Slashdot Mirror

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch

Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites GlobalResearch, they are almost certainly wrong.

Here's an unpopular opinion for you: the USSR collapsed because the foundations behind its facade had rotted beyond their ability to support said facade, and the fallout from that collapse are still being felt today.

There's this thing that says "Cockup before Consipiracy"

Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

Facebook (and Whatsapp) will still be used to spread misinformation and people will still soak it up. The reason is known as "pigeon chess". They want to believe. Dumb people (let's say IQ<100) in particular seek information that "proves" they were wronged, that their situation is a result of someone taking advantage of them. Why? Because they do get taken advantage of quite regularly. They're dumb, and lots of people actually are unscrupulous and always looking for people they can sell bridges to. That link that shows them the infographic they're looking at is bogus? Well, obviously THEY don't want us to know, so they smear the good people who share the truth with us. You can't cure stupid.

You know who is spying on the German government ? US spy agencies, that's right. So much for being "partners".

WHATABOUTISM

While you may say "that was just satirizing science" or "he was just saying that to get a reaction" ... well, it was completely deadpan, so apparently you have to be skeptical about pretty much anything he says about science, since he doesn't make any attempt to let you know when he's serious and when he's making a joke.

Overall, I'd say he's more interested in getting people to react than actual science.

Bottom line: don't get your science from cartoonists.

more about Scott Adams's wacky ideas here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...

---
(* quote from The Dilbert Future)

No his racism, are what makes him a racist. his conspiracy theories about "false rape accusations are what makes him a misogynist.
Erik S. Raymond is the sort of Aspie who claims to have all sorts of expert skills. The Lazarus Long fanboyism went to his head.
He's your typical libertarian-aspie internet crackpot asshat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...

I shake my head in disbelief at the depths our educational system has sunk to, and wonder who to blame for the impending death of reason, logic and Western Civilization.

That would fall squarely in the lap of the Radical Right, so you've no-one to congratulate but yourselves.

I shake my head in disbelief at the depths our educational system has sunk to, and wonder who to blame for the impending death of reason, logic and Western Civilization.

That would fall squarely in the lap of the Radical Right, so you've no-one to congratulate but yourselves.

Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy... An oldie but a goody.

Ironically, PV systems are mostly not about optics, though. That's the problem. Also, this.

...which so far is an utterly baseless conspiracy theory put out by Democrats butthurt they lost the 2016 election (in the same way so many butthurt Republicans went Full Birther after 2008), media wanting to keep up high ratings for propagandists like Rachael Madcow, and the deep state wanting to keep people compliant and stupid. To go back to the good old days when 75% of Americans thought Saddam had WMD's and was involved in 911.

A baseless CT propped up by a Gish Gallop, same as other idiotic conspiracy theories like Birtherism or Chem Trailers. But ask any Russiagater to provide definitive facts or a timeline and they simply fall apart.

You know, there was a time when no one had cell phones and we all got along fine. In many ways it was better.

Meh. I didn't get my first cellphone until I was almost 30, so I had plenty of experience with the pre-cellular life. We got along fine only because we spent a lot of extra time and effort on pre-planning. Want to meet your friends or relatives somewhere? Better get it all set up in advance, and with a high degree of precision. If one of you makes a mistake and is off by a smallish amount on the time or the location, you're not going to meet. Break down on the road? If you can't fix it on the spot you're going to have to hitch a ride to where you can get help, or hope a cop comes buy to radio for a tow truck. And if you were on your way to meet someone, they'll have no idea why you didn't show up.

Those are just two examples. Those who have grown up with the freedom provided by cell phones have no idea how much extra effort it took to get around. Some who grew up without phones have forgotten, or are just engaging in the Golden Age fallacy.

By your reasoning, we should get rid of modern medicine because some patients can't be saved. My great-grandfather died of blood poisoning from a tooth abscess; I'm guessing you'd enjoy sharing his fate?

TL;DR: Perfect is not the enemy of good.

It's not the scientists who are spending billions to sponsor climate change denial.

Nope, if you would have bothered to click on the link I provided it was about Mao 1944-1961, not about what happened a hundred years before he took power. BTW trying to use a logical fallacy on Slashdot is never a good idea, everyone here can smell a logical fallacy from a mile away.

Yes, I am going to keep posting this until you knot-heads get it.

Kind of interesting that those obscene profits come from the people who claim to hate them. Millenials are the most well-travelled generation in history. They only care about climate change when it’s time to talk.

Do as we say, not as we do, amirite?

You want we should chain them down instead so they can’t keep pouring billions of dollars into oil company profits? What do you do, by the way? Just drive to work and the grocery store, or do you forget about the climate when it’s convenient for you to do so as well?

Oil company profits don’t come from the hand of Satan. The majority comes from affluent progressives, who take more flights per year, and fly more miles, than so-called ‘conservatives’.

If you think we should start jailing them for pouring billions into oil company coffers, say as much.

Yes, I am going to keep posting this until you knot-heads get it.

That's whataboutery.

We know that Russia and China are spying.

Replying "but what about X? What about Y?" doesn't mean that Russia and China aren't spying, or that we shouldn't worry about it: it is only an attempt to change the subject.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I think it's a matter of cause-and-effect. If you act paranoid because someone is after you, you don't actually have paranoia. However, someone who does have clinical paranoia could have someone who is going after them (further reading: fallacy fallacy).

The only opportunity to compete with youtube is to make a platform that doesn't censor Republicans or other conservatives, but in that area Facebook is actually worse. I'm a leftist...

No, you're not. FOAD.

So even if CO2 caused warming, for which there's no evidence, it wouldn't be bad.

Clearly you've been inspired by the denialist staircase.

Rationalwiki is pure trash, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/... ,yep it's only social construct. Yep there is a Gender Binary conspiracy , all those other genders are taken away by black military helicopters and aliens. Please stop linking to trash.

Whaddaya know...

I agree that assuming "not synthetic = safer" is a fallacy. But in this particular case, Apeel's coating is extracted from fruits that are already Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by national food regulators.

Scientists with agendas...?

Argument from incredulity

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.

Albany, NY is 52% white. In that city every single homicide in 2017 [timesunion.com] had a non-white perpetrator and victim. Of course the article blames it on poverty as though there were no poor whites living there.

Such vibrant diversity! This story was relatively honest. For most of the rest, remember the new media code-word for "black males" is "teens" or "youths". Just like the many times a legal gun owner with a conceal carry permit stops a crime but it never gets reported that way, directly reporting the real criminality of blacks just doesn't fit the narrative.

Cue the Internet Tough Guys who talk about hanging folks (because they know this is true, can't refute it, and don't have the balls to be honest with themselves about it let alone be honest with anyone else). They don't like any FACTUAL information casting blacks in a bad light, yet they call others "faggots" all the time, yay tolerance! Yay hypocrisy! I'm sure they have convinced themselves this is logically consistent. For some reason they mention Trump. I don't personally care for Trump but if he causes them that much butt-hurt then at least he has that much going for him. Note they won't make ANY effort to say that I'm wrong because $facts, or talk about materially verifiable benefits of diversity. No, they'll just say they want to hang people. How convincing! Surely truth is on their side!!

I mean, they like to bring up Nazis. So let's examine that. Anyone who mentinos FACTS they find inconvenient must be a bad person, not fully human, right? So it's ok to advocate hanging them, harming them, etc., because they're not like the rest of us. Funny how this is the exact thinking the Nazis used against the Jews! Yet it's ok, this time they got it right. Right? Yet they still don't see the problem. No thanks, I'll stick to facts about race -- and there are a great many. Let the butt-hurt types defeat themselves by acting like everything they claim to hate while missing the delicious irony. But hey it's easy to feel tough behind a computer, isn't it?

So is the SQLite CoC thing a joke or not?

This is actually Poe's Law in real life: "Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism". The crap around CoC's has become so crazy that it's indistinguishable from parody.

Considering that, and having worked with a good number of PhDs in a prior career, I'm actually more inclined to expect Wikipedia's his first source. Ultracrepidarianism is apparently the relevant term (but I'll admit I went to the wiki to find the name).

When you use a product that is 99.9% effective to prevent the consequences of an act that you do 300 times a year then it's almost a sure thing that you'll end up hitting that .01%.

So which is it? .1% is 1 in 1,000. This is not the same as .01%, which is 1 in 10,000.

If it's the former, then 300/1000 = 30%. That's less than 1 in 3 and not what I'd call "almost a sure thing".

BTW, 300 times per year is about 4 times the average for married couples.

Also, "not perfect = worthless" is a pretty silly way to view the world in any case.

As for experimentation, various people have been trying to tell other people not to have sex for a few thousand years, and the results of such efforts have been mixed at best.

I saw another article that said we're past the point of no return, so there is no use trying at this point.

So it's straight to point 13 these days?

AEI? The same people who tried to foist The Bell Curve on us? You've got to be kidding.

You link didn't tell me anything. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whacker#How_to_spot_a_whacker did.

Same here - Extra and have been licensed for over 35 years, and I have always seen the ARRL as just like every other dominant hobby organization -- corrupted by money, self-preservation, and leaders who enjoy political role-playing. But then I'm just a lowly experimenter who rarely transmits and not a whacker https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whacker/, so I'm probably in the minority.

Rupert Sheldrake hasn't done any real science in 30 years.

Oh, right, it's all the Rich Greenie Conspiracy...

Get a clue, already.

Please provide a scientifically based reference to back up your claim that climate scientists are "fraudsters". The links you provided are a little, um, light.

I'm going to provide a Wikipedia link, which in and of itself is worthless, except for the massive collection of listed references used to support this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And from this arrticle, under the "Continuing research" section, emphasis mine:

Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.

and finally:

https://rationalwiki.org/w/ima...

That cartoon would only be a false dichotomy if environmentalism were not linked with a sincere desire to stay alive.

Activities that contribute to the continued existence of humanity are big business, the biggest, or maybe just the oldest of which is sex. Some like it kinky, some like it painful, some like it in groups, and some only like it after being ritualistically mutilated with a knife as an infant, but one way or another, the end result is more people. Some cultures are more balanced than others, while some acknowledge basic human nature only on dark and seedy street corners and in alleyways. And in boring and lengthy fiery sermons about sin and hellfire and the afterlife, where choir boys and girls daydream about being somewhere else. With each other.

Anti-environmentalism - spewing carbon and other harmful things with reckless abandon - is more like cannibalism and human sacrifice. What kind of culture would have children and fatten them just to give them to temple priests for sacrifice and consumption? This is what we do when we pour mercury into the oceans and carbon into the air from coal power plants and elsewhere. It's just ritualistic human sacrifice made somewhat more impersonal.

The fact that AlGore, or ManBearPig, or whoever, wants to buy and sell carbon credits for profit is no different than some nut job with delusions of grandeur trying to monopolize temple prostitutes. Fortunately throughout history and across cultures boys and girls eventually figure out that they can pair up all on their own, with or without institutional guidance, and do what comes natural. And here we are.

So, in closing, environmentally minded people have more frequent and more enjoyable sex, and people who tend to reject environmentalism are cannibals. So it is to your advantage to be an environmentalist, and to not worry to much about trying to point out false dichotomies, like this one.

By now we should all be familiar with the Hockey Stick Controversy

Under the "Continuing research" section of the above link, emphasis mine:

Marcott et al. 2013 used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, the last 1,000 years of which confirmed the original MBH99 hockey stick graph.

In cartoon format:
https://rationalwiki.org/w/ima...

And a free-market reaction to the above, with other considerations: an alternative energy consumption and production paradigm seems to be gaining traction, which seems to be related in some way to recent discussions about melting glaciers and sea level rise.

There is a fucking HURRICANE coming, why are we wasting time with this?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...

Your source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G... (It's not a good one)

> It's dead simple: hate speech is any speech that incites or advocates for physical violence against an identifiable group of people.

So, a few things:

* True threats are already an unprotected class of speech under the first amendment, so trying to redefine hate speech to be the same is redundant at best and more likely deliberate obfuscation to push the Overton window.
* That definition changes depending on who and when you ask people, leading to a Motte and bailey game. Your definition sounds relatively reasonable, but I don't believe for a second that it'd be applied in such a way.
* Hate speech isn't a category of unprotected speech under the first amendment, nor is there any leeway for courts to invent new ones.

You know the worst part about Conservapedia? The guy who runs it also does homeschooling.

There's absolutely no evidence out there that Trump colluded with the Russians except the Manafort thing, and the Flynn thing, and the Papadopoulos pleading guilty thing, and the Roger Stone thing, and the Cohen thing, and the Kushner thing, and the Carter Page blah blah blah

NONE of which have ANYTHING to do with Russiagate, you incompetent boob. Manafort is being tried for issues that happened ten years ago and have no connection to Trump. Flynn talked to Russian officials first to ask them for their UN support on a vote for Apartheid Israel, and then to not retaliate in response to American sanctions. And so on.

All you guys have is a Gish Gallop - a rapid series of talking points that fall apart faster than toilet paper in a tornado when subjected to any scrutiny. Just like the Birthers, the Chem Trailers and anti-vaxxers, who quickly spout off billeted list of talking points - but it's all bullshit.

Committing suicide is one thing, but in do it in such a manner that you take other innocent lives with you, is fucking horribly twisted.

It sounds like typical psychological projection. He felt he was wrongly punished. So he lashed out, using the justification that if an "innocent" such as himself could be made to suffer, then it was OK for him to make another innocent suffer.

I've had to caution a couple of my friends who "struck it rich" from a single income source like he did. Don't blow your money on toys and transient things like fast cars and hot women. Save it, invest it, use it to diversify your income stream. That way if that original income source disappears, you're not left high and dry like he was. Worst case you just have to reintegrate into society like a regular person, except you have a huge nest egg saved up to help you.

Education has never been 100% vaccination against stupid. Just look at Nobel prize winners...then extrapolate down to your dad.

That's only if you assume that article is the only evidence.
So what you're saying is, your link does not support your conclusion. Glad that you agree with the initial response, way up-thread.

Here's a summary from Dr. Thomas Sowell, noted black Harvard educated (pre-affirmative action) economist.
Alright, an appeal to authority! That's always a good sign</s>. And the implication that post-affirmative-action black scholars are somehow less useful comes across as a bit racist.

Sowell is actually well known for being very selective in his empiricism - RationalWiki has a decent summary.

Most anyone who has honestly researched ...
Wouldn't venerate Sowell, wouldn't just hand-wave away the effects of the war on drugs and the carceral state, would include the effects of the many 'urban renewal' dislocations, and would include information on the actual effects of single-parent homes (hint: it's often overstated by conservative media - the problems are more doctrine than fact).

it's not a big mystery
There's a statement that reeks of confirmation bias. If you start with a conclusion, then no, it's not a mystery. But in reality, it's a complicated topic.

https://rationalwiki.org/w/ima...

If you're talking about the misogynist racist You-tuber asshat Stefan Molyneux, the one who forgot all about being an "anarchist" as soon as he developed a man-crush on The Donald, then the answer to your question is Yes.

And why they also believe there is a dragon in my garage.