Slashdot Mirror

the corruption and incompetence levels of American law enforcement have been staggering.

For the drug war, there should be a distinction between federal and state enforcement because that changes who the "target" of enforcement is. That also doesn't address the goal of the drug war and it's efficacy as you are alluding to.

Finally, your argument that black markets create lower prices is anti-intuitive. Normally black markets raise the cost of goods or services because the financial model has to include the risk of being in the business.

If a drug becomes expensive the market will create alternatives. or an example take Krokodil(nasty stuff btw)
Recently because of state initiatives, the black market is competing with legal markets and the black market is cheaper because less regulation (go figure).

There is some truth to that but you must also consider the lack of regulation. For example, in high school it was easier to get any illegal drug than it was to get alcohol because a drug dealer doesn't care who they sell to compared to a store owner that could lose everything. Or using dangerous and cheaper substances to "dilute" the drug to make more money.

Is the rise in right wing politics in Europe enough for you? From, Brexit, to Le Pen to the recent German elections. Europe bans hate speech yet still having problems with hate crimes https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/...
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/...

As opposed to my-birth-certificate is none of your business or my-college-records are none of your business but I'm a Rhodes scholar and professor of constitutional law but get my EOs overturned at a record breaking level Obama?

By any number of metrics, the Obama administration was the least transparent administration in history, bar none. Just because you happened to agree with him doesn't change that fact. Obama had the largest number of lobbyists working in the white house in the last 50 years. The Obama administration lied to judges so they could spy on journalists and the AP to find white house leaks they didn't like. There is a list 3 feet long of incidence where the Obama admin concealed information from the public for political advantage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://reason.com/archives/201...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/o...

Ignorance. Socialism is not communism.

True. Socialism is Communism-lite. The difference is merely in the degree. The (glorious) Collective is more important and trumps the Individual. And, as Karl Marx taught us, Socialism is merely a stepping stone to Communism.

Socialism accepts private ownership of anything, including the means of production.

Nope, not the actual Karl Marx' version of it. But, whether the means of production are ostensibly private owned or in outright government possession is of no importance — a distinction without difference — when the government can control any aspect of the production it chooses to. And it can, through that vastly giant loophole of "sensible regulations" you allow it to have.

[...] you fear socialists are going to seize the means of production from you? It doesn't work like that.

It works exactly like that. There is not argument for nationalizing public education, that can not also be made — indeed, is already made — for nationalizing public health care, or public housing, or public Internet service provision, public science, music and other arts.

Some countries are further along down this path — to their patently obvious detriment — than others. Like I said, a matter of degree, a quantitative rather than qualitative difference. The greater the share of the GDP, that is spent by the government, the greater the degree of Collectivism in the country...

The worst you have to fear are sensible regulations

Who the fook are you to "sensibly regulate", what I am doing in my house or what sort of thing I sell to willing buyers?

Oohh, scary.

Yes, it is awfully scary, that despite being the most murderous school of thought known to humanity, the branches of Collectivism (Fascism, Socialism, Communism) continue to appear attractive to a substantial proportion of population... You'd be appalled to meet an asshole in a KKK-outfit, but a far more dangerous asshole in a Che Guevara T-shirt hardly raises an eyebrow. Indeed, I suspect, I may be conversing with one on Slashdot right now...

An influential website linked to violence at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg last month has been ordered to shut down, in the first such move against left-wing extremists in the country (alternative source)

Appalled as I am by any move to suppress speech, I'm happy the most murderous school of thought known to humanity so far is finally the target. A T-shirt with Che Guevara is — ought to be — far more offensive than one with Hitler.

Everybody who was just okay with having Nazi flags around them was labeled a Nazi.

There were far more Communist symbols and slogans around — and Communists are far more murderous than even the Nazis were. Was it Ok to shoot the Communists in Charlotteville and elsewhere? How about driving cars into their crowding?

That's not even close to true. Nazis don't have freedom of speech in Germany, haven't had it for over half a century, but you still hear loud political discourse from all over the ideological spectrum. Nobody was "next".

Germany and free speech, Germany and free speech, where have I heard this trope before? Oh right, last year where a comedian was being charged for the crime of "insulting a foreign head of state". Now to be fair they did eventually drop the charges and made moves to drop that particular crime, though the current status of that effort I do not know. Who knows, maybe the made the motion of repealing it but it "Died in committee" only for the law to be dusted off again when it is convenient.

But the question remains, why was that particular thing codified into law? What prompted the German leaders to make it illegal to criticize foreign heads of state? Was there some pressing crisis of low moral foreign dignitaries in need of a safe space in Germany? I am not sure, but the after effects remain. This is yet another example of the chilling effects that free speech restrictions can have upon "loud political discourse". While you may say there is no slippery slope, I would say that this is but one example of one. Nazi's may not have freedom of speech in Germany, but neither do political comedians.

P.S. For those Slashdotters living in Germany, I am not aware of the current status of your Lese-Majeste laws but do be aware that U.S. President Trump is also a big fan of expanding Libel laws, so unless you know for certain that the law mentioned above was repealed you may want to keep quite about him. Because he will certainly use them against you if he can.

I think it's hilarious that all the self-styled "libertarians" here are freaking out about private businesses choosing not to host material they see as potentially harmful to their bottom line.

What in the sam hill are you talking about?

http://reason.com/blog/2017/08...

their Right wing social values that led to mass genocide

There is nothing "Right wing" about it, and that's the point — notably, you aren't citing anything specific. "Right wing" are about the Individual, however cantankerous, whereas the Left wing — be they Socialists or Fascists — are all about the (glorious) Collective.

Also, with the exception of Hitler, there was no "mass suicides" either — neither Mussolini nor Franco were especially murderous, for example. For true mass murder, Socialists/Communists can't be beat, even Hitler is a distant second. And yet, you did buy that Che Guevara T-shirt, didn't you?

it's really the reason to hate Nazi's

You seem to use "Nazi" and "Fascist" interchangeably, which is incorrect. Only German Fascists were Nazis, and even for them the genocide was completely "unnecessary". But I do not accuse "ANTIFA" of preparing gas-chambers for anyone. But they are quite unabashed about supporting the same Collectivism that is a major hindrance to both economic growth and human rights.

This is no different than every other stupid moral panic we've endured. If it's not terrorists in every neighborhood, it's pedophiles behind every bush and tree. If it's not pedos swarming the backs of local park bushes, it's out-of-control high-impact sexual slavery in every motel room even if no pimp or underage person is ever involved and everyone consents to what's going on. Anger and fear are the only two emotional states that cause the logical side of the brain to completely shut down. These moral panics exist solely for the purpose of power grabbing. It was never about protecting lives, children, or women; it has always been about making you afraid enough that you'll support permanent removal of the rights of yourself and others to conduct your respective lives as you see fit, giving that control to the authoritarian politicians that crafted the panic in the first place, and thanking them profusely for protecting you from others by making you a little bit more of a slave to the government and its very real slippery slope of control.

See also http://reason.com/blog/2017/06... and https://www.psychologytoday.co... and an interesting thing I found along the way http://www.acadiau.ca/~thomson...

"DUH, it's government so the money will just get wasted!"

Just a heads up, you interact with things, entities, and services that taxes pay for all the time.

We know that. We also know that when we increase funding for a certain bureaucracy they typically don't put the money into what it's supposed to be funding. One example:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/04...

https://consumerist.com/2012/0...

http://reason.com/blog/2016/05...

http://www.wnd.com/2005/04/297...

Is this the same Paul Ehrlich who predicted humans would be reduced to cannibalism by the 1990's ?
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06...
https://www.masterresource.org...

These guys are pseudo-religious nutters with their repeated doomsday predictions. Life has never been as good as it is today, but their myopic perspective and toxic personalities prevents them from seeing how good life is today compared to any other time in the past.

Smart Slashdotters can also see how good things are compared to the past, and how bright the future can be if we work towards making greater scientific and technological progress. Leave the quasi-religious eschatons to their 'sky is falling' narratives.

You ignore the countries that said they would also backout of the Paris Accord unless they get the monies promised them.

Protip: If you don't break the law, you don't have to worry about being """overpoliced""" (That is, you don't have to worry about being a criminal if you are not a criminal). It's that simple.

Protip: The average american commits 3 felonies per day.
The only reason you aren't in jail is because you aren't over-policed.

Meanwhile your apologia does absolutely nothing to address the problem of the police failing to follow-through on serious crimes.

...roll-back changes that basically defined corporations as entities entitled to spending this kind of money as freedom-of-speech.

Here's why you will fail:

On March 24, 2009, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart told the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal government had the lawful power to ban books if those books happened to mention the name of a candidate for federal office and were published in the run-up to the federal election in which that candidate was competing.

"It's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X, the government could ban that?" asked an incredulous Chief Justice John Roberts. Yes, the deputy solicitor general conceded, according to the government's theory of the present case, the government could indeed ban that book. "We could prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds," Stewart said.

We're not going to let the government ban books.

The Constitution doesn't reserve free speech for particular people. It doesn't mention people at all in regards to free speech. It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech".

UK already has hate speech laws, which must've been fine with you. And they are not "obsolete", but actively prosecuted.

Which was so cool with the "anti Tories", their Illiberal American brethren would love such laws to come to the land of the First Amendment — to the annoyance of the earlier generation of Illiberals, flabbergasted at what their rhetoric lead to.

As a Sanders supporter I'm quite happy to answer those questions.

And yet, you didn't...

the devil is always in the execution. You learn from failure

Communism killed 94 million people in the 20th century directly — plus tens of millions deaths due to Communism-induced famines.

And what was the result of that coercion? Millions of survivors with neither human rights nor material wealth. Nor health care, for that matter.

It is the deadliest school of thought known to humanity so far — even Hitler's peculiar variation of Fascism is a distant second. That is what's to learn from its failure.

Ah, but Socialism is not Communism, you'll say? Bullshit. Socialism is Communism-lite. And, besides, Bernie Sanders is an actual Communist, full monty, anyway.

We practiced Laissez-faire and it led to robber barons

Bullshit. None of it was worse, than what's happening in Venezuela today, for example.

Sell it as a way to prevent 'hate speech' and German government will be all over it.

And so will the American Left — fans of German government since 1930-ies.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/04...

I know the intent of the article is to make people enraged, and it certainly seems like something's going wrong here.

However, I have serious, fundamental reservations about government competing with the free market.

While certainly there are some circumstances, and this may well be one, where government can beneficially 'manage the commons' better than private or for-profit interests, there's something troubling about government agencies, on taxpayer funds, driving private firms out of business.

Yes, I see from the article that EPB runs a profit, and doesn't take tax money for operation. But do they bear the long-term capital costs that a private firm would for infrastructure? They certainly get use of city right-of-ways, no? In disputes over land use or zoning, I have to imagine they get a far more sympathetic hearing from city agencies?

In any case, it should be in the interest of any citizen to doubt the wisdom of establishing and protecting anti-competitive markets in the long run, not to mention the idea of a business having (essentially) the power of law enforcement on their side.

http://reason.com/archives/201...

Before the West imported large numbers of Muslims, we did not have . . . somewhere between 6 and 12% of the terrorism we get in the West today.

I fixed that so the viewers at home could see the truth rather than a complete fabrication with no basis in reality. But by all means, don't let facts and data get in the way of a good old fashioned islamophobic blame-the-brown-people polemic.

Here you go:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/08...

Though to be honest, this should be common sense if you understand even high school level economics: Increased availability of money towards X in-demand thing puts upward pressure on its demand, and increased demand puts upward pressure on its price. That's like asking for a citation that 2 + 2 = 4.

But if he realized that the 'work' was being used against their own citizens

There is nothing about that in TFA. We do know about Obama making it easier for his top staff to learn about — and inevitably leak — some such intelligence pertaining to US citizens, but it is still an awesome tech.

he would likely have burned not only his own work, but also the entire Bletchley Park complex to the ground and then shot himself after making sure the facts surrounding his actions went public.

No, I'm confident, he would've preferred the "domestic spying" — however appalling by itself — to Hitler's victory.

Actually, yes, it is true.

The rest is just analogies/parodies of the more common denier arguments. There's no honest way to sugar coat it, the deniers are the 21st century version of flat earthers.

... but I'm not too sure people in the US should be laughing at that. :P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://reason.com/blog/2016/0...

Not that I think police should be underequiped, inefficient, and with gear and vehicles in unuseable state like it happens here in Brazil, but I don't think MRAPs, tanks, and anti-explosive robots have a place in small counties and whatnot. xD
In fact, here in Brazil we do have a few armored trucks for slum incursions and such, but you know... rare exceptions.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/07/berkeley-deletes-200000-free-online-vide

Gallaudet University is a school for the deaf. They (Glenn Lockhart and Stacy Nowak) wanted to use the content for their coursework, but couldn't use it as is, so instead of providing closed captioning themselves or work something out for the specific material they were interested in they decided to sue Berkeley.

Sadly this is not made clear in the submissions to slashdot, so speculations run amok about ambulance chasing attorneys and some deaf students suing.

I hope Glenn and Stacy are happy with their result.

But does Meals on Wheels rely on government grants to do its good work? There are hundreds of Meals on Wheels organizations around the country, so it's hard to generalize, but overwhelmingly, the groups get the majority of revenue from charitable giving, not government funds. In 2015, for instance, the national Meals on Wheels reported that government grants accounted for just 3 percent of its annual revenues of $7.5 million. Meals on Wheels for San Diego County in California says that government grants made up just 1.5 percent ($68,534) of its revenues of $4.4 million. Not all branches are so independent. Atlanta's group gets 48 percent of its revenue from government grants (none of the annual reports I looked at broke down exactly what level of government or specific program supplied the money). Many of the annual reports don't even break down revenues by source (see here) and others aren't even posted online.

The source article has links to the numbers mentioned.

Once again, we see a Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferer crying wolf. Could you at least do that when he does things wrong? It dilutes the message.

And the federal government shouldn't be funding charities unless it's a direct exchange of money for direct services to the government like any other would-be private contractor. The federal budget isn't an endless stream of money to be spent on whatever whim of the moment you have.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03...

Maybe there's an opportunity for an app which crowd sources the transcription of videos without closed captioning? Maybe get the students at Gallaudet University to pitch in (sorry, I couldn't resist).

Will the Ex-Im Bank Enable Boeing's Deal With Iran?

Boeing Says China Is Going to Buy $1 Trillion Worth of Planes

Boeing pitches China facility as Trump-friendly

a government having a braindrain and becoming incapable of properly overseeing related aspects like elections, security systems or nuceal launch codes can become a huge liability.

I'm more worried about officials of the government — which is already a monopoly, by its very definition and function — turning those things into private cash-cows and sources of other undue influence, than I am about a corporation doing same.

The latter has already happened — numerous times in different countries, including the US. The former — not so much. And, even if/when it does happen, that standing army you mentioned will still be there to take over the miscreants.

Supposedly, NSA created a special Blackberry for President Obama — but they would not make one even for the Secretary of State. Today, aghast at the choice made the country's voters — the "little people", who "don't know any better" — the security apparatus are leaking embarrassing details about Trump's team. What hope do you and I have of prevailing against such organizations, if the POTUS is struggling against their sabotage?

With the braindrain you fear and lament, maybe, you and I and, indeed, anyone in the world will be able to buy a smartphone as secure as the President's. Secure not only against the US government's unwarranted searches, but against those of the really oppressive regimes. And the government's spies will be able to use the same off-the-shelf tech for their purposes...

He hasn't. But then, like most people, I'm not an American.

Nice dodge.

Mmm yes. You got me. I deliberately chose not to be an American so that when this conversation happened, I could humiliate you for your stupid assumptions. You caught me.

But do tell me how Trump is limiting the freedom of speech for Americans.

May learn to use google? http://reason.com/archives/201...

That was your argument after all. Now back it up.

You need to learn to moderate your tone.

Your post is the perfect example of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning in action. Let me hold up a mirror for you:

It is indeed the the PC left that is all about banning books at this moment in history. And editing out "magic words". But you decided to go with a made-up version of reality.

Steve Bannon is execrable. Full stop. But your idea of a pull quote is completely wrong. Full stop. When he said "shut up" was talking about "why doesn't the media understand what happened in the election." The reason was that they don't listen to real people. They don't stop talking to each other long enough to hear what folks out in the rust belt are thinking. Ergo, they need to "shut up" and listen. (instead of trying to tell people what they were thinking) Then they could understand what the people are saying.

No, both sides don't want "safe spaces".... at least not without redefining "safe space". "Safe space" doesn't mean "safe from getting assaulted by a mob", it means "safe from hearing things that I deem offensive", which in practice means "any idea I disagree with". It is entirely a convention of the left and almost exclusively a product of college campuses - although as millennials take up their place in society, the idea is moving outward.

Nobody calls anyone "snowflake" because they express concerns. That is way, way, way too charitable to the idea of a snowflake.

The only thing you are right about is that Trump appears to be his own version of a precious snowflake. That guy is impressively thin-skinned and any perceived slight is viewed as a personal attack and is reason enough for a counter ad-hominem attack.

For a little more perspective on what is happening on campus, read this guy's reporting on the campus beat. There are loads of articles listed on his page that cover the left's efforts at silencing dissent from the PC orthadoxy.

But, at least, a rapist can be expelled from a university on the victim's say-so — without appeal.

the cost to build such a large scale system (for example LA to NY) would be approaching a national commitment approaching that of the "Man on the Moon" of the late 60s

So cheaper than the California high-speed rail plan then.

Ok, let's roll out! Or hover as it were.

You left off the number:

(~2.5% of the USA national GDP for 10 years - effectively 1 in 40 people).

Currently the USA GDP is ~16 trillion a year. That means each year will be 400,000,000,000 or 400 billion, or just under 6 times the estimated cost of the entire California project. A year. Times 10, well, that's 25% of 16 trillion, or 4 trillion dollars.

the cost to build such a large scale system (for example LA to NY) would be approaching a national commitment approaching that of the "Man on the Moon" of the late 60s

So cheaper than the California high-speed rail plan then.

Ok, let's roll out! Or hover as it were.

Is not building roads/bridges/tunnels something, only a government can do? Crazy Libertarians may disagree, but we know, they are wacko...

No, it's something that the private sector will not do adequately, not something the private sector will not do at all.

Left to the private sector we'd get roads that are operated like ISPs or cable companies.

Is not building roads/bridges/tunnels something, only a government can do? Crazy Libertarians may disagree, but we know, they are wacko...

The "self-made man" is a fantasy.

Something a loser would claim to sooth himself...

whether you like it or not, you have an inherent debt

Fuck you, Socialist asshole.

The difference is the US tells you what laws we're broken.

Generally yes, but not always. Here's a shithole in Louisiana that begs to differ:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12...

This is a San Francisco-created problem.

http://reason.com/archives/201...

Here is an article on the other side of the argument.

tldr: article suggests safety net disrupts market reorganization in these scenarios by removing incentive to relocate and/or retrain, leading to multi-generational poverty

http://reason.com/archives/201...

No new coal plants were added, and solar became the top new source of generating capacity.

Want to guess why? Because one is subsidized and the other was successfully taxed and regulated out of existence.

No, it's for the same reason there was no capacity added from burning whale oil, namely that it's not economical. Natural gas (#2 on that list) is what kicked coal to the curb, not environmental regulation. There's lots of articles covering this, such as this one from not-exactly-a-bastion-of-liberal-thought Reason magazine.

Human Trafficking is this generations Satanic Panic.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/06...

https://reason.com/blog/2016/0...

And you also find studies that dispute that finding, including from the Nation Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

"NHTSA found that, once the data were adjusted for confounding variables, cannabis consumption was not associated with an increased probability of getting into an accident."

Far less truthful in politics than anyone else?

Yes. He uses the classic authoritarian big lie technique.

Remember Obama's peace award from Nobel? First black person elected in a country with so much history of racism? Yes. Please don't come back pretending that racism doesn't exist. As someone who travels and knows people overseas, Obama has also turned around the world standing of the US. We were hated for starting a horribly-unnecessary war. We lost a lot of soft power, and Obama restored a lot of it. Yes, he deserved an award for what his candidacy represented (and delivered, even if that's arguable to you).

Remember those posters of hope?

Just skip reading this one because it's who the hell cares, it's meaningless: I'm sorry, but there is nothing wrong with hope itself. If you don't follow with action, then that's a problem. But don't just blast hope.

We got: more drones

In place of American soldiers coming back in body bags. Yes, I'm very happy with the *scaling back* of war, I want it to continue (until it's gone? Idk about that).

more invasion of privacy

Idk about that. The patriot act was a republican thing. I think Obama did scale it back. I'm sure you'll disagree, but whoever's right, I also wished he scaled it back more. But do you really think a Republican will scale it back more? Come back with evidence of Trump's handiwork and I'll believe it.

more attacks on journalists

Are you kidding? Trump attacks journalists more than any politician I've ever seen.

more corruption in the DNC

That you know of. If the RNC were hacked, we could compare apples.

They are a fairly direct correspondence to free markets versus communism. We see equal opportunity being quashed in the name of equal outcomes.

Only because your choice of conceptualization requires you to be mislead that way. So you see things that aren't there, since you can't imagine them otherwise. The idea space is actually more complex than your views seem to encompass.

And numerous studies also reveal the inherent differences between the sexes, so force-fitting equality of outcome is an active step in sexism instead of letting people make their own choices.

Yes, yes, that's the windmill you're tilting against, thinking they're actual giants. They're windmills, Don Quixote. Not even alive! And they serve a useful purpose.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. You're seriously claiming that Western societies should import rape culture to teach them not to commit sexual assaults and rape?

Nope! I'm telling you that refugees deserve a chance to get out of it, so they aren't suffering from it.

I swear, it's like you have no idea how obvious you are.

I guess those 1,400 girls in Rotherham and the 1,200 women in Cologne can console themselves in doing their part.

Sadly, they are not alone, as sexual abuse scandals have rocked the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, Jehovah's Witnesses, various factions of Mormons, Penn State and more. Just last month, Operation Cross Country X picked up almost 100 minors, and over 200 traffickers. Internationally? The scope may be titanic.

All I can give you is commiseration, sorry.

The amount of liberal stupidity here is through the roof.

That's ok, no worse than the conservatives who seem to be intent on diving into the basement.

It's a finished basement, so it's concrete you know, concrete. It really hurts when you hit it.

Trump's childishness doesn't excuse the childishness coming out of feminists, and more broadly, to the diaper-wearing "social justice" movement.

That's ok, for me it's about taking the pretentiousness out of such claims. Lots of childishness to go around.

If this shocks you, I have only to remind you of Niven's 17th Law.

So a father is defending his son. And? Do you think there's a murder culture every time a mother defends her murdering son?

It may surprise you to learn that mothers are criticized all the time for defending their children, and yes, there are allegations of such cultures. Haven't you heard of them? Or you know, spoken of them yourself.

But enough of that, look at the defense the man chose to include. He'd have been a lot wiser to be more selective. Ah, such hubris on his part. When the sentence to others, was laughably lenient.

It could be it was consensual and hence statutory rape.

Way to look for excuses there. At least stick to the man having severe brain damage or something.

Yeah, it's still sick, but I don't see this as any evidence for "rape culture" of the hysterical nature demonstrated so profoundly by the Rolling Stones gang rape hoax that gained nationwide attention.

Is that supposed to bother me for some reason? I wasn't making that argument, I was pointing out that the world contains many facets to it. You can link o

You really don't have to think of them as having poles.

They are a fairly direct correspondence to free markets versus communism. We see equal opportunity being quashed in the name of equal outcomes.

Numerous studies reveal the existence of a multitude of factors that influence life choices, even irrespective of gender.

And numerous studies also reveal the inherent differences between the sexes, so force-fitting equality of outcome is an active step in sexism instead of letting people make their own choices.

Really, no matter how many times you rant about it as if it were some intent to foster those attitudes, the whole point is to get the refugees into a position where they can be influenced for the better.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. You're seriously claiming that Western societies should import rape culture to teach them not to commit sexual assaults and rape? I guess those 1,400 girls in Rotherham and the 1,200 women in Cologne can console themselves in doing their part. The amount of liberal stupidity here is through the roof.

I just don't know if it's a joke.

Trump's childishness doesn't excuse the childishness coming out of feminists, and more broadly, to the diaper-wearing "social justice" movement.

Yes, yes, and we have a world where a father complains that his son was punished excessively for 20 minutes of action

So a father is defending his son. And? Do you think there's a murder culture every time a mother defends her murdering son?

where a man got a suspended sentence for raping his 12-year old daughter, well, we could trade dueling stories for a long while.

It could be it was consensual and hence statutory rape. Yeah, it's still sick, but I don't see this as any evidence for "rape culture" of the hysterical nature demonstrated so profoundly by the Rolling Stones gang rape hoax that gained nationwide attention.

A celebrity comment's is considered meaningful?

It's meaningful that she was willing to give a figurative "fuck off" to her fans, but couldn't take the heat from some mild comments about not being a feminist.

I don't know what she is really thinking, but a person getting a million dollars an episode? Not sure I'd consider that anything but an outlier.

It's almost as if she gets paid according to her stardom and ability to draw in audiences. Funny how that works. Funny how the "wage gap" also disappears once you account for factors that would naturally affect pay regardless of sex.

And an important thing to remember is that the show itself handwaves a lot of issues and considerations. It's a comedy. Problems, conflicts, interactions and relationships exist for the purpose of comedy, not legitimacy.

Oh yes, this is really important. Because I really give a fuck about a feminist analysis of the show.

Many of the "right wing hate crime" hoaxes have been debunked.

Meanwhile, in many incidents people have been arrested for attacking Trump supporters or committing property crimes during anti-Trump riots.

You are part of the fake news problem.

Professor Melissa Zimdars' list of "fake news" sites, which is now making the rounds as some sort of authoritative resource, even making its way into browser extensions to "protect" users from fake news sites.

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...

http://nymag.com/selectall/201...

http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/...

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11...

There is a danger that all the sites providing this news are, in fact, fake news sites themselves...