Slashdot Mirror
Over 10,000 Facebook Users Worldwide Falsely Check in at Standing Rock To Confuse Police (time.com)
More than 100,000 people from around the world have checked in on Facebook at the site of Dakota Access Pipeline protests in North Dakota, in an effort they hope will help protesters avoid detection by police. From a report on Vice:A call went out for Facebook users over the weekend to falsely check in at Standing Rock to confuse the police regarding protester identities and numbers. But it isn't clear whether the directive came from organizers on the ground at the Camp of the Sacred Stone, who call themselves Water Protectors because of the purported threat that the planned pipeline poses to Standing Rock's water supply, or whether it's a hoax. Protesters have been camped out at Standing Rock since April in response to the planned Energy Transfers Pipeline, but tensions reached a boiling point last week when protesters clashed with police and several vehicles were set on fire. Scenes of standoffs between riot police and protesters linked arm-in-arm were broadcast online via Facebook Live. Law enforcement used a sound cannon in an attempt to disperse protesters. Protest leaders in North Dakota say they were surprised by the Facebook check-in effort, but they appreciate it.
To no effect:
http://www.snopes.com/facebook...
from idiots clueless idiots calling the protestors hippies and ecowarriors.
That how poor the reporting on these protests are right now.
These arent tree huggers, these are Native Americans trying to protect land sacred to them.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
They have an angle. For example, when Snopes "debunked" how Hillary laughed while talking about the rape of a 12-year old girl, they went for the biggest strawman they could find. Yes, it's true that she was forced to defend that guy. Normal people aren't complaining about that part, just about how she did so.
See, Hillary laughed when interviewed about it. It's on the tape. That doesn't count according to Snopes because "she did not laugh about the case's outcome." They say she was just chuckling a few times, for example when saying she mistrusted polygraph results because they would've indicated her client wasn't guilty. Snopes, please tell us, why is the rape of a 12-year-old funny at all? Should we just ignore that Hillary has a rather morbid sense of humor?
Hillary implied that her client was guilty by her mistrust of the polygraph results where he was telling the "truth" about not raping the girl. But Snopes will summarize this as "she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty." Right, she only implied guilt based on inside knowledge that she should hold in confidence as an attorney. That's only a highly unethical violation of her attorney client privilege to imply things like this. But it's okay! She only mistrusts polygraphs--like the one she had him take and which he passed--because of this case with this man. She didn't come out and say he's guilty! It's not like you'd have to be an idiot to fail to understand the clear implication. Nothing to see here!
They say "she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story,"" instead they point out that she just put forth an anonymous source who allegedly told her the girl was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body." This kind of defense is exactly why we have rape shield laws nowadays--because people got fed up with this scummy tactic being used by defense lawyers and outlawed it. Yes, she may have some excuse of professional obligation there--this turns into a murky legal question. But morally? People thought this was such a disgusting, hurtful way to attack rape victims that it's been outlawed. Please let that sink in for a moment. It's true that she may be legally correct here. But how can you defend that kind of thing morally? [1]
So the thing is they really do massage how they frame the articles, which "facts" or formulations thereof they try to debunk--picking strawmen to attack when it suits their claims, and then they make summaries that are misleading. It's a more subtle form of bias with the intent to mislead, but it's clear enough if you actually read everything and do your own research. They simply don't expect anyone to actually bother to read things and I hate to say it, but they're usually right that people won't.
[1] Whataboutists: I'm also disturbed by some of the allegations against Trump. However, there is some evidence pointing to deliberate fabrications, making that less clear than it might be.
Wikipedia has a good article with lots of specific details:
The treaty produced a brief period of peace, but it was broken by the failure of the United States to prevent the mass emigration of miners and settlers into Colorado during the Pike's Peak Gold Rush. They took over Indian lands in order to mine them, "against the protests of the Indians,"[12] and founded towns, started farms, and improved roads. Before 1861 the Cheyenne and Arapahoe "had been driven from the mountain regions down upon the waters of the Arkansas."[12] Such emigrants competed with the tribal nations for game and water, straining limited resources and resulting in conflicts with the emigrants. The U.S. government did not enforce the treaty to keep out the emigrants.[12] In 1864 came the Sand Creek massacre on a camp of mostly Cheyennes by Colonel John M. Chivingtons army of one hundred days volunteers. The consequence was years of war between the Cheyennes and the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
It's not "private property". It belongs to the tribe.
http://www.kfyrtv.com/content/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yes Hillary laughed, she was a nervous 27 year old lawyer fresh out of school that had just defended probably one of the worst people in humanity and because the state fucked up she got the guy a significantly reduced sentence. So she laughed about how the lie detector was worthless as a way to cope with the horrible thing that the state and justice system allowed. There is NOTHING unusual about this. Cops and all kinds of people that deal with the worst of all human acts tell awful jokes about it as a way to cope with the horrible shit they are dealing with. Because if you can't try to deal with it you end up insane.
Nothing she did during the trial was abnormal for trials of these kinds at the time. When you judge history by today's standards it makes you a fucking idiot. We used to treat rape suspects like whores in court, that doesn't make it Clinton's responsibility that the courts allowed and even expected that kind of behavior. It was wrong, no one disputes that and the laws have changed to disallow these kinds of defenses but if she'd failed to make motions that were routine at the time she could have been professionally punished for failing to do everything she could for the client she was forced to defend.
Stop judging history through today's lens.