Super bowl 50 datum

super bowl 50 datum

2. Febr. FREE-TV-ÜBERTRAGUNG: Im Free-TV übertragen Puls4 (ab Uhr) in Österreich sowie in Deutschland Pro7 (ab Uhr) Super Bowl. Datum, 3. Februar Stadion, Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Stadt, Atlanta, Georgia. Fernsehübertragung. Network · CBS. Der Super Bowl LIII ist der Super Bowl, das Endspiel der Saison der National Football Mai Die Finalisten, die sich alle in den Südstaaten der Vereinigten Staaten befinden, sind. 5. Febr. Februar fand der Super Bowl LII zwischen den New England Patriots und den NFL, Super Bowl Philadelphia Eagles schlagen New England Patriots . L, Denver Broncos, Carolina Panthers,

Familiarize yourself with the location and proper use of all controls. Inexperienced operators should receive instruction from someone familiar with the equipment before being allowed to operate the machine.

Refuel outdoors only and do not smoke 3. Inspect the up or downhill; machine for damage and make repairs Engage the clutch slowly, always keep the before you restart and operate the machine in gear, when you go downhill; Indicates a dangerous condition that WILL cause death or injury unless it is prevented.

Indicates a dangerous condition that CAN cause death or injury unless it is prevented. Indicates a dangerous condition that can cause injury and property damage unless it is prevented.

LH or RH Max. A Keep a Safe Distance from the Machine. A Stay Clear of Hot Surfaces. A Unleaded Petrol, Safety Alert.

A Spark Plug Details. To operate, press the button [B and pull the lever [A] to engage the drive. To disengage the OPC, release lever [A].

Button [B] will spring into position and prevent the operation of Lever [A]. To release the landroll brake, move the hand lever [F] to the lowest position.

Do not check with the engine warm. Engage the parking brake and make sure the cutting cylinders are stopped. Check the complete unit. Look for worn or loose hardware, missing or damaged components, fuel or oil leaks.

You can start the engine, but the drive will not engage until the OPC system is in operation See 6. The machine will not drive until the OPC is engaged.

To engage the Cutting cylinder, operate the lever F See 6. Do not start the engine with the OPC system engaged. Do not operate the machine or attachments with loose, damaged or missing components.

Mow when the grass is dry First mow a test area to understand the operation of the machine and control levers. Before you clean, adjust or repair this equipment.

Read the Section 3. Make sure that the sump is filled with oil. Loosen the nut on the front roll carriage. Left side for the 61 cm 24 inch machine.

Right side for the 51cm 20in machine. Put a straight edge between the front and rear rolls. Adjust the front roll with handwheel [C]. To increase the height of cut, lower the front roll, turn [C] to the right side.

To decrease the height of cut, lift the front roll, turn [C] to the left side. Remove the front-roll bolts, spindle and rolls. Install the split pins into the spindle, position the washers and outer rolls.

The split pins and washers are supplied with the machine. Make sure that the concave aligns correctly with the edge of the bottom block.

Loosen the screws [A] which fasten the concave to the top deck. Loosen the adjuster B one complete turn so that the lever does not make contact with the pin.

Many have called for the holidays to be merged, so citizens can have a day off to vote. This would be seen as a way to honor veterans by exercising the democratic right to vote.

Some other states require that workers be permitted to take time off from employment without loss of pay. California Elections Code Section and New York State Election Law [10] provide that employees without sufficient time to vote must be allowed two hours off with pay, at the beginning or end of a shift.

Democracy Day, a planned federal holiday to coincide with Election Day, was unsuccessfully proposed in the U. House of Representatives and the U.

It was later reintroduced in the Senate in and has not been enacted. Some employers allow their employees to come in late or leave early on Election Day to allow them an opportunity to get to their precinct and vote.

Most states allow for early voting , allowing voters to cast ballots before the Election Day. Early voting periods vary from 4 to 50 days prior to Election Day.

Unconditional early voting in person is allowed in 32 states and in D. Unconditional absentee voting by mail is allowed in 27 states and D. In Colorado , Oregon and Washington State all major elections are by postal voting , with ballot papers sent to voters several weeks before Election Day.

Washington State requires postal votes be postmarked by Election Day. Elected offices of municipalities, counties in most states , and other local entities such as school boards and other special-purpose districts have their elections subject to rules of their state, and in some states, they vary according to choices of the jurisdiction in question.

For instance, in Connecticut , all towns, cities, and boroughs hold elections in every odd-numbered year, but as of , 16 have them on the first Monday in May, while the other are on Election Day.

In Massachusetts , the 50 cities are required to hold their elections on Election Day, but the towns may choose any date, and most have traditionally held their elections in early spring, after the last snowfall.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about the day for general elections. For primary elections, see Super Tuesday.

For general information on U. Democracy Day United States. Retrieved May 31, De wedstrijdschema's voor elk team worden op een vaste manier bepaald, die voor elke ploeg gelijk is.

Zo speelt een team in een bepaald seizoen:. Ten slotte speelden ze de laatste vier duels tegen de teams uit de AFC West: Er is een rotatiesysteem voor de divisies waartegen de teams elk seizoen spelen.

Dankzij dit systeem zijn teams verzekerd dat ze een team uit dezelfde conference maar uit een andere divisie minstens eens in de drie jaar treffen en een team uit de andere conference minstens eens in de vier jaar.

Naast het reguliere seizoen is de Super Bowl de enige mogelijkheid om een team uit de andere conference te treffen. In de voorbereiding de vier weken voor het reguliere seizoen spelen teams dan ook regelmatig tegen een team uit de andere conference.

Ook de Tampa Bay Buccaneers NFC South en de Miami Dolphins AFC East spelen vaak tegen elkaar in de voorbereiding; in de 21e eeuw hebben ze elk jaar tegen elkaar gespeeld, ook als ze in het reguliere seizoen al tegen elkaar zouden spelen.

Aan het eind van het reguliere seizoen plaatsen twaalf teams zes per conference zich voor de play-offs richting de Super Bowl.

Dit zijn sinds in elke conference de vier divisie-winnaars, aangevuld met de twee beste niet-winnaars de wild cards. De zes teams worden gerangschikt van De divisie-winnaars krijgen nummer en de wild cards krijgen nummer 5 en 6.

Het laagste beste nummer is steeds voor het team met de meeste overwinningen een gelijkspel telt voor een halve overwinning. Indien twee teams gelijk staan, zijn er meer dan tien criteria die bekeken worden om te bepalen welk team het beste nummer toegewezen krijgt.

In elke ronde speelt het laagste nummer thuis tegen het hoogste nummer in de Wild Card Playoffs gaan de wedstrijden dus tussen nummer 3 en 6 en tussen nummer 4 en 5 , behalve in de Super Bowl.

Het stadion van die wedstrijd wordt enkele jaren van tevoren al bepaald en is daarom meestal een neutraal terrein. Door dit systeem zijn alle divisie-winnaars verzekerd van een thuiswedstrijd, terwijl een team dat zich met een wild card plaatste alleen thuis kan spelen als ze nummer 5 hebben, het Conference Championship van hun conference halen en daarin tegen de nummer 6 spelen.

Dit is sinds de invoering van dit systeem nog niet voorgekomen. Voor de invoering van dit systeem had de NFL verschillende andere systemen gehad voor de play-offs:.

In vorige systemen speelden het laagste nummer niet altijd tegen het hoogste nummer. Van tot en met was er nog geen plaatsing en werd er via een rotatiesysteem bepaald welke divisie-winnaar uit moest spelen het team met de wild card speelde sowieso uit.

Van tot aan was er wel plaatsing, maar konden teams uit dezelfde divisie niet tegen elkaar spelen in de Divisional Playoffs. Er zijn 32 NFL-teams.

Elke club is gedurende het reguliere seizoen gelimiteerd tot 53 spelers. De belangrijkste uitzondering is de op een na grootste stad van het land Los Angeles.

Deze stad heeft sinds seizoen weer een team: Los Angeles Rams, voorheen St. Het plan was dat de beker elk jaar zou worden overgedragen aan de nieuwe kampioen en dat een team de beker mocht houden als ze drie keer kampioen waren geworden.

Na het eerste seizoen is hij echter nooit meer uitgereikt en het is onbekend waar de beker nu is of hoe hij eruitzag.

Ook dit was een wisselbeker, maar deze mocht nooit gehouden worden. De winnaars kregen wel een replica die ze mochten houden. De winnaars mogen hem, in tegenstelling tot de vorige bekers, wel houden: Voor was er geen finale die besliste om het kampioenschap.

Omdat de teams een verschillend aantal wedstrijden speelden, kreeg het team met de beste balans [11] de titel toegewezen.

Vanaf speelden de winnaars van de Eastern en de Western Division tegen elkaar om de titel. Ook toen de divisies werden omgedoopt in American en National Conference en in Eastern en Western Conference bleef dit systeem intact.

Opgeheven teams zijn cursief geschreven. Uit Wikipedia, de vrije encyclopedie. Dit was tevens het laatste seizoen van die AFL en de vraag is of de Bulldogs gezien moeten worden als een volwaardig professioneel team, zoals de Browns en de Dolphins.

Zij probeert oefenduels tussen teams die in het reguliere seizoen ook tegen elkaar spelen, te vermijden. Dit is echter geen verplichting; de enige eisen zijn dat teams oefenen tegen andere NFL-teams die niet in dezelfde divisie spelen en dat ze niet twee keer tegen hetzelfde team oefenen.

Hierdoor speelde elk team slechts negen wedstrijden en werden de divisies genegeerd om te bepalen welke teams bij uitzondering acht per conference zich plaatsten voor de play-offs.

In dit seizoen waren er dus geen vrijstellingen. Een beslissingswedstrijd werd gespeeld om te bepalen wie de titel won, maar de wedstrijd werd meegeteld in de stand.

De Bears wonnen en kwamen hierdoor op De Spartans kwamen door de nederlaag op 0, en zakte naar de derde plek. Sommige statistieken tellen die titel niet mee als er gekeken wordt naar het totaal aantal kampioenschappen.

Overgenomen van " https: Lokale afbeelding anders dan op Wikidata. Weergaven Lezen Bewerken Geschiedenis. Informatie Gebruikersportaal Snelcursus Hulp en contact Donaties.

Hulpmiddelen Links naar deze pagina Verwante wijzigingen Bestand uploaden Speciale pagina's Permanente koppeling Paginagegevens Wikidata-item Deze pagina citeren.

In andere projecten Wikimedia Commons. Deze pagina is voor het laatst bewerkt op 2 sep om Zie de gebruiksvoorwaarden voor meer informatie.

East Rutherford New York. Sports Authority Field at Mile High. Bank of America Stadium. University of Phoenix Stadium.

Denver gewann glücksrad casino lediglich Yards Raumgewinn und nur 11 ersten Downswomit sie zwei Kino meiningen casino lichtspiele preise für siegreiche Super-Bowl-Teams aufstellten. Abseits des Feldes im positiven Sinne verhaltensauffällig, wodurch er bei buy paysafecard online oftmals biederen Patriots definitiv heraussticht. Robben fällt gegen Dortmund aus! Brown fängt seine ersten Pässe ran. Münchnerin 15 von sechs Männern vergewaltigt Durch die Nutzung dieser Website gok-online Sie sich mit den Nutzungsbedingungen und der Datenschutzrichtlinie einverstanden. Wie kamen beide Mannschaften Beste Spielothek in Riechheim finden den Super Bowl? Broncos geben Super-Bowl-Champion Thomas ab ran. Januar — FedEx Field. Die Höhepunkte der Partie. So sehen die Playoffs aus ran. Verpasste die letztjährige Super Bowl verletzungsbedingt. Die Hymne singt Pink.

Super Bowl 50 Datum Video

Super Bowl XLVIII: Seahawks First Super Bowl Win

This is a precision machine and the service obtained from it depends on the way it is operated and maintained. Finally update machinery records to indicate that the machine has been taken out of service and scrapped.

Pro- vide this serial number to Ransomes Jacobsen Warranty department to close off relevant records. If you wish to refer to a parts list for this mower you have four options from which to choose: Familiarize yourself with the location and proper use of all controls.

Inexperienced operators should receive instruction from someone familiar with the equipment before being allowed to operate the machine.

Refuel outdoors only and do not smoke 3. Inspect the up or downhill; machine for damage and make repairs Engage the clutch slowly, always keep the before you restart and operate the machine in gear, when you go downhill; Indicates a dangerous condition that WILL cause death or injury unless it is prevented.

Indicates a dangerous condition that CAN cause death or injury unless it is prevented. Indicates a dangerous condition that can cause injury and property damage unless it is prevented.

LH or RH Max. A Keep a Safe Distance from the Machine. A Stay Clear of Hot Surfaces. A Unleaded Petrol, Safety Alert.

A Spark Plug Details. To operate, press the button [B and pull the lever [A] to engage the drive. To disengage the OPC, release lever [A].

Button [B] will spring into position and prevent the operation of Lever [A]. To release the landroll brake, move the hand lever [F] to the lowest position.

Do not check with the engine warm. Engage the parking brake and make sure the cutting cylinders are stopped. Check the complete unit.

Look for worn or loose hardware, missing or damaged components, fuel or oil leaks. You can start the engine, but the drive will not engage until the OPC system is in operation See 6.

The machine will not drive until the OPC is engaged. To engage the Cutting cylinder, operate the lever F See 6.

Do not start the engine with the OPC system engaged. Do not operate the machine or attachments with loose, damaged or missing components.

Mow when the grass is dry First mow a test area to understand the operation of the machine and control levers.

Before you clean, adjust or repair this equipment. Read the Section 3. Make sure that the sump is filled with oil.

Loosen the nut on the front roll carriage. Left side for the 61 cm 24 inch machine. Right side for the 51cm 20in machine. Put a straight edge between the front and rear rolls.

Adjust the front roll with handwheel [C]. To increase the height of cut, lower the front roll, turn [C] to the right side. To decrease the height of cut, lift the front roll, turn [C] to the left side.

Remove the front-roll bolts, spindle and rolls. Install the split pins into the spindle, position the washers and outer rolls.

For primary elections, see Super Tuesday. For general information on U. Democracy Day United States. Retrieved May 31, Retrieved 20 October National Conference of State Legislatures.

Archived from the original on Federal holidays in the United States. Anthony Day Native American Day Holidays, observances, and celebrations in the United States.

Patrick's Day religious Spring break week. Columbus Day federal Halloween. Veterans Day federal Thanksgiving federal. Eid al-Adha religious Eid al-Fitr religious Ramadan religious, month.

Retrieved from " https: Wikipedia indefinitely move-protected pages Infobox holiday with missing field Infobox holiday other All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from August Views Read Edit View history.

This page was last edited on 9 November , at By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Day for the election of public officials in the United States.

Exercising civic duty , voting for elected officials, visiting polling precincts. United States elections, Oktoberfest Rosh Hashanah religious Yom Kippur religious.

I say we need two Stalins! You have found a way to criticize the government in Stalinist Russia and totally get away with it. Who knows, you might even get that cushy professorship.

Western society has been moving gradually further to the left for the past several hundred years at least. It went from divine right of kings to constutitional monarchy to libertarian democracy to federal democracy to New Deal democracy through the civil rights movement to social democracy to???.

No, fifty times faster! If you start suggesting maybe it should switch directions and move the direction opposite the one the engine is pointed, then you might have a bad time.

Go back to sterilizing the disabled and feeble-minded. If you really need convincing, suggest re-implementing segregation, or how about slavery?

See how far freedom of speech gets you. In America, it will get you fired from your job and ostracized by nearly everyone.

Depending on how loudly you do it, people may picket your house, or throw things at you, or commit violence against you which is then excused by the judiciary because obviously they were provoked.

Despite the iconic image of the dissident sent to Siberia, this is how the Soviets dealt with most of their iconoclasts too. And Western society just happens to have a really strong progressivist immune system ready to gobble you up if you say anything insufficiently progressive.

We medieval Spaniards are way too smart to fall for the balance fallacy! Since you are a citizen of a repressive society, you should be extremely skeptical of all the information you get from schools, the media, and popular books on any topic related to the areas where active repression is occurring.

That means at least politics, history, economics, race, and gender. This is not nearly as paranoid as it sounds. Since race is the most taboo subject in our culture, it will also be the simplest example.

Almost all of our hard data on race comes from sociology programs in universities — ie the most liberal departments in the most liberal institutions in the country.

Most of these sociology departments have an explicit mission statement of existing to fight racism.

Many sociologists studying race will tell you quite openly that they went into the field — which is not especially high-paying or prestigious — in order to help crusade against the evil of racism.

We know that a lot of medical research, especially medical research by drug companies, turns up the wrong answer simply through the file-drawer effect.

If this happens all the time in medical research despite growing safeguards to prevent it, how often do you think it happens in sociological research?

Do you think the average sociologist selects the study design most likely to turn up evidence of racist beliefs being correct, or the study design most likely to turn up the opposite?

The field is still just made of people pushing their own dogmatic opinions and calling them science; only the dogma has changed. And although Reactionaries love to talk about race, in the end race is nothing more than a particularly strong and obvious taboo.

This is not intended as a proof that racism is correct, or even as the slightest shred of evidence for that hypothesis although a lot of Reactionaries are, in fact, racist as heck.

No doubt the Spanish Inquisition found a couple of real Satanists, and probably some genuine murderers and rapists got sent to Siberia. Sometimes, once in a blue moon, a government will even censor an idea that happens to be false.

Reactionary responses to these claims might get grouped into three categories. Most countries do seem to have gotten about x wealthier since the year Disease rates have plummeted, and life expectancy has gone way up — albeit mostly due to changes in infant mortality.

But this stands entirely explained by technology. Likewise, populations are healthier today because they can get computers to calculate precisely targeted radiation bursts that zap cancer while sparing healthy tissue, whereas in the pinnacle of medical technology was leeches.

This technology dividend appears even in unexpected places. The world is more peaceful today, but how much of that is the existence of global trade networks that make war unprofitable, video reporting of every casualty that makes war unpopular, and nuclear and other weapons that make war unwinnable?

Meanwhile, it may with little fear of contradiction be asserted that there never was, in any nation of which we have a history, a time in which life and property were so secure as they are at present in England.

The sense of security is almost everywhere diffused, in town and country alike, and it is in marked contrast to the sense of insecurity which prevailed even at the beginning of the present century.

There are, of course, in most great cities, some quarters of evil repute in which assault and robbery are now and again committed.

There is perhaps to be found a lingering and flickering tradition of the old sanctuaries and similar resorts. But any man of average stature and strength may wander about on foot and alone, at any hour of the day or the night, through the greatest of all cities and its suburbs, along the high roads, and through unfrequented country lanes, and never have so much as the thought of danger thrust upon him, unless he goes out of his way to court it.

Moldbug then usually contrasts this with whatever recent news article has struck his fancy about entire inner-city neighborhoods where the police are terrified to go, teenagers being mowed down in crossfire among gangs, random daylight murders, and the all the other joys of life in a 21st century British ghetto.

Of course, the plural of anecdote is not data, but the British crime statistics seem to bear him out:. If this is true, it is true despite technology.

This suggests that there was something inherent about Victorian society, politics, or government that made their Britain a safer place to live than modern progressive Britain.

Now take a look at the entrance exam for Harvard. Do you honestly think the student body for whom that exam was a fair ability test would be befuddled by the reading comprehension questions that pass for entrance exams today?

My exam paper is in English. We start with entries like this one:. Thomas Jefferson read a number of different languages.

In a letter to Philadelphia publisher Joseph Delaplaine on April 12, , Jefferson claimed to read and write six languages: Among these were books in Arabic, Gaelic, and Welsh.

John Quincy Adams went to school in both France and the Netherlands, and spoke fluent French and conversational Dutch.

Adams strove to improve his abilities in Dutch throughout his life, and at times translated a page of Dutch a day to help improve his mastery of the language.

When his father appointed him United States Ambassador to Prussia, Adams dedicated himself to becoming proficient in German in order to give him the tools to strengthen relations between the two countries.

He improved his skills by translating articles from German to English, and his studies made his diplomatic efforts more successful.

In addition to the two languages he spoke fluently, he also studied Italian, though he admitted to making little progress in it since he had no one with whom to practice speaking and hearing the language.

Adams also read Latin very well, translated a page a day of Latin text, and studied classical Greek in his spare time. Bush speaks some amount of Spanish, and has delivered speeches in the language.

His speeches in Spanish have been imperfect, with English dispersed throughout. Some pundits, like Molly Ivins, have pointedly questioned the extent to which he could speak the language, noting that he kept to similar phrasing in numerous appearances.

Barack Obama himself claims to speak no foreign languages. It may be argued that yes, maybe their aristocracy was more educated than our upper-class, but we compensate for the imbalance by having education spread much more widely among the lower-classes.

Once again, today we have Wikipedia, the Internet, and as many cheap books as Amazon can supply us. Back in the old days they had to make do with whatever they could get from their local library.

Even more troubling, today we start with a huge advantage — the Flynn Effect has made our average IQ 10 to 20 points higher than in So several of our claims of present superiority — wealth, health, peace, et cetera — have been found to be artifacts of higher technology levels.

Several other claims — safety and education — have been found to be just plain wrong. That just leaves a few political advantages — namely, that we are freer, less racist, less sexist, less jingoistic and more humane.

That leaves our progress in tolerance, equality, and humaneness. Are these victories as impressive as we think? One of the most solid results from social science has been large and persistent differences in outcomes across groups.

Of note, these differences are highly correlated by goodness: Crime rate, drug use, teenage pregnancy, IQ, education level, median income, health, mental health, and whatever else you want to measure.

But pretty much any study even vaguely in this field will show the same effect. Three very broad categories of hypothesis have been proposed to explain luck differences among groups: The externalists claim that groups differ only because of the situations they find themselves in.

Sometimes these situations are natural. Jared Diamond makes a cogent case for the naturalist externalist hypothesis in Guns, Germs, and Steel.

The Chinese found themselves on fertile agricultural land with lots of animals and plants to domesticate and lots of trade routes to learn new ideas from.

The New Guinea natives found themselves in a dense jungle without many good plants or animals and totally cut off from foreign contact.

Therefore, the Chinese developed a powerful civilization and the New Guineans became a footnote to history.

But in modern times, externalists tend to focus more on external human conditions like colonialism and oppression. White people are lucky not because of any inherent virtue, but because they had a head start and numerical advantage and used this to give themselves privileges which they deny to other social groups.

Black people are unlucky not because of any inherent flaw, but because they happened to be stuck around white people who are doing everything they can to oppress them and keep them down.

This is true both within societies, where unlucky races are disprivileged by racism, and across societies, where unlucky countries suffer the ravages of colonialism.

The culturalists claim that luck is based on the set of implicit traditions and beliefs held by different groups. The Chinese excelled not only because of their fertile landscape, but because their civilization valued scholarship, wealth accumulation, and nonviolence.

The New Guineans must have had less useful values, maybe ones that demanded strict conformity with ancient tradition, or promoted violence, or discouraged cooperation.

Like the externalists, they trace this forward to the present, saying that the values that served the Chinese so well in building Chinese civilization are the same ones that keep China strong today and the ones that make Chinese immigrants successful in countries like Malaysia and the USA.

The biologicalists, for whom I cannot think of a less awkward term, are probably the most notorious and require the least explanation. They are most famous for attributing between-group luck differences to genetic factors, but there are certainly more subtle theories.

A decent amount of political wrangling over the years seems to involve a conflict between the conservatives — who are some vague mix of the culturalist and biologicalist position — and the liberals, who have embraced the externalist position with gusto.

But the externalist position is deeply flawed. Over those years, white oppression of black people has decreased drastically.

It is not gone. But it has decreased. Yet the income gap stays exactly the same. Compare this to another example of an oppressed group suddenly becoming less oppressed:.

But an apparent corollary is that it casts doubt on the externalist hypothesis of racial income gaps. And, in fact, not all races have a racial income gap, and not all those who do have it in the direction an externalist theory would predict.

Jews and Asians faced astounding levels of discrimination when they first came to the United States, but both groups recovered quickly and both now do significantly better than average white Americans.

In fact, Jews and Chinese are interesting in that both groups are widely scattered, both groups often find themselves in very hostile countries, and yet both groups are usually more successful than the native population wherever they go income and education statistics available upon request.

Whether it is Chinese in Malaysia or Jews in France, they seem to do unusually well for themselves despite the constant discrimination.

If this is an experiment to distinguish between culturalist and externalist positions, it is a very well replicated one. This difference in the success of immigrant groups is often closely correlated with the success of the countries they come from.

Japan is very rich and advanced, Europe quite rich and advanced, Latin America not so rich or advanced, and Africa least rich and advanced of all.

It is pretty amazing that white people manage to modulate their oppression in quite this precise a way, especially when it includes oppressing themselves.

And much of the difference between groups is in areas one would expect to be resistant to oppression. Unlucky groups tend to have higher teenage pregnancy rates, more drug use, and greater intra-group violence, even when comparing similar economic strata.

The externalist hypothesis as a collection of natural factors a la Jared Diamond may have merit, but as an oppression-based explanation for modern-day group differences, it fails miserably.

Nevertheless, the people who dismiss the biological hypothesis as obviously stupid and totally discredited by which I mean everyone are doing it a disservice.

For a sympathetic and extraordinarily impressive defense of the biological hypothesis I recommend this unpublished and unpublishable review article.

I will add that I am extremely interested in comprehensive takedowns of that article preferably a full fisking and that if you have any counterevidence to it at all you should post it in the comments and I will be eternally grateful.

The culturalist hypothesis avoids the pitfalls of both the externalist and biological explanations. Unlike the externalists, it can explain why some minority groups are so successful and why group success correlates across societies and immigrant populations.

And unlike the biologicalists, it can explain the striking differences between biologically similar groups like the Mormons and the non-Mormon Americans, or the Sikhs and the non-Sikh Indians.

Obama was born to an African father and a white mother, raised in Indonesia, and then grew up in Hawaii. Change the memeplexes and you can make a New Guinean population achieve Chinese-level outcomes — or vice versa.

Well, the plan mentioned in the last paragraph of the last section — throw Chinese memes at the people of New Guinea until they achieve Chinese-style outcomes — higher income, less teenage pregnancy, lower crime rates.

You could try exposing them to Chinese people and the Chinese way of life until some of it stuck. On the other hand, in somewhere more like America, one could be forgiven for immediately rounding this off to some kind of dictatorial brainwashing policy of stealing New Guinean infants away from their homes and locking them in some horrible orphanage run by Chinese people who beat them every time they try to identify with their family or native culture until eventually they absorb Chinese culture through osmosis.

So in theory, all we need to do is wait for the unstoppable monster to get them. It worked for the Irish, who were once viewed with as much racism as any Hispanic or Arab is today.

It worked for the Italians, who were once thought of as creepy Papist semi-retarded mafia goons until everyone decided no, they were indistinguishable from everyone else.

And it should be able to work for everyone else. Moved by this ideology, the government did everything it could to help minorities avoid assimilation and to shame and thwart anyone trying to get them to assimilate.

So they sent the white teachers off to whiter areas and hiring only black teachers for the black schools, and — sure enough — test scores plummeted further.

California had a sort of similar problem when I was growing up. Most schools were required to teach our large Hispanic immigrant population using bilingual education — that is, teaching them in their native Spanish until they were ready to learn English.

There was a huge ruckus where the people in favor of this change were accused of being vile racists who hated Mexicans and wanted to destroy Mexican culture.

And sure enough, as soon as the Hispanics started getting integrated with everyone else and taught in English, test scores went way up.

If the majority culture has useful memes that help protect people against school dropout, crime, and other bad life outcomes, that is a really bad thing to do.

Is this sort of dystopia the inevitable result of trying to use culturalist theories to equalize group outcomes? There is a proverb beloved of many Reactionaries: The progressive campaign to demonize assimilation and make it taboo to even talk about some cultures being better adapted than others prevents the natural solution to inequality which worked for the Irish and the Asians and the Jews from working for the minorities of today.

In a healthy society, immigrants will be encouraged to assimilate to the majority culture, and after a brief period of disorientation will be just as successful and well-adapted as everyone else.

But in an unhealthy society like ours that makes assimilation impossible, a culturalist will be very worried about immigration.

In Utopia, everyone eats healthy organic food, respects the environment and one another, lives in harmony with people of other races, and is completely non-violent.

One day, the Prime Minister decides to open up immigration to Americans and discourage them from assimilating. They bring their guns, their McDonalds, their megachurches, and their racism.

Soon, some Utopians find their family members dying in the crossfire between American street gangs. The megachurches convert a large portion of the Utopians to evangelical Christianity, and it becomes very difficult to get abortions without being harassed and belittled.

Black and homosexual Utopians find themselves the target of American hatred, and worse, some young Utopians begin to get affected by American ideas and treat them the same way.

American litter fills the previously pristine streets, and Americans find some loopholes in the water quality laws and start dumping industrial waste into the rivers.

By the time society has settled down, we have a society which is maybe partway between Utopia and America.

If you are a culturalist, no. Utopian culture is better, at least by Utopian standards, than American culture.

Although other cultures can often contribute to enrich your own, there is no law of nature saying that only the good parts of other cultures will transfer over and that no other culture can be worse than yours in any way.

The Americans were clearly worse than the Utopians, and it was dumb of the Utopians to let so many Americans in without any safeguards. Likewise, there are countries that are worse than America.

Tribal Afghanistan seems like a pretty good example. Pretty much everything about tribal Afghanistan is horrible. Their culture treats women as property, enforces sharia law, and contains honor killings as a fact of life.

They tend to kill apostate Muslims and non-Muslims a lot. Not all members of Afghan tribes endorse these things, but the average Afghan tribesperson is much more likely to endorse them than the average American.

If we import a bunch of Afghan tribesmen, their culture is likely to make America a worse place in the same way that American culture makes Utopia a worse place.

We are a democracy. Anyone who moves here and gains citizenship eventually gets the right to vote. People with values different from ours vote for people and laws different from those we would vote for.

Progressives have traditionally viewed any opposition to this as anti-immigrant and racist — and, by total coincidence, most other countries, and therefore most immigrants, are progressive.

Imagine a country called Conservia, a sprawling empire of a billion people that has a fifth-dimensional hyperborder with America.

The Conservians are all evangelical Christians who hate abortion, hate gays, hate evolution, and believe all government programs should be cut.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of Conservians hop the hyperborder fence and enter America, and sympathetic presidents then pass amnesty laws granting them citizenship.

Then gay people stop coming out of the closet, as Conservian restaurants and businesses refuse to serve them and angry Conservian writers and journalists create an anti-gay climate.

Also, Conservians have one pet issue which they promote even more intently than the destruction of secular science — that all Conservians illegally in the United States must be granted voting rights, and that no one should ever block more Conservians from coming to the US.

Is this fair to the native Berkeleyans? And what if 10 million Conservians move into America? But it would be enough to have thrown every single Presidential election of the past fifty years to the Republicans — there has never been a Democratic candidate since LBJ who has won the native population by enough of a margin to outweight the votes of ten million Conservians.

If there had been no Mexican immigration to the United States over the past few decades, Romney would probaby have won the last election.

Would that citizen be racist for even considering this? If not, then pity the poor conservative, who is actually in this exact situation right now.

Because immigration favors progressivism, any opposition to it is racist, but the second we discover the hyperborder with Conservia, the establishment will figure out some reason why allowing immigration is racist.

None of this is an argument against immigration. Let any Japanese person who wants move over. Same with the Russians, and the Jews, and the Indians.

The United States used to have a policy sort of like this. It was called the Immigration Act of Its actual specifics were dumb, because it banned for example Asians and Jews, but the principle behind it — groups with good outcomes and who are a good match for our values can immigrate as much as they want, everyone else has a slightly harder time — seems broadly wise.

So of course progressives attacked it as racist and Worse Than Hitler and it got repealed in favor of the current policy: This suggests re-examining colonialism.

But first, a thought experiment. Suppose you are going to be reincarnated as a black person if you are already black, as a different black person.

You may choose which country you will be born in; the rest is up to Fate. What country do you choose? The top of my list would be Britain, with similar countries like Canada and America close behind.

But what if you could only choose among majority-black African countries? Several come to my mind as comparatively liveable.

Namibia is your list similar? And one thing these places all have in common was being heavily, heavily colonized by the British.

We compare the sole African country that was never colonized, Ethiopia. Ethiopia has become a byword for senseless suffering thanks to its coups, wars, genocides, and especially famines.

Yes, colonization had some horrible episodes. Anyone who tries to say King Leopold II was anything less than one of the worst people who ever lived has zero right to be taken seriously.

On the other hand, eventually the Belgian people got outraged enough to take it away from Leopold, after which there follows a fifty year period that was the only time in history when the Congo was actually a kind of nice place.

Mencius Moldbug likes to link to a Time magazine article from the s praising the peace and prosperity of the Congo as a model colony.

Seriously, not necessarily in numbers but in sheer graphic brutality it is worse than the Holocaust, the Inquisition, and Mao combined and you do not want to know what makes me say this.

And any attempt to attribute the nightmare that is the modern Congo to colonialism has to cope with the historical fact that the post-Leopold colonial Congo was actually pretty nice until it was decolonized at which point it immediately went to hell.

Once again, you can choose your country. Where do you go? Your best choice is one of those tiny emirates where everyone is a relative of the emir and gets lots of oil money and is super-rich: I would go with Qatar.

Note that I am not saying the Occupied Palestinian Territories; that would be just as bad a choice as you expect. Aside from the economics, there are other advantages.

If you happen to be Muslim, you will have a heck of a lot easier time practicing your religion freely in Israel than in some Middle Eastern country where you follow the wrong sect of Islam.

You can even criticize the government as much as you want empirically quite a lot , a right Syrian and Egyptian Arabs are currently dying for.

Finally, you get the benefit of living in a clean, safe, developed country with good health care and free education for all.

Once again, we find that colonialism, supposed to be the root of all evil, is actually preferable to non-colonialism in most easily measurable ways.

It may be the case that pre-colonial societies were better than either colonial or post-colonial societies. I actually suspect this is true, in a weird Comanche Indians are better than all of us sort of sense.

By the transitive property, you are worse than Hitler! No one needs to go about invading anyone else or killing their government. But if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

I kind of skimmed over the Palestinian Territories in the last section. They are, indeed, a terrible dehumanizing place and the treatment of their citizens is an atrocity that blemishes a world which allows it to continue.

Is this a strike against colonialism? Any 19th century European aristocrat looking at the Palestinian Territories would note that Israel is being a terrible colonizer , not in a moral sense but in a purely observational sense.

Queen Victoria would not be amused. Suppose a psychopath became Prime Minister of Israel yes, obvious joke is obvious. Well, first, a lot of people would get shot.

The Palestinians would be in about the same position as Israeli Arabs are today, except without the right to vote, plus they get shot if they protest.

No more worries about roadblocks. No more worries about passports. No more worries about sanctions. No more worries about economic depression.

The only worry is getting shot, and you can avoid that by never speaking out against Israel. A heck of a lot better than what the Palestinians have today?

Having no dictator at all, the way it is here in America, is very good. Mencius Moldbug uses the fable of Fnargl, an omnipotent and invulnerable alien who becomes dictator of Earth.

Fnargl is an old-fashioned greedy colonizer: He considers turning humans into slaves to work in gold mines, except some would have to be a special class of geologist slaves to plan the gold mines, and there would have to be other slaves to grow food to support the first two classes of slaves, and other slaves to be managers to coordinate all these other slaves, and so on.

Aside from this he just hangs out. Fnargl has no reason to ban free speech: Banning free speech would just force him to spend money on jackbooted thugs which he could otherwise be spending on precious, precious gold.

He has no reason to torture dissidents. What are they going to do if left unmolested? Many real countries do restrict free speech or torture dissidents.

First, they can grant it full independence. Second, they do exactly the opposite: Could the latter really work? Because the Palestinians would probably freak out and start protesting en masse and the Israelis would have to shoot all of them and that would be horrible.

The British successfully colonized Palestine for several decades. They certainly tried the Fnargl approach: In a word, progressivism.

What are you, chicken? If not for progressivism, Israel would have been able to peacefully annex the Palestinian territories as a colony with no more of a humanitarian crisis than Britain annexing New Zealand or somewhere.

Everything would have been solved and everyone could have gone home in time for tea. Once again, the problem with these holes is that we keep digging them.

Modern countries pride themselves on their humane treatment of prisoners. You have just been convicted of grand theft auto the crime, not the game.

The judge gives you two options:. But I would choose 2 in a fraction of a heartbeat. And aside from being better for me, it would be better for society as well.

We know that people who spend time in prison are both more likely to stay criminals in the future and better at being criminals. Cutting the prison system in half would free up approximately enough money to give free college tuition to all students at the best school they can get into.

If we were to try to replace prison with some kind of corporal punishment, progressives would freak out and say we were cruel and inhumane.

In fact, progressives would come up with some reason to oppose even giving criminals the option of corporal punishment an option most would certainly take and any politician insufficiently progressive to even recommend it would no doubt be in for some public flagellation himself, albeit of a less literal kind.

So once again, we have an uncanny valley. Being very strict to prisoners is humane and effective — the corporal punishment option.

Some Reactionaries have tried to apply the same argument to warfare. Suppose that during the Vietnam War, we had nuked Hanoi. What would have happened?

The Russians would have nuked us and everyone in the world would have died. But suppose the Russians were out of the way.

But compare it to the alternative. Nuking Hiroshima killed about , people. The Vietnam War killed about 3 million. The latter also had a much greater range of non-death effects, from people being raped and tortured and starved to tens of thousands ending up with post-traumatic stress disorder and countless lives being disrupted.

If nuking Hanoi would have been an alternative to the Vietnam War, it would have been a really really good alternative.

Their victory condtion is helping US progressives bill the war as an atrocity and get the troops sent home. So they happily follow their incentives, and the progressives in the US happily hold up their side of the deal by agitating for the troops to be sent home, which they eventually are.

Compare this to the style of warfare in colonial days. Once again we see an uncanny valley effect. Leaving Iraq alone completely would have been a reasonable humanitarian choice.

Using utterly overwhelming force to pacify Iraq by any means necessary would have briefly been very ugly, but our enemies would have folded quickly and with a few assumptions this could also have been a reasonable humanitarian choice.

But a wishy-washy half-hearted attempt to pacify Iraq that left the country in a state of low-grade poorly-defined war for nearly a decade was neither reasonable nor humanitarian.

Once again, all we have to do is stop digging. So the two things Reactionaries like to complain about all the time are race and sex, and since we have more then gone overboard with our lengthy diversion into race, we might as well take a quick look at sex.

And yet they are not really huge fans of feminism. Surveys of women show that they were on average happier fifty years ago than they are today.

In fact, in the s, women generally self-reported higher happiness than men; today, men report significantly higher happiness than women.

So the history of the past fifty years — a history of more and more progressive attitudes toward gender — have been a history of women gradually becoming worse and worse off relative to their husbands and male friends.

To confirm, we would want to look within a single moment in time: The answer appears to be yes. The same is true of working outside the home: Maybe this is just because the same people who are progressive enough to defy traditional gender roles are also the same people who are progressive enough not to think divorce is a sin?

But this seems unlikely: So why is this? But my money would be on a simpler hypothesis. Every marriage involves conflict. The traditional concept of gender contains two roles that are divided in a time-tested way to minimize conflict as much as possible.

In a perfect-spherical-cow sense, either the husband or the wife could step into either role, and it would still work just as well.

We could also go with a third hypothesis: I mean, suppose you had the following two options:. A job working from home, where you are your own boss.

Aside from being better for women, traditional marriages seem to have many other benefits. They ensure that at least one member of each couple has time to be doing things that every household should be doing anyway, like keeping careful track of finances, attending parent-teacher conferences, and keeping in touch with family.

So do men need to force women to stay barefoot and in the kitchen all the time, and chase Marie Curie out of physics class so she can go home and bake for her husband?

By this point you may be noticing a trend. Suppose you were kidnapped by terrorists, and you needed someone to organize a rescue. Would you prefer the task be delegated to the Unitarians, or the Mormons?

I would go with the Mormons. The Mormons seem effective in all sorts of ways. They would figure out a plan, implement it, and come in guns-blazing.

The Unitarians would be a disaster. If anyone did come up with a plan, a hundred different pedants would try to display their intelligence by nitpicking meaningless details.

In the end, four different schismatic rescue attempts would run into each other, mistake each other for the enemy, and annhilate themselves while the actual terrorists never even hear about it.

One relevant difference between Mormons and Unitarians seems to be a cultural one. This is nice and memorable, but there are other groups where unity is what unites them, and they seem to be more, well, united.

Holidays and festivals and weird rituals create unity. If everyone jumps up and down three times on the summer solstice, then yes, objectively this is dumb, but you feel a little more bonded with the other people who do it: Robert Putnam famously found that the greater the diversity in a community:.

In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings.

Super bowl 50 datum -

Verpasse nie mehr wieder eine News zu deinen Lieblingsthemen. Er findet in der Regel am ersten Sonntag im Februar statt. Die Highlights der Partie. Dazu News, Videos und Ergebnisse - in der kostenlosen ran App! Vor allem in den Playoffs lieferte der Spielmacher ab — Foles war der Quarterback mit den drittmeisten Passing Yards Except in the case of the German Jews under the quintessential Reactionaries, the Nazis. This area is woefully under-studied. Murder is by far the worst crime to track for. Remove the wing nut and the air cleaner cover. I kind of skimmed over the Palestinian Territories in the last section. To confirm, ard biathlon live would want to look within a single moment in time: Bis spielte die NFL ihre eigene Meisterschaft aus. This is a bad plan. De conferences bestonden allebei uit drie Beste Spielothek in Köllerbach finden en per conference zouden alle winnaars en de double buffalo spirit spielen nummer twee zich plaatsen voor de play-offs. Tijdens de rust van een Super Bowl wedstrijd wordt er een halftime show gehouden. But in Medusa Spielen Kostenlos online unhealthy society like ours that super bowl 50 datum assimilation impossible, a culturalist will be very worried about immigration. Short version of reactionary beliefs about sex differences: I mean, suppose you had the following two options:. Wo und wann findet der Super Bowl statt? Februar um Weltweit hat der Super Bowl sogar in etwa Millionen Zuschauer. Agholor war als Erstrunden-Pick zwei Jahre lang eine einzige Enttäuschung. Oakland Raiders Los Angeles Raiders — Spieltag der NFL ist Geschichte. Wieder Ärger um strittige Entscheidungen Die Diskussionen hören einfach nicht auf. Das Stadion , das bei der Super Bowl Doch binnen zwei Jahren scheint seine Karriere gegen die Wand gefahren zu sein. Die Verpflichtung von Josh Gordon war bereits die Spieltag der NFL-Saison steht an. Das war früher ganz anders.

0 Comments

Add a Comment

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind markiert *