point of this debate comes from a comment Sargon made on YouTube that stated the following:
The Democrats believe this is a referendum on their entire platform: Orange Man bad, Deplorables are Nazis, socialism is a gift from the Prophet Marx (pbuh (peace be upon him))
So basically, Sargon believes that the "far left" are taking over the Democratic Party. I figured I'd try and recap this debate, in case people can't quite stomach over an hour of Sargon's material.
1) Sargon attempts to back this up by bringing up the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Congress, but Kristi points out that this came from a progressive district that Cortez represents, and counters by bringing up right wing districts such as Steve King's, who despite his Neo-Nazi beliefs still nonetheless got elected by Republican voters in his district.
2) Sargon says there is a "whole slew of Justice Democrats" that have been elected recently in the US. Kristi challenges Sargon to name them. Sargon says there were "7 or 8", but bear in mind this is out of 228 so far, which hardly constitutes a "takeover".
3) Sargon says that it isn't that they aren't doing what he claims, it's that they haven't completed their "mission". Kristi counters and says maybe the reason these people are able to represent their districts is because they have more left leaning views, just as how a far right candidate was chosen to represent their district in Iowa even after saying that if a far right party in Austria would be Republicans in the US.
4) Kristi asks again for the evidence that "7 or 8" far left politicians were elected in the US, as well as asking for their corresponding districts. Sargon asks why she can't just Google it, but this was Sargon's empirical claim, so Kristi points out that he needs to substantiate it. Sargon accuses her of being pedantic, but actually it's quite considerably not "pedantry" to ask Sargon to back up his claims.
5) Sargon complains that he doesn't have a "sheet of notes" in front of him, but Kristi points out that she has her references ready, and Kevin lambasts Sargon for yet again not preparing for a debate. Sargon claims without evidence that a number of "corporate" Democrats were ousted, but he can't say how many also got in.
6) Fucking hell. We're only 6 minutes in and Sargon is threatening to not bother with this conversation if Kristi and Kevin aren't going to be "charitable" with his claims. Kevin points out the last time he chose to debate Kristi, he got annihilated, and when Sargon says that "things change", Kevin again highlights that Sargon seems to have done even less preparation for this debate.
7) Kristi points out that there is no reason to just take Sargon on his word about the "7 or 8 justice democrats" that were elected to Congress, when Sargon has only actually named one person, and Kevin doesn't care about Sargon's moral outrage over perceived "pedantry".
8) Kristi asks what exactly does it show that the one "justice Democrat" person Sargon could name got elected to Congress out of the potentially 230 Democrats, and says he can't show his claim, and Sargon seriously actually says "I can, I'm just not going to", which naturally justifiably provokes hysterical laughter from Kristi and Kevin. Sargon protests that he's not a scientist and even uses his lack of qualifications as a defence, not making this up, and that he just wanted to chat.
9) Kristi offers to show the exit polling data, and when Sargon agrees, Kevin brings up how Sargon wants them to show their sources, but he refuses to cite his own. It's pointed out that Sargon essentially desperately wanted a fight especially considering that Kristi's and Kevin's joint streams usually only get 70-80 viewers when live. Sargon's pretty much threatening to take his ball and go home because Kristi is making the shock horror request that he actually be accurate with his claims.
10) The chat moves on to the exit polling, and Sargon makes the claim now that "The Left is dying", despite claiming the existence of all those "justice Democrats" who got elected earlier. Sargon says they're not differentiating between the "Left" and "Far Left", to which Kevin asks why Sargon has a habit of steel-manning the far-right, but not giving even remotely charitable interpretations to the left, which Kristi and Kevin do actually have citations for unlike Carl.
11) Carl manages to find something which says "In the 2018 election, 26 of the 79 candidates endorsed by Justice Democrats won their respective Primary elections", but the problem here is that Kristi and Kevin were clearly taking about the General elections, and Sargon hasn't produced accurate figures for those.
12) At roughly the 22 minutes mark on the video, Kristi starts to go through the numbers on the Exit Polls according to CNN Politics which had 19,000 respondents (48% men, 52% women), and begins with the Gender gap, wherein while Republicans had a narrow 51%-47% advantage with men, Democrats had a considerably wider 59%-40% lead with women. This shows that women, who voted more than men, also skewed far more heavily Democrat and therefore produced a bigger effect on the election. She then brings up age, a real concern for the Republicans since Democrats lead 67%-32% with 18-29 year olds, and 58%-39% with 30-44 year olds. The other two brackets of 40-64 year olds and 65+ years old are more evenly split, albeit with a Republican lead.
13) Carl asks if Kristi feels confident about 2020, to which Kristi says she does, and Carl tries to bring the conversation to the 2020 race, but Kristi prevents Carl's attempt to change the subject since this is supposed to be about the mid-terms.
14) Kristi asks, based on the age and gender statistics she's cited, how Carl squares this with his thesis that the Left are "dying". Carl asks if those old people "started" as right wing, in other words expressing the old belief about how people become more right wing. Kristi counters with the nature of the party ID being stronger, as well as the fact that we would expect to see a stronger skew among older people than just basically 50%-50% if the belief about people being more conservative as they get older were to actually hold true, and that you'd expect considerably higher numbers in that age range for Republican than just 50% (like the 68% of the 18-29 year olds voting Democrat).
15) Kristi also brings up the importance of policies in how it affects how people vote, namely the deficit, tax cuts to the rich, and how McConnell hinted at going after social security and Medicaid.
16) Voter ID is talked about. Kristi talks about the issues surrounding this, for instance the problem with signatures, and how Voter ID affects minority groups. Kristi is in favour of Same Day Registration, and that voter ID should be free and not be something you are made to pay for, which I agree with. When Kristi brings up how women (who also statistically live longer) are affecting the vote, Carl responds by saying that Trump is still President. Popular Vote vs Electoral College comes up, Carl claims the victory was a landslide, when in actually it was the third narrowest victory since Reagan.
17) When pressed about what the points gap means for the long term sustainability of the Left, Carl, having no argument, sarcastically agrees, then derisively brings up Germany and France in terms of left wing parties. Carl again claims Trump's victory was a landslide, and even when Kristi brings up a page proving that Trump is actually in the bottom half of all time Presidential victories. Kristi says the definition of a statistical landslide is more than 4 points in percentage of the overall vote, and asks Carl for his definition of his landslide, which he doesn't provide.
18) Trump not attending the World War I centenary is brought up, as well as how Sargon, despite describing himself as centre-left, is so eager to support Trump. Carl attempts to get a definition of "Far-Right" and "tell me what I believe", but Kristi points out he's blatantly trying to straw-man her as he always does. Carl believes that he can say what a "far left" person believes, because he's totally able to read minds.
19) Kevin points out that the candidates that Carl supports are consistently the most right-wing in every election, and also the fact that Democrats now have the power to hold Trump even more to account, and Trump threatening counter-investigations, and the shitty way Trump appointed a replacement Attorney General. These are all things that Carl, as a supposed centre-left guy, should be concerned about, but he blatantly isn't, and Carl says that "I decide what I look into". Of course, this is false, since he actually has people send him stuff which he then covers in his videos, so he's not committed into looking into anything at all unless other people do his work for him.
20) At the 40 minutes mark, Kristi offers to look into the definition of "Far-Right" together on the stream, and points out that actual scholars use the working definitions. Carl refuses, and whines about how Kristi and Kevin are being totally mean, and appeals that there should be some decorum in this debate and Kristi and Kevin are in hysterical laughter at this point about Carl's tactics.
21) The previous debate is brought up, and Kevin asks if Carl was showing good "decorum" when he was seen giggling in his cam when Kristi brought up women waking up with spunk on their face after being raped. Carl claims to not remember this.
22) Carl claims that it matters more about what happens in the future, and also claims that Kristi and others in her field didn't see Brexit and Trump happening. Kristi points out that, actually, Brexit was within the margin of error for polling, and that Clinton did score 2 percentage points above Trump with the positioning of the Electoral College causing the issues. And in social science, including the markets, you use the statistical data from today to inform about how things are likely to be in the future.
23) Kristi says that positions consistent with "Far Right" leanings, as Carl has, are the espousing of misogyny and racism, as well as being willing to overthrow democratic institutions in order to protect their positions of power. When Carl queries if the Far Right is "basically fascism", Kristi responds that Carl's misogyny warms people up to the kind of rhetoric of fascism, with fascism being a very patriarchal, strict gender roles kind of ideology. Carl's attacks on women who challenge those gender roles justifies to his audience that those gender roles are right and should be forced on people.
24) Kristi points out that Carl's content often came up among white supremacists who support the strict gender roles, and Kevin points out that he can't think of a single Fascist society that wasn't based on a traditional view of gender relations. When Carl attempts a non-sequitur of trying to get Kristi to explain what his personal view on gender roles is, Kristi rebuts him by pointing out that he's best placed to explain that himself.
25) Carl says that gender roles are the expression of the necessary definition of the difference between biological sexes, varying from culture to culture, are socially constructed, have a particular reason for existing, and facilitate communication between the genders, for the purpose of procreation. While he admits they shouldn't be prescribed, he says that they should evolve over time, and jesus this is word salad. He says that these roles should be negotiated and agreed, and shouldn't be forced or deconstructed "from above"
26) Kristi queries what he means by "necessary characteristics" of biological differences between the sexes, and how modernity may affect the negating of this. Carl responds that the development of technology has facilitated the world-view in which the idea of masculinity being less important than it was, but that this comes with its own set of problems, and his example is of apparently high earning women who are single and childless which causes them unhappiness. Kristi points out that there's always the option of adoption, but Carl focuses on the "single" part, and says that the abandonment of male gender roles has been "bad" for women.
27) Kristi asks if the lessening of strength as a necessary requirement as well the better ability of women to control their reproductive organs therefore opens our society to more diverse and exploratory ways of expressing gender identity. Kristi points out through her research that things like gender isn't on a dichotomous spectrum, like her doctoral thesis which asked students about the attributes of an "ideal man" and "ideal woman", with men and masculine attributes being associated with "agency, competitiveness, aggression", and women and feminine attributes being associated with "caring, compassion, and helping others". When attribute tests were carried out on the students, men and women did not score strictly on the masculine and feminine attributes, and their scores were not determined by their sex, and some students had androgynous results with high masculine and feminine traits. Since we're no longer bound by physical limitations since we have technology, Kristi asks if re-exploration of gender roles based on societal needs is in order.
28) On the 1 hour mark on the video, Carl believes that technology hasn't changed us still being bound by physical limitations, and then asks what the reason for people self-identifying as compassionate was when the stereotype is of women being the compassionate sex. Kristi mentions a YouGov quota sample of 2800 respondents weighted to be nationally representative of the British population. Broken down by cohorts, younger men (18-29 year olds) were found to have the highest reported senses of agency, and that diminished over time, theorised to be as men getting to see the world and realising they're not as powerful as they thought they were. The drop off constituted either 1 or 2 points over time on average. Another interesting aspect is that men's self-reported compassion and communion with others went UP over time as they got older. Women on average started out with less agency and high communion, and for older women while the communion did stay the same, their agency went up over time as well as feelings of competitiveness and independence.
29) Carl asks if Kristi has correlated her findings with testosterone over lifetimes (don't worry, I don't think he's pulling a Davis Aurini to try and sell cream). Kristi says she can't do that because that would require access to medical data and those studies are very expensive and hard to get hold of as well to get approval for funding. Carl says that Kristi is going to skip that data, but Kristi points out that she would need to use people in her own sample, and this would require collection and storing of samples of testosterone, and her last study cost £10k. Carl concedes the real world restrictions of trying to do this test.
30) Carl says that while he does not have studies to hand, generally younger men have higher testosterone than older men. Kristi admits this could be correlated with a sense of self-efficacy, and that you could do a test of high and low testosterone of men of different ages. Carl says it wouldn't be surprising that young men with high amounts of testosterone who are fit and healthy would have high senses of agency. Kristi agrees. Huh, we're actually getting something of an engaging conversation here.
31) Carl mentions an interview with a "Hollywood actress" whose name he's forgotten, and she was apparently annoyed that older men "cultivated gravitas", and that women didn't have this, and Carl thinks that most women trade heavily on their looks, especially in Hollywood, mentioning the "attractive women going to Hollywood to get famous as actresses" cliche. He says that attractive men do this too, but claims that as women experience a decline in sexual attractiveness as they grow older, to which I would personally respond with many of the examples of women over 40 on this list as a counter-point: https://www.thetrendspotter.net/hottest-women-over-40/ . Get the hell outta here, Carl.
32) Anyway, Carl says that this doesn't seem to happen with men, and that they appear to get more attractive to the opposite sex as they get older. Kevin jokes that Carl must be drowning in women after him, but Carl is married apparently.
33) In Kristi's own data, she's found that for men or for women is that people who have jobs as managers and who own their own businesses, rate highly on measures of agency, and as women age they often get management positions, which is tied to having direct control, and that this kind of thing was statistically significant.
34) Okay, Carl's actually making insightful contributions, holy shit. Carl asks what accounts for the difference, since obviously young men aren't managers, so why do they score so highly on agency? Kristi speculates that young men from 18 onwards feel that they have the world ahead of them, and that if they set their minds to it then they can do things. She also explains that unemployed and home-bound disabled people, regardless of gender, have very low senses of agency and high senses of communion. So not having a job and/or being dependent on government assistance does have an effect on how you perceive yourself and your ability to get by. Long story short, with all this data where both men and women score high and low on particular cohorts and some things in life change those as well, she is very skeptical of putting gender into a binary.
35) Carl concedes that there could be something other than male and female gender roles and that they aren't universal across cultures, though he does think it has something to do with his "cultural negotiation" point from earlier. But he "postulates" (ugh) that there is "definitely some kind of biological impetus" behind all of those things, and thinks that Kristi's data is some kind of expression of that. He thinks there is some kind of causation there, even if he can't prove that though he would be surprised if there wasn't.
36) Kristi notes that men as a group rate consistently higher on agency than women, while the reverse is true for communion. Kristi says some of it is "probably definitely" biologically informed, though linking DNA to behaviour would be incredibly hard, while linking to chemicals like testosterone would be "easier".
37) Carl does not believe that gender roles are going away, or that the supposed "feminist push to get rid of them" is going to work. He says that he doesn't have a prescriptive standard about "how gender roles SHOULD be", noting it's good we rethink them, and talks about how some people will want "agender" relationship dynamics, and some patriarchal, and how couples will negotiate those things. He asks what the opposite of patriarchal is.
38) On the 1 hour 10 minutes part of the video Kristi comes back to Carl's claim of feminists attempting to "destroy" gender roles, but then later himself saying rethinking them. Carl says it's not bad to rethink anything, but believes in a push by the "radical left" to deconstruct gender roles. Kristi points out that to "deconstruct" means to unpack and ask why we are doing this and what is its value. Carl says there is a push against "masculinity", and talks about an article, maybe from Vice, in which the writer said something like "Can we just all admit that masculinity is toxic?", which Carl considers to be dangerous, since apparently a lot of women don't think that, such as "40 year old successful business-women who can't get husbands", and "they aren't thinking masculinity is awful, they're thinking masculinity is hot and I want some of it".
39) Kristi says that she wants a healthy, positive masculinity for boys and for girls and for everyone to have such role models. She emphasises personal honour and care and connectiveness, as well as parents providing regardless of their gender. She brings up Lin Manuel Miranda as someone she sees as a brilliant male role model. She says there are men out there who don't get enough credit for not only being dads and providing, but also for pushing strollers and changing nappies, and as a feminist Kristi wants to see more baby nappy changing stations in men's public bathrooms so fathers don't have to end up changing nappies on a bench outside.
40) As a father himself who has at times had to resort to what Kristi described, Carl appreciates the fact that there are some nappy changing stations in public male bathrooms that he knows of so he definitely is not against those.
41) Kevin brings up the fact that Carl earlier mentioned an article he apparently read from Vice, or possibly Buzzfeed. Kevin asks why anyone should care, and that Carl is picking up on the whole stupid minutia of "Oh this pink haired feminist wrote this thing on Tumblr or Vice released an article" as if those things represent anything. Carl says that we have such things as "public intellectuals", and Kristi expresses surprise at Carl's insinuation that Vice constitutes a "think paper". Carl concedes that Vice is not a stellar example of this, but that they have such "dimensions" to them, and brings up this as well as Buzzfeed and Teen Vogue that write "intersectional" articles as if they are authorities on intersectionality. He says he enjoys laughing at them for perceived mistakes, and believes that they consider themselves "thought leaders".
42) Kevin says that every publication that puts something out there is part of a larger conversation, and inquires about how if there are a few publications writing articles that Carl considers to be stupid, why does he focus on those few rather than the many more much more pressing things that could cause considerably more damage? Carl says it's because this is what he's interested in talking about, and says that it is "not outside of the logic that is being suggested, the difference is scale, not kind".
43) Kevin says that the scale is minute, but Carl believes Kevin doesn't have a good argument against the "radical feminists". Kevin responds that he isn't trying to, and that he considers the focus of Carl's ire to be a really tiny, insignificant group that Carl has been trying to paint as the Dreaded Cultural Marxists Taking Over Everything.
44) Carl asks when he's ever used the term "Cultural Marxist". Kevin points out that Carl has said that Cultural Marxism exists, Carl then accuses "intersectional feminism" of being this, but Kristi says that IF is definitely not Marxist. Carl says that's what "they" think it is with no evidence.
45) Kristi inquires whether it's surely the case that it's a bigger problem that men who are fathers are being discriminated against because companies expect women to do the nappy work which leaves fathers out in the cold, and points out that this is something that feminists like herself really care about and want equality in nappy changing access. Carl agrees there should be gender neutral nappy changing facilities in public places, but he doesn't see that as being a "feminist" issue. But Kristi rebuts him by saying that because if women are mothers and they're the ones that always have to be out with the baby, and also it discriminates against dads as they can't do as much of the parenting, so overall it's a family and distribution of labour issue.
46) Carl says the problem is that the distribution of labour is not being dictated broadly by men, but by women. Kristi says if that was really the case, then there'd already be all of those nappy changing places accessible to men as well as women and that this would all be taken care of, but it hasn't and it's not women running the corporations or governments to make such things policy.
47) Carl disagrees, and claims that women don't broadly want what feminists want, but Kevin points out this only applies to Carl's "Straw-Man Feminism" that he's invented. Carl claims that most women aren't feminists and are more "traditionally minded" than feminists apparently seem to think, but Kristi rebuts this by pointing out that statistically women's viewpoints are more likely to be feminist positions than for them to outright call themselves feminists, and that to claim as Carl says that women mostly don't have feminist values isn't borne out by the actual data.
48) Carl doesn't think feminism has the "monopoly" on those things, but Kristi brings up things like more equal pay, more balanced work life, and more women getting elected, and with most people agreeing with those positions then they're supporting feminist positions. Carl says they are "other people's positions" too, to which Kristi says that what defines them is that the positions challenge gender roles. Carl claims "not necessarily", to which Kristi asks how considering the history of women being paid less.
49) Kevin inquires that even if we are to take Carl's claim that most women aren't feminists as fact, then why is Carl so worried about them? Carl talks about institutions in society, and thinks that feminism should keep to itself like Scientology. Carl says the problem is "They (feminists) are in our institutions", and Kevin wants to clarify if Carl would be okay with feminism if it didn't try to do or achieve anything and just shut up. Carl denies this, and instead says that if it "kept to itself" and if it was "voluntary". Jesus fucking Christ.
50) An exasperated Kevin points that it IS voluntary and asks if Carl has been imprisoned or something. Carl asks what Kristi and Kevin think trying to make misogyny a hate crime is and whether that is voluntary, and claims this amounts to an attempt to make it so that "people have to accept feminism". Kristi and Kevin say that is not what feminism is, and Kevin says that there are loads of laws, and asks about murder laws using Carl's "voluntary" logic, and that crimes exist. Carl says he can't think of many ideologies that are "pro-murder", to which Kevin points out Carl's Far-Right friends for their views on Jewish people.
51) At the 1 hour 20 minutes part of the video, Kristi brings the conversation back to Carl's "feminists in institutions wielding power" claim and asks for clarification on this. Carl brings up the Women & Equalities Commission in the UK. Kristi asks how they wield power, Carl responds "the very nature of it, it's a Women & Equalities ... it's not an 'equalities' commission". Kristi presses him to clarify what it does and if it writes legislation, and Carl says he needs to Google it, and Kristi also points out it can't vote on anything, it can just make recommendations. Carl says it holds debates and meetings, what he describes as "partial free speech", and says it's controlled by feminists, and that apparently they "do actively block certain measures", and he brings up as an example the MP Philip Davies apparently being "shut down by Jess Phillips and her sisterhood as she calls it".
52) Kevin steps in here and calls Carl out on this lie, pointing out that Davies did have his debate and it did take place, just not in the main chamber of the House of Commons as most debates don't. Carl still takes issue with this, and again blames Jess Phillips and her "cronies". Kristi points out Davies is simply being treated like everyone else, and Kevin points out that Carl is mixing up the Women & Equalities Commission with the All Parliamentary Group, which isn't a commission. Carl concedes this, but still is critical of the W&EC, since it "still has the same people on it and still has these kinds of effects".
53) Kristi incredulously says the effect was a guy had to give a speech in a room other the one people usually give speeches in. Carl asks why he shouldn't have the main floor of the Chamber, and Kristi answers "because nobody else does" and asks why he should get special treatment, and Kevin points out that it is one room and there is a limited amount of time and they need to get through parliamentary business.
54) Carl again repeats the claim that Philip Davies got shut down because he's an MRA. Again Kevin points out this is bollocks, and that Davies did get his debate in a room where actually most of the debates take place within Westminster Hall. Carl attempts a pathetic fallacy of claiming Kevin doesn't care about male suicide, and Kevin again points out the debate actually took place and wasn't shut down at all. Carl alleges without evidence a "large number of attempts" to shut it down, but Kevin says this doesn't matter since it wasn't shut down and the debate happened and the system worked.
55) Carl alleges a "deliberate consequence of a network of feminists, that Jess Phillips talks about in her book, that deliberately go out of their way to shut down and block" various measures and debates, but Kristi again points out that in this instance Davies was simply treated equally to other Parliamentarians. Carl claims this is no different than if Republicans held whatever house and blocked Democratic proposals to get important things done, but Kristi again points out that Davies actually got to give his talk. Kevin points out that unlike Carl he has actually read the Hansard transcript of the debate and that it actually took place, and indeed that there were feminists there who took part in the debate. Carl again complains it wasn't in the main chamber and makes accusations of "stalling" by the feminists based on ideological reasons.
56) Kevin points out that Phillip Davies was one of the MPs who objected to the Upskirting Bill - which did take place in the main chamber - and he suggests that if this how Davies spends his time in the main chamber, then he doesn't deserve time in the main chamber and he should have his debates in other rooms where most debates take place just like everyone else. Carl tries to claim this is irrelevant, but it actually isn't because if one is a shit Parliamentarian, you can't expect entitlement for other Parliamentarians to take you seriously.
57) Kevin points out that there were lies told about Jess Phillips (a mother who has two sons) apparently laughing about male suicide, when in actuality she was laughing about the claim that male issues don't get talked about. Carl asks if Kevin thinks they do, to which Kevin replies in the affirmative in which he brings up an example of International Men's Day being debated in Parliament, and Kevin also highlights an old video on his channel about ICMI 2016 from his Descent of Manosphere series, in which Kevin uses screenshots from Hansard transcripts which show where male issues are directly referenced, including during a session of Prime Ministers Questions in which David Cameron addressed a question about false allegations of rape.
58) Carl claims there is "pushback" when these things are addressed, which Kevin points out is basic freedom of speech, and Carl again says that if Republicans were shutting down Democrat things then Kristi and Kevin would be complaining, again ignoring that nothing got shut down in this case.
59) Carl brings up corporations which have diversity officers, and asks who Kristi and Kevin think are running them and what their ideologies are. Kristi calls Carl out on the fact that all he's doing at this point is asking questions that she thought Carl would surely have the answers to, and that she thought he would actually be able to name all these people he had a problem with. Kristi points out that she'd have expected a list of at least 50 or 60 names that Carl could have brought up, and when Carl says that he's not an "inquisitor", Kristi compares his rhetoric to McCarthyism claiming a list of communists in the military but not actually showing who they actually are. Kevin points out that Carl has only been able to actually name one woman from the US (Cortez), and one woman from the UK (Phillips) which constitutes two women a continent apart from one another.
60) Oh it's Appeal to Incredulity Time as Carl asks how they can't see what's going on! He also whines about them apparently being immature for laughing at his tactics throughout the debate. They do compliment the parts of the discussion referenced earlier which actually seemed pretty insightful when they were talking about actual data, and they don't rule out another debate in future.
And that's it at the 1 hour 28 minute mark! But yeah Carl got absolutely destroyed here, and was even more exposed for being ridiculously paranoid and evidence-free on his claims.
I will reach out to Kristi Winters and Kevin Logan via Twitter with this recap, so that if I've reported anything inaccurately in this recap then through their feedback I can adjust my recap accordingly.
I've also stored this recap on a more permanent place on my newly created blogspot page: http://jon91919writes.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-kristi-winters-vs-carl-benjamin-ii.html
For those interested, I also did a recap of Sargon's debate with Jenni Goodchild in a post here a couple of years ago: https://np.reddit.com/GamerGhazi/comments/5a7pwh/revisiting_the_sargon_vs_jenni_goodchild_debate/
Hope you enjoy!
EDIT: Fixed some formatting issues.
submitted by J91919 to GamerGhazi [link] [comments]

America Banks details

America Banks details
bank of America reddit info

Roles Of Banks In The US Financial system

Banks serve many features in society. For one factor, billions of taxes are generated by the banking sector yearly. Wealth created by the banks strengthen the nationwide buying energy, which ends up in an extra secure financial system. As well as, banks are necessary employers. The highest 20 banks within the US make use of greater than 1.2 million folks - JP Morgan Chase & Co alone employs greater than 228,000 folks. The vast majority of Individuals deposit their cash in checking and savings accounts in banks for protected retaining.

Read also:

The 5 Largest Banks In The US By Property

1. JP Morgan Chase & Co. - $2,534 Billion

JP Morgan Chase & Co was shaped on account of a merger of a number of banking corporations in 1996. It's a multinational banking and monetary service supplier with its headquarters in New York Metropolis. At present, it's the largest financial institution within the US.
With an asset base of two.53 trillion, JP Morgan Chase & Co additionally ranks inside the prime ten for all global investment banks. The financial institution employs greater than 228,000 staff and operates in over 100 nations. It supplies monetary companies to thousands and thousands of shoppers, small companies and lots of the world's distinguished firms, establishments, and governments.

bank of America reddit

2. Financial institution of America (BoA) - $2,281 Billion

The Financial institution of America was shaped on October 17, 1904, by Amadeo Giannini. It was initially often known as the Financial institution of Italy. The financial institution is an American multinational banking and monetary service firm with its headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. It's ranked second when it comes to the asset base behind JP Morgan Chase & Co. It has 5,100 banking retailers, 16,300 ATMs, and greater than 150,939 staff.

What's the Largest Financial institution in the USA?

The biggest financial institution within the US is JP Morgan Chase and Co.

3. Wells Fargo - $1,951 Billion

Wells Fargo is the third largest financial institution within the US by complete property. The banking establishment was based on March 18, 1852, by Henry Wells and William Fargo. Its headquarters are in San Francisco California. Wells Fargo is the world’s largest financial institution when it comes to market capitalization and the third largest within the US by with an asset base of $1.951 trillion.

4. Citigroup - $1,843

Citigroup was based on June 16, 1812. Citibank is the patrol division of the monetary service multinational Citigroup with its headquarters in Manhattan, New York. In North America, Citibank has 983 branches. It supplies normal banking transactions, market insurance coverage, bank cards and online division which claims 15 million customers.

5. Goldman Sachs Group - $916

Goldman Sachs Group was based in 1869 by Marcus Goldman and Samuel Sachs. It's headquartered in New York. The agency’s first funding was pioneering the usage of industrial papers for traders and entrepreneurs. As of 2016, the financial institution had almost 35,000 staff; its complete property amounted to $916 billion. The corporate operates in Asia, Europe, and the Americas.
submitted by Red-its to forexinfo [link] [comments]

I Don't Need Your Belief, I Need Your Solidarity: A Story of Sexual Assault, Public Accusations and the Limits of #BelieveWomen

https://medium.com/@allisonckruk/i-dont-need-your-belief-i-need-your-solidarity-517b445bf1b

I Don’t Need Your Belief, I Need Your Solidarity

A Story About Sexual Assault, Public Accusations, and The Limits of #BelieveWomen

Ever since the #MeToo movement gained steam, multiple men (mostly cisgendered, heterosexual, and white) have taken it upon themselves to tell me that they “believe women.”
Bizarrely, it’s been happening a lot on first dates, which probably says something about my Tinder profile (though the jury’s still out on that one).
I’m never sure what these men want from me after such a declaration — a cookie? An “atta boy”? That ever-elusive feminist gold star?
It’s never been made clear.
Recently, I’ve taken to responding: “Yes, I know. You believe women. That and $7 will cover the cost of my tampons this month.”
I kid. The cost is closer to $7.44 since most of the country insists on taxing people for having a uterus.
Either way, none of these “women-believing” men have actually given me $7, leading me to assume that they are all staunch environmentalists and are sending me an eco-friendly tampon alternative in the mail…any day now…probably.
More to the point, the concept of “believe women” is as tone deaf as it is damaging.
It posits sexual violence in heteronormative, cisnormative terms, despite the fact that trans and nonbinary people are more likely to experience sexual assault than cisgender men and women.
Moreover, “believe women” reinforces the heterosexist assumption that men cannot experience sexual violence, further marginalizing the one in six menwho are victims of sexual assault and abuse.
Finally, there is the uncomfortable reality that “believe women” ignores: women can lie because people can lie and people are women and women are people.
There is a long history of white women fabricating rape at the hands of Black men in order to uphold white supremacy and its violent power-hoarding. Black communities carry the trauma of this past and present — the lynch mobs, the reign of extrajudicial terror, the mass incarcerations.
“Believe women” trivializes this history, uplifting a singular (white) understanding of how to stop sexual violence in the form of an easy-to-digest hashtag.
It’s not that false reports of sexual assault happen all the time or even the majority of the time. Experts agree the rate of false reports lies between 2% and 10%, and it is comparable to the rates of false reports for most other crimes.
As a society, we tend to make a “big deal” out of unfounded sexual assault allegations because it fits into sexist assumption that women’s experiences are not to be trusted.
But the answer to dismantling that assumption is not to put women on a pedestal, presenting them as inerrant goddesses of all things belief-worthy.
Personal experience would come to show me that that kind of “benevolent”dehumanization is just as sexist and just as harmful.

The Personal Is Political

Four months ago, my boyfriend at the time told me we needed to talk. I remember thinking he was going to tell me that he wanted to see other people and guarded myself for the inevitable breakup.
Instead, he told me that he had been banned from a comedy theater because of several “disturbing allegations” regarding his “behavior towards women.”
Immediately, I felt like the the air had been sucked out of the room.
“What does that even mean your ‘behavior towards women’? Who’s accusing you of this? What did you do?
I asked, but he didn’t have answers because the theater in question had not disclosed the particulars of the allegations to him.
This was the person who asked to kiss me before doing so on our first date. The person who worked to make enthusiastic, spoken consent part and parcel of our relationship.
My mind raced. Memories of past traumas began crawling out of the dark corners of my brain, bubbling to the surface like boiling water.
I felt defensive. I felt protective. I questioned my safety. I questioned my sanity.
Very few familiar with the situation would speak in details. Euphemisms for sexual assault abounded, and everyone seemed to be talking in redacted sentences: “one accuser.” “did not choose to move forward with an investigation.” “cannot disclose.”
In the weeks that followed, I did end up reading the accusations, chronicled on social media by an ex-partner of his.
I didn’t eat. I didn’t sleep. I lost five pounds over the course of five days. I could not make sense of the contradictory thoughts running through my head.
“He has never violated your boundaries.” “But she says he violated hers.”
“He says this wasn’t how this happened.” “But she says that it was.”
The echoes of “believe women” reverberated in my brain like an incantation.
I felt haunted.
So, unable to do anything else, I fell back on what I know: Act like a journalist. Lay out the facts. Double and triple source your evidence. Check the receipts.
Then came the text messages exchanged between the two of them evidently contradicting her account of what had transpired — the past written words seemingly at odds with her present recollection.
I was at a loss.
But that’s the problem with “belief”: it doesn’t leave room for nuance. For contradiction. For the complexity of memory during flashbulb moments. For the messiness of the human condition.
Instead, I was left with impossible binaries — to believe or not believe, total fact or total fiction.
One month later, a stranger allegedly raped me outside my apartment while that same boyfriend was out of town. The irony had not been lost on me.
I say “allegedly” because I was unconscious at the time, and I only know about the “sexual contact” because while in police custody, my (alleged) rapist admitted to having what he termed “consensual sex” with me. I do not remember this version of events, nor do I remember having “sex” with him at all.
I remember telling him to stop kissing me. I remember pushing him away. I remember waking up on the ground outside my apartment door — my bra off, my cell phone and my credit cards missing.
When I realized what had happened, I thought my only options were to go to the police or to forget the entire thing. I chose the former. He was arrested, and a court date was set.
I thought this would make me feel vindicated. It didn’t.
More than the pain and anger I felt over what had happened, I felt disdain for the dearth of choices afterwards: stay silent and excuse what occurred or choose the oppression of the criminal “justice” system (for him) over the oppression of sexual violence (for me).
It was all very dichotomous — no room for gray areas, let alone room for accountability and futurity.
At this point, the last thing I wanted was to be held up as some kind of icon of strength and believability.
When well-meaning people (mostly men) heard my story and (unprompted) said, “I believe you,” I thought I would feel relieved. That was how the “believe women” formula was supposed to work, right? Speak your truth. Be believed. Feel validated. Dismantle rape culture.
Instead, I couldn’t help but think about the axis of privilege underpinning their “belief.”
I was a white woman with a white boyfriend. I was monogamous. I was well-educated and had a job in a “respectable” profession. The accused was a man of color. He was a stranger, so the assault fit into the dominant societal understanding of what rape looks like (despite the fact that most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim).
I was not a sex worker. I was not using illegal substances. I was not living with the diagnosis of a psychotic disorder or a cognitive disability. No one told me I was too fat or too ugly to be considered “rape-able.”
In many ways, belief was bestowed on me not because what I said was true but because of how my story and my identity lined up with dominant notions of respectability and belief-worthiness.
I didn’t ask for that type of unquestioning endorsement and quite frankly, I didn’t need it.
Ronan Farrow, the journalist who first broke the Harvey Weinstein story, once said:
“The best way to do justice to any person coming forward with a difficult story is to interrogate it as thoroughly as possible and to lend credence where it’s due.”
To lend credence where it’s due. That’s what I wanted — the acknowledgement that I was a person, deserving of having my story taken seriously and capable of having my story (and the evidence) speak for itself.
I didn’t need belief. I needed solidarity.

Motion, Forward

After I testified in court about my alleged assault, the district attorney handling my case approached me to say that several “supporters of the defendant” were in the hallway and that I could wait in another room if they “made me feel uncomfortable.”
I chose to walk out into the hallway. Loud enough for me to hear, a woman said, “I’ll never understand why she would choose to ruin his life like that.” It was clear that I was the “she” to whom the woman was referring.
I recognized the anger, the sadness, the protectiveness, the feeling of being deceived. Those emotions had been mine when my loved one had been accused of sexual assault.
I froze.
Then, the rhetorical guillotine dropped, and I heard the following four words: “I don’t believe her.”
I thought this kind of invalidation would be devastating. That was the flip side of “believe women,” wasn’t it? Caring when someone didn’t believe women?
Instead, I felt utter apathy. I didn’t need this woman’s belief or anyone else’s for that matter. I had been believed and the patriarchy persisted just like any other day.
I got quiet.
And then, in a voice louder than my usual tone, I started talking about what I did need: accountability outside the incarceration system. Justice beyond bars.
For my alleged rapist to be integrated back into society. For him to be fully present with his infant son. For him to be able to teach that child about undoing the toxic masculinity that brought us here in the first place.
I didn’t need it for him per say, but rather, for my own humanity. For my own future. For my own healing.
Rape culture has never been about individual men or about believing and disbelieving. It’s been about the patriarchal insistence that cisgendered heterosexual able-bodied white men are deserving of full personhood while the rest of humanity is somehow “less than.”
“Believe women” reinforces this limiting dichotomy, uplifting “belief” for one (cis)gender identity at the expense of all others.
It upholds the two-sided logic of domination (belief/disbelief, men/women, victim/perpetrator) when the reality of sexual assault defies such superficial categorizations.
It fails to recognize that women (and men and nonbinary folks) are people — fraught with contradiction, defiant of facile binaries, and capable of experiencing the full spectrum of what it means to be human.
The “believe women” dogma hurts. The orthodoxy excludes. It trivializes. It shuns.
And yet, I understand its appeal. After decades of silencing, stifling un-belief, it seems like the ultimate form of retributive justice — for once, just believe us. For once, be on “our side.”
But sexual assault and rape culture do not lend themselves to “sides” that fall along a tidy — albeit socially constructed — gender binary.
It isn’t a matter of “believing” women (and disbelieving men) but rather, taking people and their experiences seriously. Working to dismantle the violent systems that enable violent outcomes. Making mistakes. Trying to move forward.
Undoing sexism is gritty, and it’s complicated by the fact that rape culture doesn’t disappear with a two-word hashtag.
The work is messy because the work is human.
Come experience it for yourself. You don’t have to believe me.
submitted by allisonkruk to Feminism [link] [comments]

Breakdown of Genderal Budget 2018

tldr; Marxist Gibs
In Budget 2018, no budget decision was taken without being informed by Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+).
What is GBA+?
GBA+ is an analytical tool used to assess how different groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs and initiatives. The “plus“ acknowledges that GBA goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-cultural (gender) differences to consider intersecting factors such as race, ethnicity, age, disability and sexual orientation. GBA+ provides the foundation for gender budgeting—ensuring that the impacts of individual budget proposals on different groups of people are understood, supporting better policy-making, priority-setting and decision-making
...
Budget 2018 goes further, integrating considerations of gender impacts at each step of the budgeting process, and introducing a new Gender Results Framework. This Framework includes goals and indicators that will guide the Government’s decisions and measure Canada’s progress in achieving greater gender equality. And to ensure that gender remains a key consideration for future governments, the Government will introduce new GBA+ legislation to make gender budgeting a permanent part of the federal budget-making process
...
The Government will ask the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine making it a requirement that when any Minister of Finance tables a Budget in the House of Commons, a GBA+ analysis of the budget documents must be tabled concurrently
...
To strengthen Canada’s ongoing capacity to apply the gender and diversity lens, the Government will make Status of Women Canada an official Department of the Government of Canada
Pay Gap
In Canada today, women earn 31 per cent less than men do. Put another way, the median income for women is $28,120, compared with $40,890 for men.
...
For every dollar of hourly wages a man working full-time earns in Canada, a woman working full-time earns about 88 cents.
...
Introducing historic pay equity legislation will give more Canadian women fair compensation for their hard work and will set the standard for how women’s work is valued in the workplace. The Government is proud to lead these efforts to reduce the gender wage gap.
...
The Government will bring in a legislated proactive pay equity regime in federally regulated sectors, which would apply to approximately 1.2 million employed individuals. This legislation would: Ensure that both wages and other benefits are evaluated in a gender-neutral way.
The Government will commit [3 million] over five years, starting in 2018–19, to implement pay transparency.
...
Repeal previous legislation such as the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act which is inconsistent with the goal of pay equity
Women
When women come together, change happens Across the country, women’s organizations play an important role in raising social awareness and mobilizing communities to change laws, attitudes and social norms.
...
The most common scenario, however, involves the mother taking on the primary caregiving responsibilities once their child is born. both in the short term following the arrival of their child, and over the longer term, often due to the challenges of re-entering the workforce after time spent away.
...
To help more women entrepreneurs take their businesses to the next level, the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) launched a $50 million fund in 2016 to give women-led technology firms greater access to venture and growth capital—and based a highly promising pipeline, the fund was increased to $70 million in November 2017.
...
Recognizing that barriers to women’s labour market participation can be complex and slow to move, the Government will also host a major symposium on women and the workplace in the spring of 2019. The Government will provide $1.5 million over 2018–19 and 2019–20 for this symposium.
...
The BDC’s 2015 commitment to increase term lending to majority women-owned businesses to at least $700 million over three years has also been surpassed, and as of January 31, 2018, the BDC has lent $912 million to an additional 1,636 women-owned firms
...
To support more initiatives that build the capacity of equality-seeking organizations, reduce gender inequality in Canada, and promote a fairer and more productive society, the Government proposes to provide $100 million over five years to Status of Women Canada to enhance the Women’s Program. This investment will increase organizational and sector capacity on a needs basis, allowing organizations to participate in ongoing training, skills development and community engagement, while reducing competition among equality seeking organizations for funding. This investment will also ensure better funding for organizations focused on vulnerable women, including groups such as Indigenous women, women with disabilities, members of the LGBTQ2 communities, and newcomer and migrant women.
...
The Government proposes to provide Status of Women Canada with $1.3 million in 2018–19 to host a national roundtable on GBA+. The Government also proposes to provide Status of Women Canada with additional funding of up to $7.2 million over five years to lead a national conversation on gender equality with young Canadians
...
This pattern of women's underparticipation in higher-paid, maledominated trades has meant that women are not only comparatively underpaid in the trades sectors, but also wrongly perceived as uninterested in or incapable of pursuing careers in the higher-paid male-dominated fields.
...
The Government will provide $46 million over five years, starting in 2018–19, and $10 million per year thereafter, for the Pre-Apprenticeship Program. This program will encourage underrepresented groups—including but not limited to women, Indigenous Peoples, newcomers and persons with disabilities–to explore careers in the skilled trades.
...
Investments of more than $40 billion over the next 10 years will create over 100,000 new housing units and repair 300,000 housing units for Canadians. Moreover, at least 25 per cent of National Housing Strategy investments will support projects that specifically target the unique needs of women and girls, including senior women who are more likely than senior men to need affordable housing.
...
As part of the Government’s commitment to address gaps in gender and diversity data, the Government is also proposing to provide $1.5 million over five years, starting in 2018–19, and $0.2 million per year ongoing, to the Department of Finance Canada to work with Statistics Canada and Status of Women to develop a broader set of indicators and statistics to measure and track Canada’s progress on achieving shared growth and gender equality objectives.
...
the Government is allocating $19.9 million over five years, starting in 2018–19, to pilot an Apprenticeship Incentive Grant for Women. Under the Grant, women in male-dominated Red Seal trades would receive $3,000 for each of their first two years of training (up to $6,000). This, in combination with the existing Apprenticeship Completion Grant valued at $2,000, will result in a combined $8,000 in support over the course of their training for a female apprentice training to become a welder, machinist pipe fitter or any other skilled trade that is male-dominated.
...
To support greater gender equality in the home and in the workplace, the Government proposes to provide $1.2 billion over five years, starting in 2018–19, and $344.7 million per year thereafter, to introduce a new EI Parental Sharing Benefit. The Benefit will provide additional weeks of “use it or lose it” EI parental benefits, when both parents agree to share parental leave. This incentive is expected to be available starting June 2019
...
In Canada, fewer than one in six businesses (16 per cent) are majority-owned by women, and businesses owned by women tend to be smaller than businesses owned by men, although the difference varies by industry, according to the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) based on 2014 data from Statistics Canada. Women entrepreneurs face unique barriers in accessing capital, supply chains and export programs compared to their male counterparts. Women entrepreneurs may also have a harder time receiving training and finding mentorship. The Government believes that with greater support, women-led businesses could enter, compete and win on the world stage, boosting economic growth and creating more good, well-paying jobs here at home.
...
Budget 2018 proposes to provide $105 million over five years to the regional development agencies to support investments in women-led businesses, of those SMEs who participate in federal procurement, 10 per cent are women-owned. The Government intends to introduce measures to increase this participation rate by 50 per cent (to at least 15 per cent), in order to reflect the current proportion of SMEs majority led by women entrepreneurs in the broader population. The Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) will coordinate a series of boot camps across Canada for promising women entrepreneurs looking to start their business
...
Budget 2018 proposes that the Government will invest $10 million over five years, starting in 2018–19, to connect women with expanded export services and opportunities through the Business Women in International Trade Program
...
The Government will make available $1.4 billion over three years, starting in 2018–19, in new financing for women entrepreneurs through the BDC. This commitment is in addition to an increase to $200 million (from $70 million) for investments in women-led technology firms over five years through the BDC’s Women in Technology Fund
...
the Government will make available $250 million over three years, starting in 2018–19, through Export Development Canada (EDC). As well, EDC will support the international success of women entrepreneurs by providing expert advice
...
To support women entrepreneurs in agriculture, the Government will create and launch a new lending product in 2018–19 designed specifically for women entrepreneurs through Farm Credit Canada.
...
The Government is committed both to improving the representation of women among venture capital firm managers, and to ensuring venture capital funds are investing in Canada’s promising women-owned firms.
...
The Government’s Venture Capital Catalyst Initiative, launched in December 2017 with the goal of injecting up to $1.5 billion into Canada’s venture capital market, includes a strong focus on gender balance and diversity. All proposals submitted under the Initiative are expected to demonstrate how they will improve gender representation among venture capital fund managers and portfolio companies, and will be assessed on this basis.
...
Budget 2018 announces that the Government’s coming reform to federal innovation programs will include a universal goal to improve the participation of underrepresented groups, including women entrepreneurs, in the innovation economy
...
To accelerate the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge, data and best practices for women entrepreneurs, the Government will make available $9.5 million over three years to support third-party proposals through a competitive process, to be administered by Innovation, Science and Economic Development.
...
one third of Canadian men and one-sixth of Canadian women regularly participated in sport. Men are also approximately two to three times more likely to be coaches, officials or in other leadership positions than women. This is why through Budget 2018, the Government is setting a target to achieve gender equality in sport at every level by 2035, and proposes to provide an initial $30 million over three years to support data and research and innovative practices to promote women and girls’ participation in sport, and provide support to national sports organizations to promote the greater inclusion of women and girls in all facets of sport.
...
$77.5 million over five years, and $16 million per year ongoing, to Status of Women Canada for a Gender-Based Violence Knowledge Centre, data collection and research, and programming;
...
$9.5 million over five years, and $2 million per year ongoing, to the Public Health Agency of Canada to support implementing and testing ways to prevent gender-based violence, including child maltreatme
Men
Gender equality is not just about women and girls. That is why the Government of Canada will introduce a strategy focused on men and boys. The Government will provide $1.8 million over two years to Status of Women Canada to develop an engagement strategy for men and boys that promotes equality and pilots innovative, targeted approaches to addressing inequality.
D I V E R S I T Y
Diversity is Canada’s strength and a cornerstone of Canadian identity. Recent domestic and international events, like the rise of ultranationalist movements, and protests against immigration,
...
ex. Story: Fawzia immigrated to Canada in 2009 from Somalia, where she was a practicing gynecologist/obstetrician. After spending a year attempting to get recertified to practice medicine in Canada, she decided to volunteer at a local hospital, where she spends her time helping escort patients between departments. She loves being back in a hospital setting but misses being able to care for her own patients one-on-one, and worries about losing the practical skills that are an important part of her profession.
...
The Government of Canada intends to address gaps in gathering data and to better use data related to gender and diversity. This includes proposing $6.7 million over five years, starting in 2018–19, and $0.6 million per year ongoing, for Statistics Canada to create a new Centre for Gender, Diversity and Inclusion Statistics.
...
Budget 2018 also proposes to provide $5 million per year to Status of Women Canada to undertake research and data collection in support of the Government’s Gender Results Framework. One of the first projects this would support is an analysis of the unique challenges visible minority and newcomer women face in finding employment in science, technology engineering and mathematics occupations
...
The Government will launch a three-year pilot to support programming for newcomer women who are also members of visible minorities and provide $31.8 million over three years starting in 2018–19.
...
Budget 2018 proposes a new investment of $210 million over five years, starting in 2018–19, with $50 million per year ongoing, for the Canada Research Chairs Program. The purpose of this investment will be to better support early-career researchers, while increasing diversity among nominated researchers, including increasing the number of women who are nominated for Canada Research Chairs
...
As the National Research Council re-imagines itself to deliver on the Innovation and Skills Plan, it will be taking targeted action to include more women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities and visible minorities among its researchers. Targeted actions include ensuring there are no unintended barriers to the participation of women researchers and entrepreneurs in the National Research Council’s programs, as well as increased outreach to diverse groups of Canadians so they are fully aware of its programs and the opportunity to participate. The government proposes to provide $540 million over five years, starting in 2018–19, and $108 million annually for measures that will reinforce its research strengths and role as a trusted collaboration partner of industry.
...
legislation recently introduced in Parliament by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development proposes amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act that would require federally incorporated corporations to make annual disclosures to shareholders regarding the diversity of their senior management teams and boards of directors.
...
the Government will further support corporate inclusion by publicly recognizing corporations that are committed to promoting women, including minority women, to senior management positions and boards of directors. In partnership with the private sector, the Government will create an annual award for Canadian corporations showing leadership in this area.
...
Canada's Start-up Visa Program provides permanent resident immigration status to innovative global entrepreneurs with the potential to grow their companies in Canada. Budget 2018 proposes to provide $4.6 million over five years, beginning in 2018–19, and $0.8 million per year ongoing, to enhance the Start-up Visa client-service experience by ensuring applicants, private sector partners and immigration officials are able to process applications electronically and more efficiently
...
As a first step toward recognizing the significant and unique challenges faced by Black Canadians, the Government also proposes to provide $19 million over five years that will be targeted to enhance local community supports for youth at risk and to develop research in support of more culturally focused mental health programs in the Black Canadian community.
...
the Government is committed to increase the disaggregation of various data sets by race. This will help governments and service providers better understand the intersectional dimensions of major issues, with a particular focus on the experience of Black Canadians
...
In order to obtain more inclusive data on sex and gender, Statistics Canada officials have been working with LGBTQ2 organizations to adjust Census of Population questions and response options to better reflect how people identify themselves, for example, by allowing respondents to answer in a non-binary fashion. This will provide critical information to help understand and meet the needs of LGBTQ2 Canadians.
...
$1.5 million over five years to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to enhance the Settlement Program.
...
$2.4 million over five years, and $0.6 million per year ongoing, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for cultural competency training for federal law enforcement officers;
...
the Government proposes to provide $173.2 million to support security operations at the Canada-U.S. border and the processing of asylum claimants arriving in 2018–19. Funding would be used to manage the increased number of people seeking asylum in Canada this year, many of whom arrive with their families seeking quick, safe and compassionate processing.
...
The Government proposes to provide $194.1 million over five years, beginning in 2018–19, and $33.19 million per year ongoing, to ensure the rights of temporary foreign workers in Canada are protected and enforced through a robust compliance regime.
Reconciliation
The Government proposes to invest an additional $5 billion over five years to ensure that Indigenous children and families have an equal chance to succeed in life, to build the capacity of Indigenous governments, and to accelerate self-determination and selfgovernment agreements with Indigenous Peoples based on the recognition and implementation of rights.
...
the Government of Canada will be moving away from the use of loans to fund Indigenous participation in the negotiation of modern treaties. Starting in 2018–19, Indigenous participation in modern treaty negotiations will be funded through non-repayable contributions.
...
The Government will engage with affected Indigenous groups on how best to address past and present negotiation loans, including forgiveness of loans.
International Feminism
The Government released its Feminist International Assistance Policy, focusing on six interlinked areas: gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls, human dignity, peace and security, inclusive governance, environment and climate action, and growth that works for everyone.
...
The Government proposes to provide an additional $2 billion over five years, starting in 2018–19, to the International Assistance Envelope.
...
In support of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Feminist International Assistance Policy puts women and girls at the centre of its plan as agents of positive change for their families, communities and countries. Gender equality will be a focus of all of Canada’s international assistance investments to address economic, political and social inequalities that prevent individuals from reaching their full potential
...
$180 million over three years for the Global Partnership for Education to support girls’ education and help strengthen education systems in developing countries.
...
$15 million over four years to Marie Stopes Tanzania to provide girls and women with improved access to family planning information and services.
...
$6 million to designated United Nations missions to improve their ability to support and benefit women’s increased participation in peace operations.
...
$15 million to launch a global fund to support the deployment of women peacekeepers.
...
Strengthen its focus on sexual and reproductive health and rights by doubling its commitment to $650 million over the next three years.
...
the Government proposes to provide $1.5 billion over five years, starting in 2018– 19, on a cash basis ($553 million on an accrual basis), and $492.7 million per year thereafter, from existing unallocated International Assistance Envelope resources
...
95 per cent of Canada’s bilateral international development assistance will either target or integrate gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls by 2021–22.
...
Half of the world’s 22.5 million refugee population is made up of women and girls, making this population a significant segment of those fleeing war,
...
the Government commits to increase the number of vulnerable refugee women and girls to be resettled in Canada as government-assisted refugees. Specifically, Budget 2018 proposes funding of $20.3 million over five years, beginning in 2018–19, to welcome an extra 1,000 refugee women and girls from various conflict zones around the world.
...
Non Citizen Gibs
[24 Billion Per Year] The CCB has been supporting more than 3.3 million families with children, putting almost $2 billion each month, tax-free, into the bank accounts of families who need it most.
Who is eligible for Canada Child Benefit?
You or your spouse or common-law partner must be:
submitted by AnonUrban2 to metacanada [link] [comments]

I Don’t Need Your Belief, I Need Your Solidarity: A Story About Sexual Assault, Public Accusations, and The Limits of #BelieveWomen

I Don’t Need Your Belief, I Need Your Solidarity

A Story About Sexual Assault, Public Accusations, and The Limits of #BelieveWomen

Ever since the #MeToo movement gained steam, multiple men (mostly cisgendered, heterosexual, and white) have taken it upon themselves to tell me that they “believe women.”
Bizarrely, it’s been happening a lot on first dates, which probably says something about my Tinder profile (though the jury’s still out on that one).
I’m never sure what these men want from me after such a declaration — a cookie? An “atta boy”? That ever-elusive feminist gold star?
It’s never been made clear.
Recently, I’ve taken to responding: “Yes, I know. You believe women. That and $7 will cover the cost of my tampons this month.”
I kid. The cost is closer to $7.44 since most of the country insists on taxing people for having a uterus.
Either way, none of these “women-believing” men have actually given me $7, leading me to assume that they are all staunch environmentalists and are sending me an eco-friendly tampon alternative in the mail…any day now…probably.
More to the point, the concept of “believe women” is as tone deaf as it is damaging.
It posits sexual violence in heteronormative, cisnormative terms, despite the fact that trans and nonbinary people are more likely to experience sexual assault than cisgender men and women.
Moreover, “believe women” reinforces the heterosexist assumption that men cannot experience sexual violence, further marginalizing the one in six menwho are victims of sexual assault and abuse.
Finally, there is the uncomfortable reality that “believe women” ignores: women can lie because people can lie and people are women and women are people.
There is a long history of white women fabricating rape at the hands of Black men in order to uphold white supremacy and its violent power-hoarding. Black communities carry the trauma of this past and present — the lynch mobs, the reign of extrajudicial terror, the mass incarcerations.
“Believe women” trivializes this history, uplifting a singular (white) understanding of how to stop sexual violence in the form of an easy-to-digest hashtag.
It’s not that false reports of sexual assault happen all the time or even the majority of the time. Experts agree the rate of false reports lies between 2% and 10%, and it is comparable to the rates of false reports for most other crimes.
As a society, we tend to make a “big deal” out of unfounded sexual assault allegations because it fits into sexist assumption that women’s experiences are not to be trusted.
But the answer to dismantling that assumption is not to put women on a pedestal, presenting them as inerrant goddesses of all things belief-worthy.
Personal experience would come to show me that that kind of “benevolent”dehumanization is just as sexist and just as harmful.

The Personal Is Political

Four months ago, my boyfriend at the time told me we needed to talk. I remember thinking he was going to tell me that he wanted to see other people and guarded myself for the inevitable breakup.
Instead, he told me that he had been banned from a comedy theater because of several “disturbing allegations” regarding his “behavior towards women.”
Immediately, I felt like the the air had been sucked out of the room.
“What does that even mean your ‘behavior towards women’? Who’s accusing you of this? What did you do?
I asked, but he didn’t have answers because the theater in question had not disclosed the particulars of the allegations to him.
This was the person who asked to kiss me before doing so on our first date. The person who worked to make enthusiastic, spoken consent part and parcel of our relationship.
My mind raced. Memories of past traumas began crawling out of the dark corners of my brain, bubbling to the surface like boiling water.
I felt defensive. I felt protective. I questioned my safety. I questioned my sanity.
Very few familiar with the situation would speak in details. Euphemisms for sexual assault abounded, and everyone seemed to be talking in redacted sentences: “one accuser.” “did not choose to move forward with an investigation.” “cannot disclose.”
In the weeks that followed, I did end up reading the accusations, chronicled on social media by an ex-partner of his.
I didn’t eat. I didn’t sleep. I lost five pounds over the course of five days. I could not make sense of the contradictory thoughts running through my head.
“He has never violated your boundaries.” “But she says he violated hers.”
“He says this wasn’t how this happened.” “But she says that it was.”
The echoes of “believe women” reverberated in my brain like an incantation.
I felt haunted.
So, unable to do anything else, I fell back on what I know: Act like a journalist. Lay out the facts. Double and triple source your evidence. Check the receipts.
Then came the text messages exchanged between the two of them evidently contradicting her account of what had transpired — the past written words seemingly at odds with her present recollection.
I was at a loss.
But that’s the problem with “belief”: it doesn’t leave room for nuance. For contradiction. For the complexity of memory during flashbulb moments. For the messiness of the human condition.
Instead, I was left with impossible binaries — to believe or not believe, total fact or total fiction.
One month later, a stranger allegedly raped me outside my apartment while that same boyfriend was out of town. The irony had not been lost on me.
I say “allegedly” because I was unconscious at the time, and I only know about the “sexual contact” because while in police custody, my (alleged) rapist admitted to having what he termed “consensual sex” with me. I do not remember this version of events, nor do I remember having “sex” with him at all.
I remember telling him to stop kissing me. I remember pushing him away. I remember waking up on the ground outside my apartment door — my bra off, my cell phone and my credit cards missing.
When I realized what had happened, I thought my only options were to go to the police or to forget the entire thing. I chose the former. He was arrested, and a court date was set.
I thought this would make me feel vindicated. It didn’t.
More than the pain and anger I felt over what had happened, I felt disdain for the dearth of choices afterwards: stay silent and excuse what occurred or choose the oppression of the criminal “justice” system (for him) over the oppression of sexual violence (for me).
It was all very dichotomous — no room for gray areas, let alone room for accountability and futurity.
At this point, the last thing I wanted was to be held up as some kind of icon of strength and believability.
When well-meaning people (mostly men) heard my story and (unprompted) said, “I believe you,” I thought I would feel relieved. That was how the “believe women” formula was supposed to work, right? Speak your truth. Be believed. Feel validated. Dismantle rape culture.
Instead, I couldn’t help but think about the axis of privilege underpinning their “belief.”
I was a white woman with a white boyfriend. I was monogamous. I was well-educated and had a job in a “respectable” profession. The accused was a man of color. He was a stranger, so the assault fit into the dominant societal understanding of what rape looks like (despite the fact that most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim).
I was not a sex worker. I was not using illegal substances. I was not living with the diagnosis of a psychotic disorder or a cognitive disability. No one told me I was too fat or too ugly to be considered “rape-able.”
In many ways, belief was bestowed on me not because what I said was true but because of how my story and my identity lined up with dominant notions of respectability and belief-worthiness.
I didn’t ask for that type of unquestioning endorsement and quite frankly, I didn’t need it.
Ronan Farrow, the journalist who first broke the Harvey Weinstein story, once said:
“The best way to do justice to any person coming forward with a difficult story is to interrogate it as thoroughly as possible and to lend credence where it’s due.”
To lend credence where it’s due. That’s what I wanted — the acknowledgement that I was a person, deserving of having my story taken seriously and capable of having my story (and the evidence) speak for itself.
I didn’t need belief. I needed solidarity.

Motion, Forward

After I testified in court about my alleged assault, the district attorney handling my case approached me to say that several “supporters of the defendant” were in the hallway and that I could wait in another room if they “made me feel uncomfortable.”
I chose to walk out into the hallway. Loud enough for me to hear, a woman said, “I’ll never understand why she would choose to ruin his life like that.” It was clear that I was the “she” to whom the woman was referring.
I recognized the anger, the sadness, the protectiveness, the feeling of being deceived. Those emotions had been mine when my loved one had been accused of sexual assault.
I froze.
Then, the rhetorical guillotine dropped, and I heard the following four words: “I don’t believe her.”
I thought this kind of invalidation would be devastating. That was the flip side of “believe women,” wasn’t it? Caring when someone didn’t believe women?
Instead, I felt utter apathy. I didn’t need this woman’s belief or anyone else’s for that matter. I had been believed and the patriarchy persisted just like any other day.
I got quiet.
And then, in a voice louder than my usual tone, I started talking about what I did need: accountability outside the incarceration system. Justice beyond bars.
For my alleged rapist to be integrated back into society. For him to be fully present with his infant son. For him to be able to teach that child about undoing the toxic masculinity that brought us here in the first place.
I didn’t need it for him per say, but rather, for my own humanity. For my own future. For my own healing.
Rape culture has never been about individual men or about believing and disbelieving. It’s been about the patriarchal insistence that cisgendered heterosexual able-bodied white men are deserving of full personhood while the rest of humanity is somehow “less than.”
“Believe women” reinforces this limiting dichotomy, uplifting “belief” for one (cis)gender identity at the expense of all others.
It upholds the two-sided logic of domination (belief/disbelief, men/women, victim/perpetrator) when the reality of sexual assault defies such superficial categorizations.
It fails to recognize that women (and men and nonbinary folks) are people — fraught with contradiction, defiant of facile binaries, and capable of experiencing the full spectrum of what it means to be human.
The “believe women” dogma hurts. The orthodoxy excludes. It trivializes. It shuns.
And yet, I understand its appeal. After decades of silencing, stifling un-belief, it seems like the ultimate form of retributive justice — for once, just believe us. For once, be on “our side.”
But sexual assault and rape culture do not lend themselves to “sides” that fall along a tidy — albeit socially constructed — gender binary.
It isn’t a matter of “believing” women (and disbelieving men) but rather, taking people and their experiences seriously. Working to dismantle the violent systems that enable violent outcomes. Making mistakes. Trying to move forward.
Undoing sexism is gritty, and it’s complicated by the fact that rape culture doesn’t disappear with a two-word hashtag.
The work is messy because the work is human.
Come experience it for yourself. You don’t have to believe me.
submitted by allisonkruk to story [link] [comments]

Izumi3682 Archives

Gene therapy treatment for blood disease approved in Europe by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 1 point 3 months ago
Why is the guy's skin in the picture green like that? I think that communicates the wrong impression, like you start to turn into "the Hulk" too or you have to get stem cells from "the Hulk" or something. I mean he is not full "Hulk" yet, but he definitely looks like he is starting to turn into him for sure. Like maybe it is a side effect.
I find it interesting and a bit unsettling how China (PRC) was the first to attempt this form of CRISPR-Cas9 treatment. As a direct result of the world wide knowledge of what China was doing, a universal moratorium http://www.crisprupdate.com/scientists-seek-moratorium-on-edits-to-human-genome-that-could-be-inherited/ was instituted to keep that kind of experimentation from proceeding. In a word the West was "alarmed".
Now I see what is happening and it makes perfect sense to me. You keep up with China, or you get "disrupted".
permalinksavecontextfull comments (1)editdelete
Where is Augmented and Virtual Reality Technology Headed? by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 2 points 3 months ago
That's right by golly!
https://www.reddit.com/Futurology/comments/7r42h0/vr_is_going_to_be_like_nothing_the_world_has_eve
permalinksavecontextfull comments (2)editdelete
CRISPR-Cas9 Improved 10,000-Fold by Synthetic Nucleotides by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 2 points 3 months ago
I thought CRISPR-Cas9 was already right specific. Can someone ELI5 how a ten thousand fold improvement in specificity will enable us to defeat all congenital conditions. And probably all pathologies too I suppose.
permalinksavecontextfull comments (9)editdelete
Double beds and urinals at 35,000 feet – introducing the aircraft interiors of the future by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 1 point 3 months ago
Interesting. I wonder which it is going to be now. Rockets that get us anywhere on Earth in like 30 minutes or luxury 16 hour totally VR enabled flights for coach passengers.
Vision of rockets for Earth travel:
https://www.recode.net/2018/4/11/17227036/flight-spacex-gwynne-shotwell-space-ted-conference-interview
permalinksavecontextfull comments (2)editdelete
AI must be 'for common good' by Benjaminsen in Futurology


[–]izumi3682 1 point 3 months ago
I think you are thinking too locally and limitedly as well. Pull back your view.
https://www.reddit.com/Futurology/comments/6zu9yo/in_the_age_of_ai_we_shouldnt_measure_success/dmy1qed/
permalinksavecontextfull comments (21)editdelete
Will technology ever allow people to experience specific mental fantasies via virtual reality? by infin8ty in Futurology


[–]izumi3682 2 points 3 months ago
Consider the Wright Brother's "aeroplane". Then think of today's modern aircraft. The VR we have right now is a Wright craft. VR and our minds will surely join.
Try the "red pill" ;)
https://www.reddit.com/Futurology/comments/7r42h0/vr_is_going_to_be_like_nothing_the_world_has_eve
permalinksavecontextfull comments (4)editdelete
NIST's new quantum method generates really random numbers by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 1 point 3 months ago
Is this a step closer to a quantum computer being capable of more general purpose computing? For example in 1945 we used binary computers for extremely limited applications. The only application I am aware of from 1945 was using binary computers to calculate artillery trajectories. Is something like that analogous to "optimization"?
Getting from calculating artillery trajectories to doing everything we do today was not a one year process. Tons of insights, innovations and discoveries accompanied that. I remember making Christmas wreaths out of old punchcards when I was a Cub Scout. Then we would get to spray paint them gold or green. The effect was fairly impressive. Somebody got a ton of them from somewhere. But can we extrapolate that kind of progress (at a potentially much faster rate) with the implementation of quantum computers?
Is it likely that humans will learn how to use quantum computers in the same manner that we use binary computers today? Perhaps quantum computers will simply "transcend" (replace) binary computers? Or will we forever be hobbled by having to use binary computers with quantum computers as some kind of piggyback enhancement. Or will they forever stay two separate tracks. Granted, an "exa-scale" supercomputer or whatever comes after an "exa" computer would be pretty insane in it's own right I imagine.
I need to know all this and how ballpark soon, because it is important to my ascension to the realm of umm... "Dark Overlord of the Universe". (Yes, I got that from "Howard the Duck", but honestly, the intent is still accurately described.) What. We all have our own personal aspirations I'm sure. Now you know mine.
permalinksavecontextfull comments (1)editdelete
Peptide-based biogenic dental product may cure cavities by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 5 points 3 months ago
Important takeaway:
The peptide-enabled technology allows the deposition of 10 to 50 micrometers of new enamel on the teeth after each use. Once fully developed, the technology can be used in both private and public health settings, in biomimetic toothpaste, gels, solutions and composites as a safe alternative to existing dental procedures and treatments.
permalinksavecontextfull comments (16)editdelete
Will Self-Driving Cars End The Big Automakers? by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 2 points 3 months ago
That's a generational attitude. In 1898 very few humans trusted the internal combustion engine over the reliable and easily controlled horse. But by 1908 horses were already beginning to disappear. By 1922 horses were very rare on New York City thoroughfares. Progress marches on.
You don't trust SDVs, but a child of say, age 2, that grows up in today's world will never have known a world without SDVs, AI, VR, and human robots walking around like it's no big deal.
For me at age 57, it is super important for me to keep my optimistic and somewhat irrationally exuberant outlook. I will fully trust level 5 autonomy SDVs when they do arrive in the next year or so.
permalinksavecontextfull comments (13)editdelete
Will Self-Driving Cars End The Big Automakers? by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 1 point 3 months ago
I think level 5 autonomy SDVs will end a business model that is over 100 years in existence. Namely personal ownership. I'm positive that once humans see how awesome it is to get a car within a few minutes of calling for one, they will never look back. No car insurance, no maintenance. You can't keep your stuff in the car, but you would have no desire to. Nor personalize. Private ownership will continue for a good while I'm sure, but humans will change to this new way very quickly I bet. Like in less than 10 years, easy.
I'm not sure how all the infrastructure will work with this, like keeping the car smelling nice and not be all gross and whatnot.
permalinksavecontextfull comments (13)editdelete
Your fancy new car steers and brakes for you; so why keep your hands on the wheel? by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] -1 points 3 months ago
The concept is a simple one. Any vehicle from 0 to 4 autonomy requires a fully licensed driver who should at all times keep their hands on the wheel and feet close to the brakes or accelerator. A level 4 autonomy SDV is in my opinion, far more dangerous than a human driving a normal unenhanced car. The reason is that human will be asleep or too deeply engrossed to take over when the car senses imminent danger when the human must take over in seconds or less...
When you get into a level 5 autonomy SDV, you will see no steering wheel, brake or accelerator. You do not have to be a fully licensed driver to use a level 5 autonomy SDV.
The question is, are level 5 autonomy vehicles going to be released in the next year or two? If not, then we keep on with learning to drive, licensing and behaving as if you are the fully manual driver, despite the fact that you are falling asleep or tempted to watch a movie. You are responsible for what happens still.
I will trust a level 5 autonomy vehicle 100%. I will trust level 4 autonomy and below 100% only if the human driver is 100% in control at all times.
The most recent figure I have for human caused MVA deaths (in the USA) is 32,000 for the year 2016. Will we see the figure begin to decline in 2018? Will a level 2-4 autonomy vehicle modify these figures?
permalinksavecontextfull comments (1)editdelete
Proscia is Fighting Cancer with Artificial Intelligence by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 2 points 3 months ago
Ultimately, though, Proscia is about more than placating scientists about robots taking their salaries. It’s about saving lives.
TL;DR Proscia is replacing technologists, scientists, even pathologists with narrow AI and automation.
Me: Why is anybody even surprised anymore? This is what narrow AI is really good at. AI never has a 'bad day".
permalinksavecontextfull comments (1)editdelete
Atlantic Circulation Weakening: No, We’re Not All Gonna Die (I Mean, Not Because Of This)[sic] by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 1 point 3 months ago
I bet the UK gets a lot colder though. Isn't London close to the same latitude of Moscow? And I know it gets right cold in Moscow. Doesn't the Gulf Stream keep the UK pretty mild?
permalinksavecontextfull comments (1)editdelete
NIST's new quantum method generates real random numbers by [deleted] in Futurology


[–]izumi3682 1 point 3 months ago
Is this a step closer to a quantum computer being capable of more general purpose computing? For example in 1945 we used binary computers for extremely limited applications. The only application I am aware of from 1945 was using binary computers to calculate artillery trajectories. Is something like that analogous to "optimization"?
Getting from calculating artillery trajectories to doing everything we do today was not a one year process. Tons of insights, innovations and discoveries accompanied that. I remember making Christmas wreaths out of old punchcards when I was a Cub Scout. Then we would get to spray paint them gold or green. The effect was fairly impressive. Somebody got a ton of them from somewhere. But can we extrapolate that kind of progress (at a potentially much faster rate) with the implementation of quantum computers?
Is it likely that humans will learn how to use quantum computers in the same manner that we use binary computers today? Perhaps quantum computers will simply "transcend" (replace) binary computers? Or will we forever be hobbled by having to use binary computers with quantum computers as some kind of piggyback enhancement. Or will they forever stay two tracks. Granted, an "exa-scale" supercomputer or whatever comes after an "exa" computer would be pretty insane in it's own right I imagine.
I need to know all this and how ballpark soon, because it is important to my ascension to the realm of umm... "Dark Overlord of the Universe". (Yes, I got that from "Howard the Duck", but honestly, the intent is still accurately described.) What. We all have our own personal aspirations I'm sure. Now you know mine.
permalinksavecontextfull comments (1)editdelete
A virtual reality hand feels real after a zap to your brain by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 1 point 3 months ago
Well one of the things I say is that we will inevitably leave biology behind to get the VR worlds we want. So that idea is not so far fetched as you may think.
https://www.reddit.com/Futurology/comments/7r42h0/vr_is_going_to_be_like_nothing_the_world_has_eve
permalinksavecontextfull comments (6)editdelete
Revolut CTO Reveals Why Cash Will Disappear Sooner Than You Think by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 0 points 3 months ago
Yes, I have often stated that the only way that UBI would ever truly work would be if I was the only one getting it. It would be such a tiny little tax on each human (apart from me) that people would scarce notice. I mean, don't tell anybody, they might get mad at me.
But if you start giving everybody UBI it would probably water it down so much that it would no longer be so helpful. (For me I mean.)
permalinksavecontextfull comments (3)editdelete
A virtual reality hand feels real after a zap to your brain by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 5 points 3 months ago
Unfortunately it is going to take a lot of creative zapping of the human brain to bring taste and smell into VR worlds. Silly analogs like mouth pieces and packaged scents like banana are just not going to work.
Speaking of smell, let me relate something. I work in a outlying medical clinic. Every once in a while we get a patient that has a bad odor around them. Not BO so much as a horrible unwashed stench. One human can easily stink up a significant portion of the building. So I got to thinking--if we have VR zombies with VR zombie smell--I promise you, you will never be taken by surprise by a zombie like in "The Walking Dead". You will smell one coming a thousand feet away and if its a bunch of them? The odor would be overwhelming long before they came into view.
Anyway I'm just sayin'.
Now how on Earth we are going to make interfaces that allow us to experience "deepdive" VR or what VR derives into, I don't have a clue. But humans being humans we are going to do our darndest to see if we can recreate like "The Matrix". But even better. It will be our minds interfacing while we sit in a chair, like a lucid dream you can consciously control or something. Think "Black Mirror" 'USS Calister', but without the slave minds hopefully.
And the darndest thing is? We will succeed. And within 100 years easily.
permalinkunsavecontextfull comments (6)editdelete
Revolut CTO Reveals Why Cash Will Disappear Sooner Than You Think by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 5 points 3 months ago
Cashless is not the answer. The answer is having a society where a medium of exchange is no longer necessary because pretty much everything is valueless and available to everyone for free. The concept of financial poverty should cease to have meaning. Pretty soon we will have the technology to do this, but it is hard to change a 6,000 year old habit. I may sound pie-in-the-sky unrealistic, but this is what much smarter humans than me are advocating, like Peter Diamandis.
Here is something that due to technology is going to lose value quickly.
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-artificial-diamonds-are-made-microwave-methane-gas-lab-ethical
I also suspect that vehicles will not for much longer be owned, but will be part of low price yearly subscription. The 99% will vote with their shrinking bank accounts. Sure this generation will resist, but children who are 2 years old today will embrace it as a natural thing. And laugh about the way we used to think. And how we would manually drive! OMG! :O
permalinksavecontextfull comments (3)editdelete
How Will Merging Minds and Machines Change Our Conscious Experience? by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 5 points 3 months ago
That is not something we can imagine, little less comprehend in the year 2018. The reason the "technological singularity" is called a "singularity" is because just like our current understanding of physics breaks down and we can't model what happens within the singularity of a black hole, so too our understanding of what we would experience after the technological singularity is just as impossible to model.
We hope for the singularity to be as "human friendly" as possible. And I think we are now taking some steps in the right direction with developments like "NeuroLink" and methods of keeping the AI narrow, but joining it to our very minds in some kind of way. We would not, of course, be the same creatures after that in any event.
But the bottom line is this. The AI, in whatever form is not only an unstoppable juggernaut, but it is in effect becoming exponentially more powerful about every six months. And we can't put the cat back in the bag, even if we wanted to. We don't want to. Our science, technology and even economy is now too inextricably tied to the accelerating development of AI. Now I think it has come down to a race against time to get it right. 5 to 10 years.
Boy, talk about a filter...
permalinksavecontextfull comments (5)editdelete
In Uber's Vision of the Future, Every Form of Transport Is Fair Game by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 0 points 3 months ago
Despite the recent tragedy in Arizona, Uber is not going away. They are deeply involved in the development of AI intrinsic to SDVs. I also admire their efforts to develop a sort of post-scarcity style subscription service that is low priced and highly dependable. Their ultimate goal is to ensure that any human that needs a ride somewhere can get one. Safely, effectively and most importantly for the vast majority of the 99%--cheaply.
permalinksavecontextfull comments (1)editdelete
Here's the AI documentary Elon Musk thinks is essential viewing by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 0 points 3 months ago
Your link is gone now. At least for USA. But you are right. The sound does cut in and out on my link. Reminds me of my old "copy-guard" 1980's.
permalinksavecontextfull comments (7)editdelete
Here's the AI documentary Elon Musk thinks is essential viewing by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 0 points 3 months ago
We have zero choice.
Either the AI remains external from us and becomes something very much akin to AGI, if not straight up AGI, not to mention the very real possibility of EI (emergent intelligence). This would quickly (within seconds) cause homo sapiens to be the secondary sentience on Earth. And by quite a wide margin to boot. Think humans vs. "archaea". It is a total 50/50 proposition if that would be heaven or hell. I wouldn't want to take the chance. What is terrifying to ponder is that this outcome is more than likely a natural phenomenon in the universe with any biology that can reach tool making sentience. We are simply in the "larval" stage of intelligence right now. This despite all of our Einstein and Hitler and Boyle's Law and the pyramids of Egypt and screamingly funny cat videos and The Beatles and climate change and 1970's television and the American Civil War or the English Civil War for that matter. It will all vanish in the new AI as if it never existed. After all do we care that much about the history and culture of "archaea"? Same difference.
The only realistic choice is that we continue to develop means for the human mind to gain access to what we hope remains narrow AI. I see that we are working to develop the so-called "NeuroLink" and that is a good step in the right direction. Every single human mind would have access not only to the sum total of human knowledge, but the ability to continuously gain information at a rate that is fully beyond our capacity in the year 2018 to fathom, little less understand. The outcome will be a human/AI sentience that may likely be something we would not recognize in any event. Still a "butterfly" from the larva. But at least humans would still be the primary sentience on Earth. Hopefully the AI still does not manage to control us. Nevertheless this option is still the only realistic one we have now.
I stated something that is based on what exactly is going on here earlier. Raymond Kurzweil is the proponent. I would say the chances are 90% that most humans do not understand what Raymond Kurzweil is proposing. Anyway here is the comment I made a while back if you are interested.
https://www.reddit.com/Futurology/comments/6zu9yo/in_the_age_of_ai_we_shouldnt_measure_success/dmy1qed/
permalinksavecontextfull comments (7)editdelete
Here's the AI documentary Elon Musk thinks is essential viewing by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 4 points 3 months ago
I just watched this. It's absolutely superb. No futurist should miss this. I paid to permanently own the streaming video. You can also rent it, but i chose to own so i can show everyone. I am izumi3682. I'm the one that posted this link. I posted it before even watching the video, but when it said that Elon Musk--who also appears in it, was impressed, that impressed me too. This video is the honest and real deal right up to "Cambridge Analytica" today.
TL;DR : In as little as 5 years, but definitely not more than 10 years the AI will take over unless it is a part of us. The AI scientists in the video explain why this will be.
Maybe somebody can hack it and it will be on YouTube for free or something. I just consider myself an "early adopter" in that case. It should be on YouTube for free.
Oh well what do you know. I found a Russian hack on YouTube! I can't guarantee quality, but here it is. The video has been on YouTube for 5 days now. It may get removed, so see it quick! It is one hour and 18 minutes long. You won't be bored.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SghmYtar-OY
I just checked the YouTube video, the quality appears to be near perfect with 1080p rez and excellent sound on my pc anyways. I was stupid to spend 5.99, but that is ok. I just want to get the information out there.
permalinksavecontextfull comments (7)editdelete
Leaked Tesla Image Reveals Full Self-Driving User Interface by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 5 points 3 months ago
This is the part I ate up! ;)
Musk told investors during the company’s fourth quarter earnings call in February that the artificial intelligence will work like other (AI) system(s) in that it will improve exponentially. Claiming that he’s “pretty excited about how much progress we’re making on the neural net front,” he said progress will “feel like, ‘well this is a lame driver, lame driver, well actually this is a pretty good driver, like holy cow this driver’s good.’”
permalinksavecontextfull comments (1)editdelete
Supercomputer models cloud microphysics by izumi3682 in Futurology


[–]izumi3682[S] 1 point 3 months ago
When I come across articles like this. Articles that are about simulating this or that. Then I read other articles describing how incredible worlds that are rendered by Nvidia or Unreal Engine 4 are already.
I tend to extrapolate.
So in like about 50 years just think how those two technologies will have advanced. And then put something like VR with that. Today the VR is primitive, but I bet it will not be so primitive in 50 years.
I look at that simple videogame called "No Man's Sky". It actually was released about 2 years ago I think. The thing about that game is that it uses a surprisingly few laws of physics to procedurally generate a stupendous number of "visitable" worlds. The few laws of physics are so that things make sense. It probably does not even qualify as a proper simulation. I don't know how many worlds you can actually have in existence at one time, but in 50 years we will have the computing power and AI, probably AGI, to render something akin to a visitable galaxy. And then a full visitable universe in 100 or 200 more years. If we still care about that kind of thing I mean. God knows what the mixing of AI and the human mind will ultimately lead to.
submitted by izumi3682 to u/izumi3682 [link] [comments]

how are binary options taxed in the us Binary Options Product 2016 Reviews - YouTube Howard Kessler - What Are Binary Options (and are they right for you)? Jim Fink's Options for Income Scam or Real Binary Options Trading System 2016 - Best Automated Trading Software 2016

Check the CFTC's website to see if the binary options trading platform is a designated contract market. If it is not registered, do not do business with the organization or individuals associated with it. Check the SEC's EDGAR system to see if the binary options trading platform has registered the offer and sale of the product with the SEC. For UK investors, trading with binary options is a tax free form of investment with very quick results – minutes rather than months or years. The word binary is used because there are just two possible outcomes – either the trade is successful, and the investor gains a significant return (usually between 75% to 95%) – or the trade is Broker Fees And Tax. USA law states any profits earned from binary options trading are subject to US tax. You must report the income as either capital gains or revenue to the IRS. If you are making a small amount, then the money can be declared as income; however, if it is a significant amount, then it must be reported as capital gains tax. Binary.com by Benjamin King / updated: June 13, 2016. It is illegal to not pay tax on the stock market profits but there are some strategies to avoid them. The following are 4 ways you can use to avoid tax on your stock market profits. No Deposit Binary Options Bonuses. Most Honest Binary Option Success Story You Will Ever Read.

[index] [17483] [14293] [5688] [26676] [11915] [10686] [17971] [1676] [1283] [26540]

how are binary options taxed in the us

Feb There is still little information about taxation of binary options both in USA and in Europe As far as binary options will not be treated as profit Jan at Binary International to set us ... Credit Spread Options for Income LIVE Workshop with Jon Lewis May 10 2016 HD - Duration: 1:58:52. ... Best Binary Options Strategy 2020 - 2 Minute Strategy LIVE TRAINING! - Duration: 43:42. Binary Options Trading System 2016 - Best Automated Trading Software 2016 Monster Bussiness. ... Best Binary Options Autotrading Robot for 2016: Neo 2 Software? Copy Buffett? Binadroid? Published on Jul 8, 2016. ... Binary options are categorized as exotic options, however, inside financial markets they sometimes are termed as digital options. ... ClearValue Tax 236,708 views ... Check out my full report: https://1drv.ms/w/s!Ai1w6Y4I97CohABDiRDpQgIZuqIL Check out Binary Options Edge: http://www.binaryoptionsedge.com/index.php? Hey eve...

Flag Counter