Slashdot Mirror

Why can't we be friends?

But I thought that we were, already...

Explain:

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

-- Einstein's postulates are wrong.
-- General relativity (GR) is wrong.
-- The Universe is not expanding.
-- The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near-infinite velocity.
-- Gravity has two poles like a bar magnet; dipole gravity.
-- A plenum of neutrinos forms an all-pervasive aether.
-- Planets give birth to comets.
-- Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.
-- Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges. The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.
-- The Sun is negatively charged, and the solar wind is positively charged — the two systems forming a giant capacitor (this is James McCanney's particular erroneous belief.)
-- EU proponents from the Thunderbolts Project claim to have predicted the natures of Pluto and Comet 67P more accurately than NASA or ESA.

Every one of these ideas are stupider than fuck. Anyone with a half way decent high school education SHOULD be able to look at that and realize that electric universe bullshit is a fucking worthless con job.

Lets take a shot at even the first one.... Einsteins postulates are wrong. Why is it that to get GPS to work, they have to account for Relativity? If Relativity was wrong, they wouldn't need to... now would they? The more you peddle this bullshit, the more you look like a fucking idiot.

As you get older you start to realize that sometimes for someone to take notice you have to be a bit more rude than you should have to be. That's kinda where i'm at, although i do have to admit, i absolutely hate liars (which a lot of the conservative commentators on this site continually do bringing up debunked bullshit that they get from fauxnews and Hannity the neo-nazi sympathizer https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...) and i hate nazi's (again, a number of right wing commentators on here seem to follow that line of politics, and lets e honest, if you defend war time Hitler, you're a nazi plain and simple).

So, while it's sad and unfortunate that that such language has to be used, some wothless shits can't seem to understand anything else. Of course, those shits then seem to complain a lot... almost like they want people to be "more PC" to them all the while being absolute shits to other people. So eventually you get old and start saying "fuck the nazi sympathizers."

Do you know what the Fallacy fallacy is? Basically, people don't lose a debate when they use a fallacy. Correctly pointing out a fallacy merely renders that particular statement meaningless, it doesn't even prove that the statement is wrong because fallacious arguments can have true conclusions.

For example:

My opponent says the sky the White House has been painted green by Ted Nugent, however, we all know that my opponent is moron and thus everything he says is wrong.

That's an ad hominem fallacy in an argument, however the conclusion of the argument is true. Ted Nugent has not painted the White House green. That's because citing a fallacy doesn't prove someone or soemthing is wrong, it only shows that the fallacious argument is invalid.

Since you're too dense and/or lazy to type "Peter Thiel medicine" into a search engine, and follow the link in the very first fucking hit, here ya go, with plenty of cites in the article. You're welcome.

PROTIP: Save yourself a step *and* filter out all the wooey bullshit by using RationalWiki as your search engine.

WHAT benefits?

Never heard of the guy before today, and it turns out there's a really good reason for that--he's a wacko.

The worst of Objectivism *and* Creationism rolled up into one tidy package, pretty much. So, yes, a nutjob, pretty much.

See also: Pseudolaw.

There is no need for someone to demonstrate their work in order to criticise someone else's claims or to ask for proof of the assertions they make.

Your constant demands for same are a logical fallacy of the form of an 'ad hominem' attack.

Your list of endorsements are taken out of context. This is an other informal logical fallacy.

Your claim of others being selective in what they address is classic projection, and while I link to 'Rational Wiki' for that last, which is hardly authoritative, I do so because of their words on projection and internet arguments which is particularly apt in this situation.

Please stop.

I was intrigued by your description, but the guy seems like either a charlatan or a kook: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...

Coming up with an alternative to the standard model would be interesting. Claiming that QM is bunk... means that he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. QM is basically the best validated theoretical framework that has ever existed.

"Radiation is natural!" True.

"Cobras are natural!" Also true.

Your turn.

TFTFM.

Please spare us the misguided attempt to defend Ulbricht & crew. (Yeah, we're on to you—see whataboutism.)

Thanks!

Dominionism, aka Christian sharia is indeed a thing. Who's the deluded one?

Why not use something more universal, like 'Veritas'?

Because there's already a "Project Veritas", which is led by one of the few people who has actually been caught commiting voter fraud, and which been caught multiple times deceptively editing footage to make perfectly legal interactions seem nefarious, and in some cases to look like the exact opposite of what actually happened.

Fixed it for you.

WTF??

Sure you are, then why are you utilizing right wing anti public education bird whistles?

Common Core State Standards Initiative is a US national set of goals and expectations regarding the K-12 curriculum. States would decide how to meet those goals.

It has turned into a fear mongering tool for the right to attack the left, even though the left has very little to do with it. Of course, most of the things the right likes to blame the left for have little involvement with the actual left. Most opposition towards it comes from think tanks, charter schools, for-profit colleges/universities, and home schooling parents.

The thought police in your country is in intent and methods the same as the Chinese oppression, yeah.

That's only because the leftists haven't been in charge in the US as much as they've been in China.

China can't hold a candle to the close-minded Fascist thugs of Antifa.

It's OK, folks--Kohath's merely asking a question.

You didn't actually make an argument. You just used the logical fallacy known as Guilt by Association. Serious question: did you know this when you wrote your comment and are hence deliberately using a fallacy, or are you genuinely ignorant of what logical fallacies are? In the first case; how do you call yourself educated, and in the second case; how do you call yourself educated?

When a person gets downvoted just for asking a question then they have a community problem.

It's not that simple. There's just asking questions, and then there's just asking questions.

Piers Corbyn?

You're invoking Piers Corbyn?

For serious?

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

That is enough to dismiss you out of hand.

Which feminists would that be? Susie Bright, Nina Hartley, Rachel Kramer Bussel? BTW they're all sex positive feminists.

I'd also point out the Ron Paul often got into a lather about what people did with their unmentionables. Rand Paul like his father doesn't think women should be allowed to control their bodies. So you might want to take that log out of your eye now.

About those grid girls, people objected as they're thought to encourage morons to view women as objects and not you know people with their own tastes, values and desires. How about you run this little experiment for me. Go and get a job at a gay bar, wear stupidly tight shirts and hot pants. Clothes so tight that they look ready to snap. Work there for a month and tell me how it felt. Tell me how it felt when a drunk patron makes a pass at you, how it felt when they waived a tip in front of you as they asked you out on a date. Tell me how many times you got groped on an average shift, and then tell me how bad objectifying is. Besides what has F1 lost by getting rid of them? Are you there to watch the cars or the women. If the latter then why don't you save yourself a sunburn and go to a strip club.

Which feminists would that be? Susie Bright, Nina Hartley, Rachel Kramer Bussel? BTW they're all sex positive feminists.

I'd also point out the Ron Paul often got into a lather about what people did with their unmentionables. Rand Paul like his father doesn't think women should be allowed to control their bodies. So you might want to take that log out of your eye now.

About those grid girls, people objected as they're thought to encourage morons to view women as objects and not you know people with their own tastes, values and desires. How about you run this little experiment for me. Go and get a job at a gay bar, wear stupidly tight shirts and hot pants. Clothes so tight that they look ready to snap. Work there for a month and tell me how it felt. Tell me how it felt when a drunk patron makes a pass at you, how it felt when they waived a tip in front of you as they asked you out on a date. Tell me how many times you got groped on an average shift, and then tell me how bad objectifying is. Besides what has F1 lost by getting rid of them? Are you there to watch the cars or the women. If the latter then why don't you save yourself a sunburn and go to a strip club.

However others consider him a quack: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/... .

Modded down as troll, I see.

I guess Poe's Law is true.

yes. fascism is on the left side of the political spectrum. SURE.

Let's see:

1. Attempt to shut down debate.
2. Acts of violence towards those that don't agree with your political ideas

Yep. "Progressives" are today's Fascists/Nazis.

Welcome to Earth, [you stupid] motherfucker!

Conversely, Republicans and the Nazis have already decided that nothing is hate speech.

As opposed to those literally Fascist SJW Nazis who believe brain-dead bullshit like "speech is violence"?

The asinine, unthinking, childish SJWs who have literally formally institutionalized methods of censorship shutting down speech they can't logically refute?

Yes, "progressives" are the real close-minded Fascists/Nazis.

They won't hear you, you know. Denial, and all that.

Facebook is in a box with no exit. When the initial premises are stupid, what can you expect as an outcome?

Conversely, Republicans and the Nazis have already decided that nothing is hate speech.

As opposed to those literally Fascist SJW Nazis who believe brain-dead bullshit like "speech is violence"?

The asinine, unthinking, childish SJWs who have literally formally institutionalized methods of censorship shutting down speech they can't logically refute?

Yes, "progressives" are the real close-minded Fascists/Nazis.

Electric Universe - it's actual central thesis is:

* Einstein's postulates are wrong.
* General relativity (GR) is wrong.
* The Universe is not expanding.
* The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near-infinite velocity.
* Gravity has two poles like a bar magnet; dipole gravity.
* A plenum of neutrinos forms an all-pervasive aether.
* Planets give birth to comets.
* Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.
* Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges. The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.

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

for a longer read: https://briankoberlein.com/201...

EU is pseudo-science with a cult following. Why? It doesn't take any actual work to be a brain-dead follower (that's my guess).

Stands for Electric Universe.

True, some people *can* be successfully steered away from bullshit, but my understanding is that those who need it most are only reinforced.

Jordan Peterson is what a stupid person thinks a smart person sounds like. And, he loves making pronouncements on things about which he's completely ignorant.

My favorite example is when he said that Disney's Little Mermaid is superior to Disney's Frozen because one comes from classical mythology and one was written by SJWs. They were both written by Hans Christian Anderson.

And it's really rich that the alt-Right have made Jordan Peterson their champion. People who claim climate science is bogus are embracing..psychology!

Jordan Peterson is the televangelist of the alt-Right. Like Christina Hoff-Summers, he basically tells his flock what they want to hear and makes a nice living doing it. Fleecing the yokels is always a booming business.

https://www.themarysue.com/jor...

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

There is something called the Backfire Effect. In short, the more factual information you give to someone pointing how/where they're wrong, the more strident in their viewpoint they become.

This effect holds for those with conventional viewpoints as well. Most people, when presented with facts that indicate a conspiracy is actually afoot, will choose to ignore that evidence and continue thinking that there is no conspiracy. It indicates to me that, regardless of our viewpoint, we should all be more open minded and less sure that we know what we know.

The irony of linking to RationalWiki on the topic of fighting self reinforcing echo chambers and conspiracy is really too rich.

Hint: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gamergate
Then compare to http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate
And ask yourself why a meme site is more capable of representing different sides.

Wait. What different sides is the knowyourmeme page presenting? It appears to be relentless pro-Gamergate page where every criticism of Gamergate is neatly answered and every critic is shot down effortlessly (Which should be a clue that it's biased). Basically it takes everything that Gamergaters claim about themselves at face value even when their words and actions do not match their claims. On the other hand, the Rational Wiki page is dismissive and certainly biased against Gamergate, but they also appear to be fundamentally accurate and insightful when speaking about the movement.

The biggest thing I took away from my personal experiences with Gamergaters was how much the people in Gamergate were lying to everyone including themselves and each other.

There is something called the Backfire Effect. In short, the more factual information you give to someone pointing how/where they're wrong, the more strident in their viewpoint they become.

There is a more fundamental issue here; one that is well described in the book The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart.

As the Amazon summary says "Over the past three decades, we [Americans] have been choosing the neighborhood (and church and news show) compatible with our lifestyle and beliefs. The result is a country that has become so polarized, so ideologically inbred that people don't know and can't understand those who live a few miles away."

Living and working in communities of exclusively like-minded people tends to reinforce beliefs (and make them more extreme) over time. Confirmation bias becomes ingrained, and the willingness to even consider an alternative viewpoint diminishes.

In such an environment, rational argument is useless. Inconvenient evidence is simply ignored. Sadly, this is not just an American phenomenon. I've seen similar trends emerging in the UK in recent years.

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

Thanks for the reference, a great summary.

Honestly it took me a very long time to grok Gamergate, because I was trying to sympathetically to understand "both side" of the debate. I only really got it once I admitted, contrary to my inbuilt assumption, that it is not every debate that has two defensible sides.

And ask yourself why a meme site is more capable of representing different sides.

And it was in fact just that kind of brave attempt to defend the indefensible which woke me from my slumbers. This hockey about trying ad hoc to dress up some guy whining about getting dropped by his girlfriend, and the bullying trolls it attracted like flies to shit, as being about "journalistic integrity?" It rather stretches credibility.

There is something called the Backfire Effect. In short, the more factual information you give to someone pointing how/where they're wrong, the more strident in their viewpoint they become.

It is telling that all papers by this author and his collaborators seem to be in a closed ecosystem of citation where they only are cited each other. I am not familiar with the "Galaxies" journal. At least one of these papers is from A&A, which *is* a real peer-reviewed journal.

There are many red herrings here. First of all, the whole "we have a model that can explain galaxy rotation curves without dark matter" is not nearly as meaningful as some seem to say it is. There is a whole host of observations explained by dark matter, in detail, and with precision. Explaining just one of them doesn't do much if you can't explain all of the rest of the observations.

Likewise, the Big Bang model has a host of observations that support it, in detail, and with numerical precision.

The "electric universe" is not something that is worth paying attention to.

For popular-level information about the problems with the whole electric universe business, see this site: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...

This smells very "motte and bailey" to me, if being played in reverse.

1. Vanishingly few people will be okay with adults grooming adolescents for sex on Facebook, so I would presume that overwhelming answer will be that this sort of behavior should be disallowed on the platform.
2. Facebook implements additional controls on behavior in other areas, as well, like they always do.
3. When there's public backlash, they'll fire back with "the users asked for it," citing this poll and tying whatever additional restrictions they make into "protecting the children."

Remember in 2012 when Facebook put out a huge policy change but would allow the users to veto it if 30% of the accounts voted against it? Of course it was fair because people aren't allowed to have multiple accounts; therefore, "no one" has one. Sure it included people who abandoned the platform and many others who had died, but it was only 30%, right? Getting the equivalent of the whole population of the US to care about something enough to log in during a week-long window and find the "vote" button is no big deal, yeah?

It's their platform to do as they please, and that's fine. I just wish they wouldn't be so duplicitous about it. Do your thing, Facebook, but don't act like your users asked for it.

...factor in segregation.

Segregation is such a dated word. The proper term is "POC Only", which sounds much more exclusive. Good thing they redefined the word racist to only apply to white people, otherwise this would qualify for certain.

Citations:

https://www.dailywire.com/news... https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...

You should know better than try to claim causation based on statistically weak correlational findings. This is exactly how we arrived to satanic panic.

Breaking Up Amazon, Google, Apple, and Facebook Could Save Capitalism, NYU Professor Says

Though I've met a few, I'm yet to encounter — or even hear about a professor, especially in New York, who would sincerely wish to "save Capitalism".

Most of the academics work for the government — either directly or via government-provided grants — and thus inevitably lean Left.

I strongly doubt, this professor's concern for Capitalism's well-being is genuine — especially, since he proposes authoritarian methods to "fix" it.

Can I play, too?

For someone with nothing to hide, Trump is sure trying his best to hide, cover up his tracks and derail the investigation. ... There's a clear pattern of him trying to stop the investigation in which he is the primary target.

There ya go.

Isn't this fun?

-Z (haz modpoyntz 2da)

Check out your sources. That article's written by a nutter.

I don't think so.

Oh, so you're afraid of whites being a minority...?

And she is not alone in admitting, there is no — and there can not be — any proof. Interestingly, you chose to completely ignore the other link, which I did cite correctly, where a a DailyKos [dailykos.com] article admits to treating the question of Global Warming's existence as that of a deity. And Huffington Post [huffingtonpost.com] concurs. (Hilariously, this entire approach was predicted by a satirist years earlier [thepeoplescube.com]).

Talk about lying out of your ass. She wrote "It is difficult to propose a test of climate models in advance that is falsifiable" and you change that into "It is impossible to falsify any climate science". Child, that is what we call a strawman argument. You changed what someone you disagree with said, to make it easier for you to "win". Climate models are not equivalent to all climate science, and the difficulty with determining a falsifiable test before the model has been built does not mean the model can not be falsified after it has been created.

Interesting that you have to resort to a deceptive style of arguing: ignoring the inconvenient arguments completely, while pouncing on technicalities.

Yes it is very interesting that you do exactly that, while claiming others are doing it to you.

In fact in best Laffer curve fashion

The Laffer Curve is a fraud. It's not real, as in it's nonsense.

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

And it doesn't really seem all that unreasonable for the US to cut corporation tax rates given it has the highest tax rate in the OECD.

It is not true that the actual corporate tax rate in the US is higher than the other OECD countries. It's a canard, as in lie, as in bogus.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/...

Supply-siders love to talk about Laffer curves and "the highest corporate tax rates in the world", but they have sold you a bill of goods. Their claims don't match up with reality.

I love that one. It's right up there with "trickle-down economics" and "tree pollution."

Here's how that works:

1. You work for MegaCorp in City A. You've lived here for 10 years. You're settled in, and around 40 on the age scale, with a wife and two kids.

2. You're told you're going to be laid off, but they have a job for you in City R, some 700 miles away. The job is yours, if you're willing to move. They'll even give you a moving incentive? But no raise.

3. You pull up stakes, pack up your family, put your house on the market, and move to City R. After a few months on the market, your house in City A sells for around the asking price. However, you didn't break even with the purchase in City R, so you're back in the hole for a mortgage.

4. You've been in City R for a year and a half, now. The economy is okay, things are doing well, and your department is doing well. But somebody in the upper echelons isn't happy with their profits, and decides to shut down all operations in City R.

5. Everyone in City R is offered a job in City X, which is only 500 miles away this time.

You now have a choice:

1. Take a chance on MegaCorp's offer of a job in City X. However, you aren't going to get a raise. But they *do* promise -verbally- that there won't be any layoffs for a year. And you have to repeat steps 2 and 3, with no guarantee that you won't have to repeat 4 and 5 in another year.

2. Take whatever severance package they offer, and bail. However, you're now at the high-end of where age discrimination gets serious, and your prospects are slim at best.

And the best part of this pretty little operation? The silver lining that only those at the top get to enjoy?

It completely eliminates three entire classes of workers.

1. It eliminates anyone with a family.
2. It eliminates anyone that can't move on 30 days notice.
3. It eliminates anyone who isn't willing to work for slave wages.

It's a formula that has worked every time.

Only in criminal court. Elsewhere, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

And that's why you believe that I have a dragon in my garage, right? After all the absence of proof is not proof of absence, right?

Right... The ones screaming that the internet is going to end. The end is nigh.

I wrote nothing of the sort, and anyone who follows this thread can easily verify that, so why are you telling transparent lies about what I've written?

Misrepresenting open comments of the FCC.

Oops. I didn't do that either.

Misunderstanding the law.

According to you, amateur lawyer, right? Did you ever stop think about whether people who are actually qualified to interpret the law agree with your interpretation? Unlikely. You're the pot calling the kettle black.

Screeching every slur they can think of is.

Oh child. You are so very wrong, because I can think of so many, many more slurs. I've only used the ones that are appropriate to your specific behaviour.

Yet, the one quoting jurisprudence and law is the one peddling FUD.

Nope, you haven't quoted anything or explained anything. All you've done is link to things and complain when you were challenged to explain why the things you linked are in any way relevant. The martyr act would be more impressive if it wasn't so obviously a cover for your lack of intelligence and intellectual laziness.

Oh no! A I can't break the group think and mass hysteria that people have worked themselves into.

Nothing screams arrogant, ignorant ass hole like the words "group think". Ever stop to consider that you might not be the font of all wisdom? Ever stopped to think that maybe if the group and the experts disagree with you, maybe it's because you're wrong? Humility and hard work will get you a lot further than arrogance and condescension.

What fear have I presented? What Uncertainty? What doubt?

What argument have you presented? None. Your FUD is a nebulous implication that the current net neutrality rules are somehow illegal? Frankly, I gave you on trying to understand what you think you know when you claimed that a link to a wikipedia article was all the evidence you needed to convince people of a position you couldn't even be bothered to write down.

All I have done is try to understand the situation through jurisprudence and law without throwing out petty insults that are so common that you initiated.

People who "are trying to understand" don't act the way you have. You aren't trying to understand, you are trying to prove that you are smarter than everyone else. Unfortunately for you, you aren't even smarter than the average poster here. And from my view, you are the one who decided to start with the petty insults, but I'm sure your petty insults all well reasoned and justified.

You are a hypocritical piece of shit. Fuck off to your bandwagon where you can feel smug circle jerking the others that think exactly like you.

See, there's your true colours showing. You don't care about the issues or the law, all you care about is proving to yourself that you're a special snowflake filled with wisdom that the ignorant masses just won't accept.