Systematic differences. Differences which result from going through a system. Like if you have a coin sorting machine, the quarters all go down one tube while the dimes all go down another tube.
In the context I used it, its referring to the way that different groupings have different outcomes upon going through the "system" of American life/society.
Not sure what exactly your point is, but IQ differences among races would only be an explanation for systematic differences. But its a statistical average, doesn't mean huge percentages of individuals aren't outliers who go against trends. So then the principle of not giving individuals credit or blame for things they had nothing to do with still holds?
They could have mailed out a copy, used the delay in counting and polls closed to see who had sent ballots back, and then filled out copies of ones which weren't sent back. That would also explain why they had to stop counting, because if someone sent back a ballot that was also faked it would appear as having been received twice and be instant proof of fraud.
Even after the votes are in, you can try to track where they came from. With 600,000+ votes, plenty of logged votes which the voters never sent, and possibility for more votes than there were registered voters in certain areas. Also, must have used some communication system to organize the freeze and totals, possibility of NSA or other government agencies having the information
Its funny your name is Fuckreddit01, because the reddit thread on the attacks is actually kinda based. I bet it will be hard shut down once the US lefty moderators start waking up, but for the moment it looks like something out of a 2016 r/The_Donald terrorism news thread.
I don't have many links but I studied in Singapore and can second it. The population of Singapore isn't sufficient for the labor needs, and the cost of living in Singapore is high while wages in Singapore are high compared to the surrounding area, so a large amount of people working in Singapore are non-citizens and non-residents. These people are also often from much poorer countries and belong to minority ethnic groups.
For the record, I think Singapore is awesome. But, it has some very, very significant differences from America.
First off, from a racial component, Singapore has way more "minority" racial groups than America, they're just not blacks/Hispanics. Additionally, even if you do want to just lump these groups together as Asian, then that's still the dominant race is Singapore by a huge margin. The fraction of whites in Singapore is even less than the fraction of Asians in America. Additionally, the religious demographics are quite different.
The second huge difference is a cultural one. I think most people can agree that freedom is one of the principal values of America, but in Singapore freedom is sacrificed for the common good. For instance there's no freedom of speech in Singapore, instead there's a specific location designated for free speech and outside of that location there a certain speech restrictions. Pretty sure Singapore is also very much not a 2A country.
Your followup comments make it seem like you're sincere, you should work on stuff like that last paragraph because it tends to be unproductive for exchanges of information. For the record, evolutionary biology is a subject of interest to me so in addition to lots of online sources which I think have been more useful I took the upper div evolutionary biology course at my college (and the required prereqs) and watched the Yale "Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior" lecture series on YouTube.
You made the statement "Physical and mental health are principal components of attractiveness; theyre biological indicators of "fitness"."
Obesity isn't health. At points in human history before food became plentiful, obesity (not morbid, but still obesity) was considered a sign of wealth/status and was attractive. This case contradicts the initial statement you made, something that contributed negatively to physical health increased fitness.
To cancer, yes, young people generally don't get cancer. So? That just explains why it wouldn't be a trait that's selected out. It doesn't contradict the point that its terrible for human health but increases fitness.
Another example, there was a study I looked at or remember reading about with a fish population, and the more nutrients they got (more physically health they were) the brighter their coloration. The brighter coloration also made them more attractive for reproduction. However, that exact same brighter coloration also made them stand out to predators more, so ultimately the most reproductively successful/most fit fish were those closer to the middle of the color distribution. So that's a case where physical health AND attractiveness were disconnected from fitness.
Also, this entire comment stemmed from a reply talking about the person in the video. Short hair, died hair, piercings, slightly high body fat levels, are all things that change attractiveness (subjectively of course) and were discussed. But none of those inherently change fitness. The most you could argue is that either they're correlated with other things that affect fitness, or that its a social effect, but I would then point you to how humans have birth control and almost no physically improve selection pressures, so most evolutionary theory is non-applicable to most aspects of modern human populations.
That might be true for you, and even generally true, but you can test to find out it isn't always true. In certain cultures/to certain people even today being fat is attractive, and that isn't physically healthy. For mental health that's even easier to disprove, tons of people find others who are troubled in various ways to be more attractive.
Also biological fitness is an entirely different subject. For instance cancer is clearly not good for you, but humans likely evolved to get the mechanisms which produce cancer because it biologically increased their fitness. Or humans have far less muscle mass than our evolutionary ancestors because being less biologically fit increased our physical fitness. So note that biological/evolutionary fitness is different from being physically fit.
If you want an actual answer, it comes straight out of sociology. Humans use physical characteristics as social signals to communicate information. Most people know, accept, and use this system even if they couldn't articulate it. The person is the video is using the "wrong" social signaling for the values shes communicating. Some of the people in this thread want her to use the "right" social signaling, and until she does they won't fully accept her as part of the subgroup.
And it's not like there's no value in enforcing social signaling. For instance, look at how people belonging to minority religious groups in some areas will act, using social signaling to figure out who is "on their side" and will make good friends and dating prospects. Or why do you think people in certain professions have standard outfits?
It would be like if you took an existing word and then made up a new definition for it and started using it, and then became confused when people didn't understand what you were saying, tried to correct you, or became upset with you. Just like with language and the definition of words, people never formally agree to use social signaling, but almost everyone does. And so of course the people who are using the system will be confused by people who aren't/may try to enforce the system. Speaking of which, I think this exact point is why some people get so polarized about gender/pronouns.
That's the real MAGA mentality. Rewatch some of the Republican 2016 primaries, Trump didn't give a fuck what anyone thought or how many people disapproved of him and just made his views known, how he won. Do that in your personal life too.
Just based on statistics you're correct, if even like half the irregularly high number of third party votes went Hillary she would have won. And based on the third party candidates running, I think most of the third party voters were democrats who disliked Hillary and their party.
Hey Fren,
If you wanna practice conversational skills, I'm a college student with quarantine free time, and I'm down to DM you my contact info and talk. I was home schooled and pretty poorly socialized when I was younger, so I used online gaming/forums/omegle to get better at talking with people before transitioning those skills into real life.
I mean, that's not always true, Gore would have won in 2000 if the votes were audited, and similar to what happened with Trump counting was prevented through judicial measures. So it's more like the chosen puppet of the uniparty/elites is always disadvantaged by audits.