Slashdot Mirror

Yes, you have convinced me you are fanatical and willing to repeat yourself.

That's what it says in my signature, though I have to say that disagreeing with your incompetent analysis of the situation hardly counts as repeating myself, unless of course, you are suck puppet, in which I could see where being shot down twice for ignorant blathering feels like "repeating".

I could extend my responses, but there was no evidence of anything recognizable as sincerity or curiosity, so you have also convinced me that would be a waste of time and keystrokes.

Actually, I find it doubtful that you could extend your responses. All you seem to have is accusations that professional pollsters are either less competent than you, who once studied polling in university before dropping out of your sociology program, or so corrupt that they provide poll results that match whatever the client requests. You have offered no evidence other than your own general opinions to support either case. Like the poster, I first responded to, you seem to be suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect where you know just enough about the topic to be very confident that you are completely right about everything that you don't know.

Or perhaps I should apologize for writing at a level that is too difficult for you?

Oh I understood everything you wrote, but I am not sure that you did because if you had you would have understood my counter-arguments. Frankly, you should be apologizing for your disgraceful conduct and for wasting the time of everyone who reads your posts.

Actually I did, but it was so dubious it was barely worth commenting on. These are cherry picked results: how many fact check articles did you have to go through to find two that support your pre-determined conclusion?

You were comparing two articles written by two different people, on different fact check sites (one was politifact Texas, one politifact Virginia), written years apart.

Nevertheless, they both said pretty much exactly the same thing. So, you're not objecting to the actual facts in the articles. Because the facts are the same. So, since you're not disputing that, let's start by agreeing that the actual text part of the fact check is accurate and not biased.

So, what you're objecting to is the fact that, in an article where the text concluded that the statement was partly true, one person labelled this "half true" and the other person labelled it "mostly true." That's within normal variation, I'm afraid: two people wrote the articles, years apart, and their judgement call was very slightly different. Your conclusion that it is "bias" is unsupported.

You'd have to show me some statistics before I can accept that hypothesis. Here's a challenge: why don't you fact-verify, say, the most recent 100 politifact fact checks (or any other set of data that you didn't cherry pick to find ones that support your conclusion), and show the statistics on error?

The pollster picks the demographics for the poll, but never justifies why those demographics are reasonable.

As far as I am aware, the normal procedure is to record the demographics from a random poll, and then adjust the weightings of each demographic group based on the actual recorded demographics from the last similar election.

The rest of your comments display a considerable amount of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I really don't think you should write about things you so clearly know nothing about. Maybe you should spend some time and educate yourself about polling procedures, practices and organizations?

I'm already oiling my guns

heh heh so am I, nudge nudge wink wink, know what I mean? say no more.

Oh you're serious? In that case, might I interest you in a subscription to the following magazine:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/imag...

Irony tends to become invisible on the internet, because it's camouflaged by so much stuff from which it is indistinguishable

But if I had mod points I'd mod it troll just on general principles.

Einstein's postulates are wrong.[8]
General Relativity (GR) is wrong.[9]
The universe is not expanding.[10]
The electric force travels faster than the speed of light with near infinite velocity.[8]
Gravity has two poles like a bar magnet; dipole gravity.[11]
A plenum of neutrinos forms an all-pervasive aether.[8]
Planets give birth to comets.[12]
Stars do not shine because of internal nuclear fusion caused by gravitational collapse. Rather, they are anodes for galactic discharge currents.[13]
Impact craters on Venus, Mars and the Moon are not caused by impacts, but by electrical discharges.[14] The same applies to the Valles Marineris (a massive canyon on Mars) and the Grand Canyon on Earth.[15]
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.)[citation needed]
EU proponents from the Thunderbolts Project claim to have predicted the natures of Pluto and Comet 67P more accurately than NASA or ESA.[16][17]

Science work fairly simply. If you come up with an idea, and can test to show your idea has some validity, other people will look at it as well. When Hannes Alfvén couldn't find the radio emissions that his idea said MUST BE THERE.... that pretty much was cased closed, except for the few who,for some reason, had become so invested in it that they couldn't except that it was flat out wrong.

The downside you ask? Believing total bullshit instead of looking at reality. EU predicts things we've confirmed don't exist, and requires things we actually have confirmed to not exist. The downside... it's just fucking wrong.

So what you are saying is that you are a sucker for quacks? Tell Dr. Wahls "hi."

BOOM! I gave you evidence that your positions are counter-factual, such as the Canadian Geographic article that polar bear numbers are indeed up, and that the surface temperature data is being fiddled as stated by Iceland's chief meteorologist, and that the climate sensitivity keeps getting adjusted down and still claimed as a far too high value (which means, CAGW is falsified).

Unfortunately, you didn't give me any evidence to contradict my views, I'm just tried of correcting you. For example:

1. The Canadian Geographic article says of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 3 are growing, 2 are stable and 6 are unknown. You seem to only see that 3 are growing while ignoring that 8 are in decline, and that seems to be simple confirmation bias on your part

2. something which seems to be common thread running through all of your arguments. All evidence that you are wrong is ignored and any evidence that you might be correct is accepted without question or even examination.

3. You showed one instance where the climate sensitivity estimate had it's lower range dropped. It was raised onc (4th report) e and lowered once (5th report), it was 1.5 to 4.5C in the first report and 1.5C to 4.5C in the fifth report, which is explicitly what I told you. Now, I don't know why you are arguing about this but like everything else you have written about climate change you are clearly, factually, and demonstrably wrong, but I'm sure you'll invent another excuse to justify your refusal to accept reality.
4. The article you linked is a crock, it wasn't Iceland's chief meterologist who said it was being fiddled with, it was Christopher Booker, who's a columnist for the Telegraph and an anti-science crank, Here's a video explaining what the adjustments that Booker is complaining about are and why they are needed.

That's three major mistakes in one sentence, and it's one of your better sentences. A fact which should horrify anyone with half a brain. The simple fact is that everything you think you know is wrong but I am no longer willing to spend my time correcting you (and having the corrections ignored).

1. What you are experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance". You know the statements I make are true, but they conflict with your indoctrination, so you reject reality and instead decide to continue with your programmed responses. You claim others are "crazy" yet it is you who is unable to accept facts due to your programming. That makes you the irrational one who is acting "crazy".

No, what I am experiencing is a condescending jackass who thinks he's clever, but is actually particularly ignorant, dense and, I suspect, more than a little bit slow. I have become weary of your boorish behaviour and your plain fucked up insane bullshit. You are consistently and endlessly wrong, but I don't have the time to debunk 20 or 30 insane claims in every single one of your posts. You pile on the disinformation and insanity and it's just not worth my time to debate you any more.

The Scientific Method requires me to examine your arguments and evidence. You will notice I did, that I read through the sources you gave. What you didn't understand was how the sources were dissembling, but when their data was interpreted properly they support the climate realists position, and require that the Null Hypothesis be selected over the alarmist's empirically falsified CAGW. You are on the wrong side of history.

You wouldn't recognize the Scientific Method if it bit you on the a

BOOM! I gave you evidence that your positions are counter-factual, such as the Canadian Geographic article that polar bear numbers are indeed up, and that the surface temperature data is being fiddled as stated by Iceland's chief meteorologist, and that the climate sensitivity keeps getting adjusted down and still claimed as a far too high value (which means, CAGW is falsified).

Unfortunately, you didn't give me any evidence to contradict my views, I'm just tried of correcting you. For example:

1. The Canadian Geographic article says of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 3 are growing, 2 are stable and 6 are unknown. You seem to only see that 3 are growing while ignoring that 8 are in decline, and that seems to be simple confirmation bias on your part

2. something which seems to be common thread running through all of your arguments. All evidence that you are wrong is ignored and any evidence that you might be correct is accepted without question or even examination.

3. You showed one instance where the climate sensitivity estimate had it's lower range dropped. It was raised onc (4th report) e and lowered once (5th report), it was 1.5 to 4.5C in the first report and 1.5C to 4.5C in the fifth report, which is explicitly what I told you. Now, I don't know why you are arguing about this but like everything else you have written about climate change you are clearly, factually, and demonstrably wrong, but I'm sure you'll invent another excuse to justify your refusal to accept reality.
4. The article you linked is a crock, it wasn't Iceland's chief meterologist who said it was being fiddled with, it was Christopher Booker, who's a columnist for the Telegraph and an anti-science crank, Here's a video explaining what the adjustments that Booker is complaining about are and why they are needed.

That's three major mistakes in one sentence, and it's one of your better sentences. A fact which should horrify anyone with half a brain. The simple fact is that everything you think you know is wrong but I am no longer willing to spend my time correcting you (and having the corrections ignored).

1. What you are experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance". You know the statements I make are true, but they conflict with your indoctrination, so you reject reality and instead decide to continue with your programmed responses. You claim others are "crazy" yet it is you who is unable to accept facts due to your programming. That makes you the irrational one who is acting "crazy".

No, what I am experiencing is a condescending jackass who thinks he's clever, but is actually particularly ignorant, dense and, I suspect, more than a little bit slow. I have become weary of your boorish behaviour and your plain fucked up insane bullshit. You are consistently and endlessly wrong, but I don't have the time to debunk 20 or 30 insane claims in every single one of your posts. You pile on the disinformation and insanity and it's just not worth my time to debate you any more.

The Scientific Method requires me to examine your arguments and evidence. You will notice I did, that I read through the sources you gave. What you didn't understand was how the sources were dissembling, but when their data was interpreted properly they support the climate realists position, and require that the Null Hypothesis be selected over the alarmist's empirically falsified CAGW. You are on the wrong side of history.

You wouldn't recognize the Scientific Method if it bit you on the a

Your logical fallacy is... Bandwagon.

That's wrong. The logical fallacy is one of moral equivalence. Bandwagon is an appeal to popularity, which states that someone should do something because others are doing it — it's most commonly used as a propaganda technique, especially in advertising.

Your logical fallacy is... Bandwagon.

That's wrong. The logical fallacy is one of moral equivalence. Bandwagon is an appeal to popularity, which states that someone should do something because others are doing it — it's most commonly used as a propaganda technique, especially in advertising.

ALL the factors stopped simultaneously? wow ! and the massive heatsink of the ocean stopped exchanging energy with the atmosphere? and the cosmic ray interaction that affects water vapor greatly also stopped all variability ? All on the same day in 1950? you folks should listen to yourselves sometimes.

I see, when you can't deal with real facts, you resort to strawman arguments and ridicule. For the natural trend to end, as you should well know if you have the degrees that you claim to have, all that is required for natural warming to end is for the sum of natural forces to be reduced to zero or less. The oceans continue to act as heat sinks, but I hope you realize that the oceans are finite as is their capacity to absorb heat, and cosmic ray interactions not only have no measurable effect on the climate, if they did, they would likely be cooling it..

ROFL ! That must be the 'peer reviewed' source you are talking about, right?

No, that's the blog of an actual practising climate scientist, and he links to his data sources while explaining pretty precisely why everything you've written about the balloon data is pants-on-fire wrong.

You don't understand the Scientific Method at all, do you? a single counter-observation is enough to invalidate any theory. Einstein and Feynmann have famous quotes on this. But wait, the psychologist John Cook and his 'skeptical science' (which is all-too credulous of eco-lunacy) outranks Einstein and Feynmann in understand the Scientific Method, right?

I understand it quite well, but I'm not sure you understand the difference between finding a counter-observation and claiming you've found one.

Ok, now you are out and out lying. Of course you know the scaremongering used by the alarmists to extort Trillions of dollars from poor citizens to give to rich citizens in green boondoggles. The scaremongering which is increasing energy poverty and will condemn Billions in the Third World to poverty and even death (since you aim to make energy more expensive based on your anti-scientific Cult of Global Warming).

"Green boondoggles" whether or not they actually exist, have nothing to do with me or the statements I am making here. Appeals to consequences are fallacious arguments, so whether or not "trillions of dollars" are being extorted from "poor citizens" has nothing to do with whether or not climate science is correct.

You think you are the good guy of the story, but you are the villain who clings to failed predictions and twists and turns with your cherry picking because you cannot explain why the World does not warm at the rate your failed computer simulations predicted. But you will refuse to follow the Scientific Method and acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the feedback calculations that are the crux of CAGW theory.

Contrary to your claims, the models are reasonably accurate. I am following the scientific method, you have just failed to provide any data that actually contradicts any of the theories that you claim are false. Every argument you have provided has already been examined and debunked hundreds, if not thousands of times already.

You are one of the inquisitors condemning Gallileo for pointing out the observations don't match your eco-religious viewpoint - and you think shouting louder will make your failed predictions come true. This is anti-scientific and fanatical on your part.

Wait, are you Gallileo now? When did I start shouting? How tenuous is your grip on reality?

When I supply you with quotes of UN people saying they

ALL the factors stopped simultaneously? wow ! and the massive heatsink of the ocean stopped exchanging energy with the atmosphere? and the cosmic ray interaction that affects water vapor greatly also stopped all variability ? All on the same day in 1950? you folks should listen to yourselves sometimes.

I see, when you can't deal with real facts, you resort to strawman arguments and ridicule. For the natural trend to end, as you should well know if you have the degrees that you claim to have, all that is required for natural warming to end is for the sum of natural forces to be reduced to zero or less. The oceans continue to act as heat sinks, but I hope you realize that the oceans are finite as is their capacity to absorb heat, and cosmic ray interactions not only have no measurable effect on the climate, if they did, they would likely be cooling it..

ROFL ! That must be the 'peer reviewed' source you are talking about, right?

No, that's the blog of an actual practising climate scientist, and he links to his data sources while explaining pretty precisely why everything you've written about the balloon data is pants-on-fire wrong.

You don't understand the Scientific Method at all, do you? a single counter-observation is enough to invalidate any theory. Einstein and Feynmann have famous quotes on this. But wait, the psychologist John Cook and his 'skeptical science' (which is all-too credulous of eco-lunacy) outranks Einstein and Feynmann in understand the Scientific Method, right?

I understand it quite well, but I'm not sure you understand the difference between finding a counter-observation and claiming you've found one.

Ok, now you are out and out lying. Of course you know the scaremongering used by the alarmists to extort Trillions of dollars from poor citizens to give to rich citizens in green boondoggles. The scaremongering which is increasing energy poverty and will condemn Billions in the Third World to poverty and even death (since you aim to make energy more expensive based on your anti-scientific Cult of Global Warming).

"Green boondoggles" whether or not they actually exist, have nothing to do with me or the statements I am making here. Appeals to consequences are fallacious arguments, so whether or not "trillions of dollars" are being extorted from "poor citizens" has nothing to do with whether or not climate science is correct.

You think you are the good guy of the story, but you are the villain who clings to failed predictions and twists and turns with your cherry picking because you cannot explain why the World does not warm at the rate your failed computer simulations predicted. But you will refuse to follow the Scientific Method and acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the feedback calculations that are the crux of CAGW theory.

Contrary to your claims, the models are reasonably accurate. I am following the scientific method, you have just failed to provide any data that actually contradicts any of the theories that you claim are false. Every argument you have provided has already been examined and debunked hundreds, if not thousands of times already.

You are one of the inquisitors condemning Gallileo for pointing out the observations don't match your eco-religious viewpoint - and you think shouting louder will make your failed predictions come true. This is anti-scientific and fanatical on your part.

Wait, are you Gallileo now? When did I start shouting? How tenuous is your grip on reality?

When I supply you with quotes of UN people saying they

So the kind of people who take Dork Enlightenment and Roko's Basilisk seriously now want to create an actual Tower of Babel.

Can't we just take it down a notch and worry about something reasonable - like the AI apocalypse or being wiped out by aliens?

So the kind of people who take Dork Enlightenment and Roko's Basilisk seriously now want to create an actual Tower of Babel.

Can't we just take it down a notch and worry about something reasonable - like the AI apocalypse or being wiped out by aliens?

Or at least aware enough to not take political advice from an AC.

Imbecile.

I also read about the involvement of a Christian organization on the parents' side, which gave me pause.

Genetic fallacy. Your opinion has been discarded.

I found this.

in an attempt to make Hillary's lie about dehydration seem more legitimate.

I'd suggest applying Hanlon's razor.

TV news are all rush-job cheap-skate slop-heads.

Perhaps they wanted to make it sound like they had a ground crew when they really didn't because they are cheap or late. There's many possibilities besides kissing H's ass.

(By the way, if it's humid, 78 degrees *is* hot in my opinion.)

Global warming denial is a bit like creationist science. Nobody outside the US really takes it serious.

Not quite: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/C...

He's saying that the wealth disparity is harmful, and giving too much power to too little people is not ideal. If you don't understand that, you might want to read up on the economic issues of the early US. Better yet, you might want to study history at any time, and any place.

Well let's look at history then. The corporations in the era you speak of had the power to wage war, jail and execute people who didn't pay their debts, and the most wealthy corporation to ever exist was worth 8 trillion dollars in today's money at its peak in 1637, which basically rivals today's US government. We haven't seen any corporations anywhere even closely being that powerful or wealthy in over two centuries.

The world's most powerful and wealthy people today pale in comparison to that as well. The saying "The sun never sets over England" comes to mind, not only to give you how much of an idea of just how much power England wielded over the entire fucking planet, but also the Lieutenants of the crown. The world's present richest person, Bill Gates, is nothing compared to ANY government official of that era.

And in spite of all of that, we're somehow in the worst of times?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...

I'm not a Clinton supporter and I don't think you have to trust her or the main stream media. But that is a wacko right wing site.
http://www.eutimes.net/2016/08...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/E...

There is also a strong correlation between Democrat governance and crime. Think about that the next time you vote.

You had me up to there. It's actually more that 1) There's a strong correlation between population density and Democratic governance (and its emphasis on shared services), and 2) There's a strong correlation between population density and crime. Might as well say something like "ice cream causes violent crime" or something. Yes, you said "correlation", but "causation" was strongly hinted.

Dunning Kruger effect.

Kurzweil (on the one hand) and all those people thinking the terminator scenario will happen (on the other) feel like theists who try to quash their theism by force, but it just pops up elsewhere in another shape.

Kurzweil's "we're all going to be immortal and the singularity will bring plenty to all" is: technology will let us make God and we will all go to techno-Heaven.
The terminator/golem scenario with the out-of-control superintelligences turning the whole world into computer material is: technology will let us make God and we will all go to techno-Hell. The more you get into the really bizarre end of the theology, the more obvious it is.

Now I realize my tax guy farking up is much less serious than my doc farking up. Still, the crap doctors have to keep track of/order tests for/ just to avoid a lawsuit is mind boggling.

Next time someone in your family needs serious surgery, or has some life-threatening disease, you should just ask your tax guy to do it.

Because why should we have regulations on the medical industry? Why should there be malpractice insurance?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/1...

http://listverse.com/2013/05/2...

"Why are you stopping me for speeding? There's murderers out there!"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/S... I'm not saying what she did was ok, I'm saying it shouldn't be prosecuted, and I comment in her defense because of scale, and all the context of today's political landscape. I'm considering how much flak she's already taken for this issue. And when discussing politics, part of the conversation really is purely comparative, it's inescapable. To ignore that is to be dishonest or blind.
Side-note: I also believe speeding shouldn't be treated like it is in the US, I like the Autobahn.

What do you think would happen if you had a secret or top secret clearance and emailed 110 confidential emails to people using unsecured email?

I don't deal with hundreds of classified pieces of information daily. Apples and oranges. But the point of the article was the FBI saying the issue has been investigated enough.

"Why are you stopping me for speeding? There's murderers out there!"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/S... I'm not saying what she did was ok, I'm saying it shouldn't be prosecuted, and I comment in her defense because of scale, and all the context of today's political landscape. I'm considering how much flak she's already taken for this issue. And when discussing politics, part of the conversation really is purely comparative, it's inescapable. To ignore that is to be dishonest or blind.
Side-note: I also believe speeding shouldn't be treated like it is in the US, I like the Autobahn.

What do you think would happen if you had a secret or top secret clearance and emailed 110 confidential emails to people using unsecured email?

I don't deal with hundreds of classified pieces of information daily. Apples and oranges. But the point of the article was the FBI saying the issue has been investigated enough.

Maybe they could be, but do we need to waste so much resources on this kind of legal witch hunt? The Iraq war has caused over 1 million deaths.

"Why are you stopping me for speeding? There's murderers out there!"

What do you think would happen if you had a secret or top secret clearance and emailed 110 confidential emails to people using unsecured email?

. Collin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails. Did they suffer, in any way, for using private, hackable email?

If that's true then THEY SHOULD BE ARRESTED TOO!

Possibility for what? Your premise is already completely arbitrary. Human and not-human are classifications that you imposed. Depending on which scientific perspective you are coming from it can vary from the moment of conception to the moment of birth, with lots of moments in between.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/W...

Your own logic can even be turned against you because there isn't a single moment of fertilization. It can take up to four days for a sperm and egg to form a zygote. You can never give a single point and say "look at that, now it is life." So yeah, you crying "but science" doesn't make your backwards opinion automatically irrefutable.

The medical term for what you're doing is called "projection".

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/C...

The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

The "trick," which was used in a paper published in 1998 in the science journal Nature, is to combine the older tree ring data with thermometer data. Combining the two data sets can be difficult, and scientists are always interested in new ways to make temperature records more accurate.

Tree rings are a largely consistent source of data for the past 2,000 years. But since the 1960s, scientists have noticed there are a handful of tree species in certain areas that appear to indicate temperatures that are warmer or colder than we actually know they are from direct thermometer measurement at weather stations.

"Hiding the decline" in this email refers to omitting data from some Siberian trees after 1960. This omission was openly discussed in the latest climate science update in 2007 from the IPCC, so it is not "hidden" at all.

Why Siberian trees? In the Yamal region of Siberia, there is a small set of trees with rings that are thinner than expected after 1960 when compared with actual thermometer measurements there. Scientists are still trying to figure out why these trees are outliers. Some analyses have left out the data from these trees after 1960 and have used thermometer temperatures instead.

Techniques like this help scientists reconstruct past climate temperature records based on the best available data.

Much has been made about emails regarding a certain paper that some scientists did not think should have been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. These emails focus on a paper on solar variability in the climate over time. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Climate Research, but under unusual circumstances. Half of the editorial board of Climate Research resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process. The paper, which argued that current warming was unexceptional, was disputed by scientists whose work was cited in the paper. Many subsequent publications set the record straight, which demonstrates how the peer review process over time tends to correct such lapses. Scientists later discovered that the paper was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

In a later e-mail, Phil Jones references two other papers he didn't hold in high esteem. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Yet, the papers in question made it into the IPCC report, indicating that no restrictions on their incorporation were made. The IPCC process contains hundreds of authors and reviewers, with an e

The admiralty law misconception

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

Remember: the first rule of Roko's Basilisk is you must never tell anyone about... oops, my bad.

Anytime someone starts in with this "simulated reality" bullshit, I now ask them their opinion on Roku's Basilisk. Because the same personality is also likely to believe in that, freak out, and finally shut up/run away.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

What gawker does isn't journalism, it's vandalism.

It's the way of the world now

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/J...

Exactly how many times have *you* personally been admonished for using the wrong pronoun or the like.

I have personally been admonished once that I can remember in the past year, for having used "tranny" when "trans" was appropriate. But I have read about situations in which being admonished once is enough to get fired.

PC is essentially consideration. Sure, there are some people whose needs are so out there that I probably won't afford them the consideration they would like

Perhaps some of the anti-PCers have seen the euphemism treadmill run long enough that they look at the history of "no, it's handicapped; no, it's disabled; no, it's physically challenged; no, it's differently abled; no, person first, it's person with a disability" and conclude that their "needs are so out there".

The Washington Times is also a right-wing rag, founded and subsidized by cult leader.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/T...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/N...

Men are the ones doing this. We are talking about what men do. To say "Oh, well, they're not REALLY men because REAL MEN don't do this" is just a transparent attempt by Jeff to distance himself from these men, and serves to distract from the larger point (the behavior of men vs women).

Gutsy would imply an act of bravery

Committing a crime in a country with robust law enforcement takes bravery...

But this extortionist is not merely "gutsy" — the "stunt" is also described in the write-up as "daring"... Carefully selecting terms and adjectives for (not so) subtle spin — while remaining factually correct — is what they teach in journalism classes. But some people are just natural — Vladimir Putin's weaponized propaganda organization would be most interested.

When the subject is described as "gutsy" and "daring", the punishment seems excessive — even if only to subconsciousness. Were it "plucky" and "outrageous" and a "crime" (or, better yet, a "felony"), rather than a "stunt", you'd be less likely to develop any sympathy for the criminal.

It also helps prevent any sympathy for the victim of the crime — see, it is Mitt Romney's own fault, according to many posters here, not all of them anonymous. (Should not have worn so short a skirt, if he did not want to be raped.)

You know it was the democrats who authored the Trail of Tears and removal of the Indians in general, right?

You know that party affiliation has shifted over the generations, right?

The Democrats were once the party of racism, right up until they weren't any more, and the Republicans decided to take over that mantle. Right at this very moment, the leader of the Democratic Party is a black man. Now how many self-respecting racists are going to stay in a party that's led by a black guy?

And no, before you finish crafting that snappy comeback, there is no such thing as "reverse-racism".

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...

I like "climate conspiracy theorists." It avoids the denier/denialist label that they dislike so much, and it's accurate since their beliefs all rely on the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy.

As far as anyone can tell, "Cultural Marxism" is just an angry far-right barking noise, the presumed advantage over "BARK BARK BARK!" being that it sounds like it could be more clever and meaningful, until you examine it. Its relationship to Marxism is completely unknown, and it's meaning, again, is so unclear that it might as well be an onomatopoeia for angry barking vaguely in the direction of vaguely leftist ideas.

All we know is that it seems to have roots in a term invented by Nazi propagandists.

I could not begin to list all of the crazy things ESR has written, especially since CatB. Rationalwiki has a collection, and they do mention his non-batshit writing, but essentially everything in the last fifteen years has been a stain on his character. Honestly, even before that he was a little unhinged. He has his place in open source history, but the best that you can say about him these days is that no one listens to him.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...

This is Poe's Law, right?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/P...

Not clear what weird conspiracy applies in this case

It is clear: The Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy. Global warming denialism cannot work without it.

Things rightwingers believe:
There is some mysterious force preventing our raising atmospheric CO2 content from increasing the earth's temperature as well defined and established physical mechanisms would cause
There is some mysterious force raising the earth's temperature, in parallel with our raising atmospheric CO2 content.
There is a giant unbreakable conspiracy of scientists to deny the above.

It is clear: The Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy. Global warming denialism cannot work without it.

Dammit, you blew my cover! Now the Illuminati have to take me to the Apollo filming studio to get me a new Identification. A pain in the ass with all the paperwork, you know

Not clear what weird conspiracy applies in this case

It is clear: The Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy. Global warming denialism cannot work without it.

The origins of computer related religious wars

I take comfort that Trump has already won, even in the fever dreams of those who support his opponents.

And to GP: systemd is Roko's Basilisk.