Google Plans To Remove 'In the News' Section From Its Desktop Search Following 'Fake News' Criticism (businessinsider.com)

Nathan McAlone, reporting for BusinessInsider: Following criticism over fake news on its platform, Google plans to remove its "In the news" section from the top of desktop search results in a matter of weeks, according to a source familiar with the matter. It will be replaced by a carousel of "Top stories" similar to what now exists on mobile. This move had been planned for quite some time, the source said. The removal of the word "news" will, hopefully, help draw a sharper line between Google's human-vetted Google News product, and its main search product. Earlier this month, Google faced scrutiny when one of its top results for "final election count" was fake news. The top result in Google Search's "In the news" section was a Wordpress blog named "70 News," which falsely claimed Trump won the popular vote by a margin of almost 700,000. He didn't.

Comments

Democrats aren't dead yet

[fustakrakich]

Even from beyond the "grave" they just have too much influence.

Re:Democrats aren't dead yet

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been tweeting #NotMyPresident since the 8th. Why is he still my President?

Re:Democrats aren't dead yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you live in a democrazy.

Google will kill Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Black Lives Matter depends on fake news to justify its outrage against the police. It's a fact that Michael Brown wasn't shot by an overzealous cop, yet that's the story BLM wants you to believe. Google really should reconsider the impacts of their decision and the harm it will cause to blacks.

Re:Google will kill Black Lives Matter

[butchersong]

The black lives matter stories may rely primarily on false narratives but it is the officially sanctioned media outlets that give voice to those false news stories. The very ones the "fake news" filters are setup to endorse.

Re:Google will kill Black Lives Matter

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true. Just because cops kill one unarmed person every three days in the US doesn't mean you can't have your own facts that you like better.

Re:Google will kill Black Lives Matter

[butchersong]

In a year-long study, The Washington Post found that the kind of incidents that have ignited protests in many U.S. communities — most often, white police officers killing unarmed black men — represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings. Meanwhile, The Post found that the great majority of people who died at the hands of the police fit at least one of three categories: they were wielding weapons, they were suicidal or mentally troubled, or they ran when officers told them to halt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Is this the impression you are left with when watching the news?

Google Desktop?

[WD]

Google Desktop was discontinued over 5 years ago. What is this article even talking about?

Re:Google Desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article do not refer to "Google Desktop", but to "desktop search". That is, the version of Google Search (i.e. www.google.com) that you see when browsing with a desktop browser, as opposed "mobile search" which is the term for the version of Google Search, you are presented with when browsing from a mobile browser. The two may, and often do, give different results as the user e.g. might want more timely or location based results on mobile, while the user might want more background stories when browsing from a desktop.

What about the other false news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be any better than people peddling incomplete popular vote totals for a week, when 20% of Arizona, among other states, wasn't counted until what? The Wednesday after the election I think it was?

Projections are one thing, but at least wait for all the votes to actually be counted before you decide who won or lost the popular vote...

So sad that SJWs were the reason

[NotInHere]

I think that personalized news sites are orwellian and they create an echo chamber. You can't form an informed opinion if you only get news that already have your opinion.

Instead of banning these sites out of this reason like it should be done, they are removed because the filters are not conforming with what SJWs think is non-"offensive" articles.

Its so sad that reports about Clinton's corruption is classified as fake news by the SJWs who only care about "microagressions" and "pussy grabbing" instead of real crime.

Similarly the undercover footage that proved how the democrats have rigged elections (by abusing tolerant state laws and driving over voters with busses) and paid protesters since decades went almost unnoticed by the mainstream media (only Fox reported about it I think).

I don't agree with republicans about most of their issues, and clearly Clinton was the candidate I was rooting for, but in this election almost all of the mainstream media have supported clinton, and I still think that journalism critical about the democrats should be allowed.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[serviscope_minor]

SJWs who only care about "microagressions" and "pussy grabbing" instead of real crime.

Hate to tell you this buddy, but sexual assault is actually a real crime.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you can tell by all the prison time Slick Willie served.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[DishpanMan]

Let's play this narrative out out with Democrats "rigging" elections. 32 governors are Republicans. House and Senate have been and continue to be both controlled by Republicans. This equates to the most failed rigging ever by Democrats. The House has 239 of 435 seats as Republicans, 55% control. The popular vote was 60 million for Republicans and 57 million for Democrats in the House equates to a 51% majority for Republicans. The facts do not fit the rigging narrative. Republicans handed the Democrats another ass kicking in the elections. Crying foul after winning is like playing a victim when you win. It just does not work.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[butchersong]

Winning does not obviate someone's responsibility to go after instances or cheating. Voter fraud should be tracked down and prosecuted at a level equal to treason. Whichever side commits the act. It attacks our way of life in a very fundamental way.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[NotInHere]

You are applying stereotypes here. Just because I'm critical of SJWs doesn't mean that I condone rape threats or similar bad behavior on forums. Still, these people usually do it because they want a counter reaction, and this is what you give them when you reply to them or express "disgust" about them. So don't feed the trolls! Sorry for breaking this rule by writing this reply.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

What's sad is that asshole sociopaths like you

They're not sociopaths. They're frightened little boys, hiding behind whoever shouts the loudest and thumps their chest the hardest, hoping against hope that by doing so they'll fool others into thinking they're men.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[NotInHere]

Crying foul after winning is like playing a victim when you win. It just does not work.

I'm no republican supporter, in fact quite the contrary. Republicans are the graver of two evils. I'm just not a blind supporter of the democrats who thinks everything they do is great.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that maybe we need to look further into Bill's rides on Epstein's "Lolita Express" and why he refused Secret Service protection on some of the flights?

Sounds good.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Iamthecheese]

In the real world if a woman gives you enough positive nonverbal cues you go in for a kiss or make a pass. they "let you" (if you had seen the full Trump quote) do it. It's not sexual battery, it's normal human sexuality. Asking at every turn would turn off most women because it shows a lack of confidence. The world where overt verbal consent is given at every step does not exist. Fucking deal with it.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Guy talk is not sexual assault you fucking moron.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[gmack]

There problem is there is little evidence of wide spread cheating. Most of the accusations come down to and audit that found dead people being registered to vote and people registered to vote in 2 (or more) districts. Both are true statements but the people making the accusations are leaving out that both of those scenarios were happening by accident thanks to antiquated registration systems. People who moved weren't being removed from their old district when they registered at the new one and people who died weren't being properly flagged and removed. Trump was right when he said the 1.8 million dead people weren't voting for him, but they weren't voting for anyone else either.

That's not to say that it doesn't happen. There have been arrests, but people have blown the problem out of proportion and as a result, it became a law enforcement issue rather than a bureaucratic one

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[serviscope_minor]

Let me? Ew no. I prefer actual positive desire, thank you very much.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

YOu've obviously never heard of Project Veritas and the 3 million non-us citizens voting for Hillary.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Yes, but shittalking about it isn't, even while running for POTUS, unfortunately.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Yeah, and some others see that "positive desire" as anything from pushiness to sexual assault. Why, it would even appear that it's impossible to have a continuous spectrum of points without confusing at least some binary classifiers! I wonder if there's some theory for that...

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[AthanasiusKircher]

It's not sexual battery, it's normal human sexuality. Asking at every turn would turn off most women because it shows a lack of confidence.

Yeah, except when you are in a position of power over them, in which case you are using your position of power to force them to excuse your behavior.

Sorry, but when you have a power imbalance in a relationship, it's important to verify that what's happening is actually okay. Just assuming they'll "let you" is NOT appropriate. Forget about sexual assault for a moment -- have you never in your life been put into an awkward position by someone who had power over you, and you felt you couldn't "say no" or else risk something significant (e.g., job, money, etc.)? I certainly have.

Much more mundane example -- I've been in a few job interviews over the years, for example, where I was asked blatantly illegal questions. After I once answered such a question honestly, I was then asked to reveal that information in front of a larger interview panel at the outset of an interview, obviously meant to bias the panel against me. All very problematic.

But did I object when they asked me to talk about that? They job was a REALLY good one. What was I supposed to do if I wanted a chance at the job? At best, I hoped by going along with their request, I'd get the sympathy of some of the panel for the fact that some of their colleagues were doing something deliberately immoral (and indeed I did get some sympathy, as the interview turned very awkward).

But at what point do you "say no" in a situation where it could hurt your career?

Anyhow, now, imagine you're a young woman just starting a career and a powerful billionaire comes up to you and starts kissing you and grabbing your crotch. Your options are: (1) go along with it, (2) wriggle out of it as gently as possible and hope he just doesn't do it again, (3) reject him but say nothing and hope he goes away, or (4) reject him and file charges. No matter what goes on, it probably turns into a "he said/she said" media fiasco. So, (4) is a tough choice to make. Either (3) or (4) possibly has a negative impact on your career, due to this guy's power. So, if you really don't want it, but don't want to ruin your chances, at best you try (2). If you're willing to actually prostitute yourself, you do (1).

But in ALL FOUR SCENARIOS, you were basically assaulted, because you didn't want him touching you.

I cannot believe that people would defend such nonsense. Trump says explicitly "I don't even wait." Wait for what, exactly? Permission? A sign of interest? Nope -- "I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."

Not they "want you" to do it. No, they "let you" do it. Which means it's more than likely that some of these women fall into one of the four categories I mentioned above.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a 10 year old recording though, so he wasn't running then.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Winning does not obviate someone's responsibility to go after instances or cheating. Voter fraud should be tracked down and prosecuted at a level equal to treason. Whichever side commits the act. It attacks our way of life in a very fundamental way.

Yes, that woman who voted twice for Trump should be hanged.
That said, if you think voter fraud is a big issue, then you've been reading too much Republican bullshit designed to disenfranchise minorities voters.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[serviscope_minor]

Yeah, and some others see that "positive desire" as anything from pushiness to sexual assault.

WTF? How on earth is it sexual assault for my partner to be enthusiastic rather than merely "letting me" have sex? That doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeezus fuck. Can you stick to an argument or accusation ? So now it's he used a position of power to coerce women into unwanted sexual conduct ?

Know why no one believes your shit any more ? Constant reading in of your narrative.

Shit like this: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/20/opinions/trump-tweets-on-hamilton-snl-obeidallah/index.html

How about you stick to what he says ? I don't even like him, or how he speaks about women / sex, or think he'll be a good president - but I love that people like you are spited in spite of my nose.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[AthanasiusKircher]

How about you stick to what he says ?

I quoted him exactly near the end of my post. I have no idea if he ACTUALLY committed sexual assault (though there clearly are some women who have accused him of it). But the way he phrased it strongly implies that he did, or at least that he was okay with it.

OR all he said was just "locker room talk" and bragging about stuff he never actually did. Which is fine (I guess), if that's what you believe. But if you take what he said literally, it's disturbing.

And oh -- I also was REPLYING to another post by the way. My post wasn't only about Trump. In general, I think the whole concept that "I think she wanted it" when she doesn't say so has historically been used to excuse way more cases of sexual abuse (or at best, unwanted sexual advances that a woman just "went along with") than it has been for cases of women who want a man to "take charge."

Finally, keep in mind that we're talking about encounters apparently between strangers. It's definitely different if you're in a relationship already with someone and sexual "touching" is okay to try to get someone in the mood or whatever. With a stranger -- particularly if you're in a position of power -- you want some sign of approval or permission before grabbing genitals. Sorry, that's not only the moral but the legal thing to do... whether you're Trump or anyone else.

(I frankly cannot believe I actually had to say that to someone.)

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you can tell by all the prison time Slick Willie served.

Eat shit and die, sack of shit...

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[wisnoskij]

But what are you going to do? They already self filter anyways. I have friends online that even with Snopes articles backing me up, and a video of the original interview, still just say that some anti-Hillary article is fake news. Perhaps it actually is better for their mental health to just be allowed to never hear any opposing opinions. They will not change their opinions either way.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I think you missed the point...

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron. Everyone knows this. You're on a soap box for no reason.

As are most social warriors. Again why you lost.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[serviscope_minor]

Given I was the one who brought up positive desire, I'm pretty sure I knew what point I was making.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[fustakrakich]

Regardless, does anybody see what obsessing over a silly tape (as opposed to evidence of an actual assault) cost in terms of the election? Passed you right by it did. I mean, did you want to lose it? Just as good really, it would have been a far bigger loss if real issues were at the forefront. I guess the democrats needed the distraction, like using Monica to derail the Whitewater investigation away from actionable charges. Kinda of a reverse *wag the dog* thing.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Shane_Optima]

Hate to tell *you* this buddy, but it's not a crime if they "let you do it", which are the words Trump used in that conversation. Obnoxiously macho and bragging, sure, but he thesis was obviously that women would let him do anything he wanted. You can call that what you will ("pathetically over the top exaggeration"), but it's not bragging about assault.

The right can get away with playing fast and loose with reality. The lesson I would hope that people would take away from this election cycle is that the left doesn't fare nearly as well when they stoop to the same level of deception and/or disorganized thinking. Trump may well have committed a sexual assault or three in his lifetime, but he's yet to admit to it, and every time you try to pretend he has you make your/our cause look that much more pathetically desperate.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Tolerant liberal.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Bing Tsher E]

And Sexual Harassment is a crime. Unless the Chief Executive who is sexually harassing subordinates* in his office happens to be popular with Mainstream Feminists.

(* any time there is a power dynamic, i.e. the head of an organization is engaging in sexual acts with an intern, it fits the definition of sexual harassment. Except when it's somebody special. See above paragraph)

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'd rather that we look further into the allegations that Trump repeatedly raped an underage girl at one of Epstein's parties. As a matter of fact, Epstein was reportedly enraged that Trump took her virginity -- apparently Epstein wanted that girl for himself.

So yeah, I'd really like to know what happened.

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill... That you?

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my no, if "they let you do it" is such a misleading concept that it causes a lot of problems, as not all rape victims are in a position to offer resistance.

There's a difference between consent and compliance that is very important.

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Shane_Optima]

None of that is relevant when dissecting Trump's own words to determine whether or not he appears to be confessing to a crime. And he did not appear to be.

On a related but separate note, it's completely fucking horrifying that wide swathes of the left have a default assumption of lack of consent when they hear these kinds of things. We saw something similar a couple years back with the "fuck her right in the pussy" meme, as if anything said in an enthusiastic or macho voice automatically implies rape. This infantilization of women and trivialization of rape by pretending to see it everywhere is... not very helpful to women who actually have been sexually assaulted. Quite the opposite, in fact, since the reactionaries have been whipping up a stronger and stronger backlash every times these things are debated.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

That stupid conspiracy theory? Guy gets caught with a high school hooker's report cards in a trash can and now he has secret pedophile jets and child sex slave islands. You are showing the damage of fake news clearly.

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Heterosexuality is only a crime in your Progressive police-state dystopia.

Among sane, decent people it's your perverted sexuality that's criminal. Yes, YOUR'S. You silverspoon SJWs said "fuck you" to traditional tolerant, pluralistic Liberalism - preferring to force your despicable anti-morality down the throats of an unwilling populace. Did you think all the decent people of America were just going to sit there and take it?

Well watch out, broham. Tyranny is a two-edged sword. Your time is coming.

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

All heterosexual sex is rape, right buddy?

WRONG.

Guess what, buddy: there are a LOT of folks out there who believe all sodomy is abomination to God, deserving of the most barbaric punishments.

Us Liberals used to protect you sodomites. We felt you were the underdogs, and that it was wrong to persecute people for the really very minor crime of lust. But now that you sodomite Progressives have become the Establishment, you have shown yourselves to be horrible tyrants.

When the pendulum swings back the other way, I don't know a single Liberal who's ready to stand up and speak out for YOU filthy, freedom-hating hypocrites.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[serviscope_minor]

Regardless, does anybody see what obsessing over a silly tape (as opposed to evidence of an actual assault) cost in terms of the election? Passed you right by it did. I mean, did you want to lose it? Just as good really, it would have been a far bigger loss if real issues were at the forefront.

Yes. I can see nothing amiss with a man running for the most powerful job in the world bragging about how he likes to abuse a position of power. There's no "real issues" there because we shouln't ever worry about a president abusing a position of power, right?

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[serviscope_minor]

On a related but separate note, it's completely fucking horrifying that wide swathes of the left have a default assumption of lack of consent when they hear these kinds of things.

Oh yes, it's completely fucking horrifying reading Trump's own words. For example:

You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait

That pretty strongly implies a lack of consent. Followed directly by:

And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

See how there's 1. an admission he doesn't bother to "wait". And 2. there's nothing about "they want you to do anything" or "they like it..." or anything. It's they "let" you. IOW don't put up a fight.

What's completly fucking horrifying is that you're excusing this behaviour not that I and many others think it's bad.

Quite the opposite, in fact, since the reactionaries have been whipping up a stronger and stronger backlash every times these things are debated.

Yeah in other news people happy to commit sexual assault get pissed off when they're told not to. You know what? I don't have a problem with that.

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Shane_Optima]

If you cannot see how the assumption of lack of consent is absurd, try reversing the genders in your mind for a moment. Don't confuse this mental exercise with arguing that sexual assault rates are equal among the sexes; the purpose is simply to realize that your mind will automatically come up with a very plausible non-rapey interpretation of those words if we can put to one side your misandry (possibly internalized) for a moment. Or you could try imagining it was a gay man talking about another gay man and "they let him" kiss/touch them. Is rape still the first thing that occurs to you?

You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait

Some encounters DO progress rapidly, without consent forms signed in triplicate, but the thing worth underlining here is Trump isn't giving a blow by blow (he's just tediously bragging.) We have no broader context here; Trump is describing only the alleged moment of truth. If you choose to parse those words to mean that Trump literally walks up to random women in the street that he doesn't know and starts kissing or fingering them before saying a word... you're an idiot. That's not the sort of thing that would pass unnoticed for years. There is obviously some form of a prelude... one that Trump is implying, with head-shaking machismo, is rather short.

What's completly fucking horrifying is that you're excusing this behaviour

I'm not excusing any behavior. I'm merely assuming Trump is describing (in an obnoxious manner) an encounter that progresses fairly rapidly through subtle flirting into kissing or fingering. I've had a few such encounters myself over the years. I wouldn't describe them with the words he used, but neither do I imagine a rapist using the words he used, either. Now, if he'd said "at first they sometimes fight it" or something, THAT would be a pretty big red flag.

But Trump does not describe their reaction... wait no, yes he does. He says "they let him do it". Which fine, in your warped mind could refer to women too terrified to scream out or push him away, but that is not the most obvious interpretation of those words. If you think that should be the default interpretation of those words, there is something seriously damaged with you and your view of male and/or female sexuality.

Once again, this isn't saying he's never committed sexual assault; it's saying that he's never admitted to it on tape.

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[serviscope_minor]

If you cannot see how the assumption of lack of consent is absurd, try reversing the genders in your mind for a moment.

Hm let me see. If some woman came up to me and started kissing me without my consent, yeah, I'd be pretty fucking pissed off. Doubly so if they did it from a position of power.

if we can put to one side your misandry

So it's misandry to not want to have women physically push themselves on me against my will? What the ever living fuck are you talking about?

Is rape still the first thing that occurs to you?

No, the first thing that occurs to me is you're a fucking moron because I never said anything about rape. You're using the classic right-winger technique of completely inventing stuff, then getting really outraged about it and finishing with climbing to the top of a very high horse.

I'm not excusing any behavior.

Yeah you are, you're inventing reasons why it's OK.

I'm merely assuming Trump is describing (in an obnoxious manner) an encounter that progresses fairly rapidly through subtle flirting into kissing or fingering

It's what clear the "don't even wait" means. It's not "things progess rapidly and I hardly have to wait at all" or "there's almost no waiting to get consent", no, it's that he doesn't wait at all. You're inventing an alternative version of reality where Trump said something different. Trump himself then went on to say:

  "Anyone who knows me knows these words don't reflect who I am. I said it. I am wrong. I apologize. ... I've said some foolish things but there is a big difference between the words and actions of other people."

Pretty clear then that EVERYONE except apologists knew what those words meant. Those words mean sexual assault. Otherwise why would he have to say his actions didn't match up with his words?

Now, if he'd said "at first they sometimes fight it" or something, THAT would be a pretty big red flag.

Yes, no one has ever been in a position of power to coerce something withour having the other person physically fight against it.

there is something seriously damaged with you and your view of male and/or female sexuality.

My view of sexuality is that it is not OK to use a position of power to sexually assault people. If you disagree, then frankly it is you who is deeply broken, not me.

Once again, this isn't saying he's never committed sexual assault; it's saying that he's never admitted to it on tape.

Except no it isn't. Otherwise why would he have to come out and say that he didn't actually do what he claimed to do?

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Shane_Optima]

Hm let me see. If some woman came up to me and started kissing me without my consent, yeah, I'd be pretty fucking pissed off.

Trump strongly implied there was consent, whilst giving no implication whatsoever there was a lack of consent.

Doubly so if they did it from a position of power.

Did Trump say anything implying that he was leveraging a position of power?

Don't mix up your sex scandals. I'm talking about the tape and the tape alone, because it was (as I argued weeks before the election) an embarrassingly cringy moment when I realized the left was ignoring the mountain of ammunition they had in favor of lying about what Trump had said, a lie that took me 30 seconds on Google to uncover.

Yeah you are, you're inventing reasons why it's OK.

No, I'm pointing out that you people are, at best, deeply confused about the "it" in that sentence. There's no implication whatsoever that the "it" was a woman being coerced in any way.

So it's misandry to not want to have women physically push themselves on me against my will?

You're doing it again. What appeal does the left have... left if you all resort to this sort of "Saddam had WMDs" level of fabrications? There is no implication whatsoever, in Trump's words, that the women were unwilling. His entire implicit macho thesis was some sort of animal magnetism bullshit.

He was trying to say (although he flubbed the words as usual) that beautiful women have always been attracted to him. You even quoted that bit to me. For fuck's sake, can't you see how sad it is that you want to make people believe he was bragging about raping women, instead of the infinitely more obvious ego-pumping interpretation that he was claiming that women were crazy attracted to him?

Pretty clear then that EVERYONE except apologists knew what those words meant. Those words mean sexual assault.

No, they don't. I can recall girls who have "not waited" to kiss me. It wasn't sexual assault, because there was strong implicit consent given (even if it was subtle) and also I made no attempt to avoid or disengage. Once time, I was "grabbed by the dick" (through my pants) literally less than thirty seconds after flirting began (...by a friend, not a sex worker, just to clarify.) Implied consent was most certainly given. I would characterize this encounter, wait for it... as one wherein the female involved did not wait.

"Not wait"..."they let you do it", among normal people without severe personality or sexual disorders, means to not draw things out with a ton of flirting. It does not mean to walk up to random strangers on the street and start doing things out of the blue with zero words or body language exchanged.

My view of sexuality is that it is not OK to use a position of power to sexually assault people. If you disagree, then frankly it is you who is deeply broken, not me.

I don't give a toss about positions of power, because Trump did not reference his position of power once in that tape. If you want to talk about him supposedly sneaking in and looking at naked women in his beauty pageants then yeah, that's fucked up and possibly a crime, but that's not the topic at hand.

I care about the tolerance and propagation of lies and self-destructive hysteria on the left much more than I care about the analysis of the character of Donald J. Trump. If you're trying to trick me into saying he's an asshole or a moron then let me just save you the trouble: he's an asshole and a moron. I am concerned with the fact that the left is trying to beat the right at their own game and doing irreversible damage in the process.

Except no it isn't. Otherwise why would he have to come out and say that he didn't actually do what he claimed to do?

Again, I cannot be bothered to follow these

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[serviscope_minor]

Trump strongly implied there was consent,

No.

Did Trump say anything implying that he was leveraging a position of power?

Yes it's only bad if the perp enumerates everything wrong with it. Never mind that he was IN a position of power. It doesn't count unless he said so. mmm hmm.

There's no implication whatsoever that the "it" was a woman being coerced in any way.

it = the kissing. It's quite clear. And he said quite clearly he did not wait.

You're doing it again.

No, this is entirely your invention. You made up some stupid scenario with the genders reversed. You seemed to expect me to think it was OK. Now that it turns out I burst your fragile little bubble, you've reverted to simply inventing stuff.

He was trying to say (although he flubbed the words as usual) that beautiful women have always been attracted to him.

Not according to him. Let me quote Trump on Trump:

I've said some foolish things but there is a big difference between the words and actions [...]

No, they don't. I can recall girls who have "not waited" to kiss me. It wasn't sexual assault, because there was strong implicit consent given

In other words they waited until there was implied consent. Implied consent is fine. No one outside of right wing nutjob fantasies is expecting a notarised form.

I don't give a toss about positions of power, because Trump did not reference his position of power once in that tape.

The only reason to not give a toss if if you want to use those positions of power yourself. I mean if you never mention that you're abusing such a position it's a-OK according to you.

Pro tip: it isn't.

Again, I cannot be bothered to follow these things in minute detail

IOW you can't be bothered to know what's going on so you simply invent shit, get outraged about then invent excuses for something that someone else has already apologised for. You sound like the very model of a modern right winger.

One of the other scandals might have been a lot more reasonable and serious... but the one the left choose to latch onto was... ... was braggin about sexual assault. Um gee, that's not a scandal. Every red-blooded man wants to sexual assault women amirite fellas? Er I mean that in some parallel universe just diving in without anything before is consent because if it wasn't, it'd be assault and it's axiomatic that a rightwing nutjob can never sexually assault someone.

Re:So sad that SJWs were the reason

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, well, you know, pick your fights, that kind of thing. This one didn't seem to help much, did it? Evidently more people looked in their wallets and bank accounts and the "fake news" and decided that the DNC's abuses were worse. Too bad they saw the republicans as the only alternative. Together dems and reps are an abusive tag team. I tried to tell people... Vote third party/independent, but does anybody listen? Nope, they jump on my bones about it. Not much choice now but to wait and see what happens, is there? And if you want to curb the abuses, don't reelect the abusers. Personally, I find the continuous 97% reelection on congress pretty horrible. It just indicates that people don't care, abuses or no. To me that is the "real issue" of real importance. I can easily blow off the bragging.

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Shane_Optima]

Trump strongly implied there was consent,

No.

Yes. You want us to interpret the word "let" as "outwardly let, but they didn't really *willingly let* him because they were under coercion", which in the context of Trump's tape is a whole-cloth fabrication. There was no such implication in the tape.

it = the kissing. It's quite clear. And he said quite clearly he did not wait.

Correct. And then people like you added "for consent [be it implicit/explicit/any]" to that sentence, when there is every implication to the contrary.

This isn't my only point here, far from it, but I am curious: do you honestly believe Trump meant to say "I've always been automatically attracted to beautiful women" (a rather hollow sentence, even by his standards)... or, given the over the top bragging context of the conversation, was he trying to say "beautiful women have always been automatically attracted to me"? And if you admit that he meant to say the latter, I'm very curious about where you think you can sense this implication from Trump that the women weren't into it.

The only reason to not give a toss if if you want to use those positions of power yourself. I mean if you never mention that you're abusing such a position it's a-OK according to you. Pro tip: it isn't.

Non-sequitur nonsense. I care about leftists lying about the contents of this specific tape as a compelling example of the sort of misfires that led to Trump's election. If there's evidence elsewhere that he abused his power then he abused his power. That doesn't excuse bullshit like this, where you blatantly lie about the contents of a tape. The alt-right feeds and grows on this very thing, this whinging leftist PC masochism that cheapens and weakens terms like "rape", "misogyny" and "racism" whilst actual victims (very possibly even including victims of Trump) slip under the radar.

IOW you can't be bothered to know what's going on so you simply invent shit

I've invented nothing. I've merely responded to the soundbite that people like you are responsible for inventing and pushing, after the man gave you a mountain of legitimate and very powerful ammunition to use against him.

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[serviscope_minor]

Yes

No, I've explained twice. You keep repeating the same crap. There's more to sexual assault than having to noisily fight off an attacker. Repeating "let" at me does not change that fact.

There was no such implication in the tape.

Apart from that bit about *not* *waiting* followed by Trump's own apologies stating his actions were NOT the same as his words.

do you honestly believe Trump meant to say...

Well this takes the biscuit. You have built up a little fantasy about what you wished he said.

That doesn't excuse bullshit like this, where you blatantly lie about the contents of a tape.

In your mind, me reading the transcript, taking the obvious interpretation AND Trump own apology is "blantantly lying". Wanna know why the left lost? It's because there is literally no fact which will make its way through your skull. When presented with incontravertible evidence to the contrary you literally invent facts. You and the minority of voters who happened to be in the right places.

The alt-right feeds and grows on this very thing, this whinging leftist PC masochism that cheapens and weakens terms like "rape"

This is the other reason the right won. You are literally making up lies about what I said and then claiming it's my fault. There is no way to reason with people so disconnected from reality as you. I guess the "left" was not prepread to to what you want which is to pander to your insanity.

I've invented nothing

Apart from a weird fantasy about what happened which does not match reality as well as inventions about me speaking about rape. So apart from inventing most of what youare talking about, nothing at all.

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Shane_Optima]

You keep repeating the same crap. There's more to sexual assault than having to noisily fight off an attacker.

And an assault is not implied in that tape, in any way shape and form. I'll keep repeating this (well, for one or two more replies, anyway), so long as you keep repeating your fabrications.

Apart from that bit about *not* *waiting* followed by Trump's own apologies stating his actions were NOT the same as his words.

1. Guilt by apology? That damns a lot of people right there, including a lot of rape victims. 2. He was still trying very hard to not lose the evangelical vote. There's no particular reason to suspect he was saying "I didn't really rape anyone" when the Christians were pissed off about the crudeness / fraternization / possible adultery.

And you completely gloss over the fact that "not waiting for any consent whatsoever" is not a reasonable interpretation of those words. Seven years ago, a girl I'd never been with before "didn't wait" to grab my dick. I'm not inclined to brag, but if I were I would probably say something to that effect: "She didn't wait!" If grilled in detail, I might have to clarify: "Ok, she paused for a split second on my inner thigh, at which point I did nothing but indicate my continued interest in the endeavor", thus clarifying that consent was provided, but that doesn't make a terribly good macho bragging story does it? She didn't wait. She grabbed me by the dick. These words do not carry an implication of sexual assault except among some rather hysterical sections of the left who seem largely unaware of the damage their overeagerness is doing to their own cause.

Well this takes the biscuit. You have built up a little fantasy about what you wished he said

He stumbled over a sentence and interrupted himself. You did not answer my question: what do you think he was trying to say? I care about the actual tape and the actual picture he was trying to paint. You appear to care about none of that; you care only about the witch hunt and the broader picture. Well, it turns out the youth of today doesn't really give a shit about your witch hunt mentality. I'm not saying smoking guns don't exist, but they didn't exist HERE.

You are literally making up lies about what I said and then claiming it's my fault.

You very clearly claimed that pussy grabbing is sexual assault. This is absurd. It is not sexual assault any more than "putting a diamond ring in my pocket" (with no further context provided) is grand theft.

There is no way to reason with people so disconnected from reality as you.

My claims have been extremely limited, sensible, and easy to approach if you're being intellectually honest. You're the one insisting that the entire picture be analyzed and judged in one fell swoop and bitching and moaning that I'm interested more in the micro picture of individual lies that led to an entire generation of young people becoming very disillusioned with the whole thing.

This is the other reason the right won.

Numbers show pretty clearly that disillusionment (low turnout), particularly among the youth, was the most decisive factor in this election.

Apart from a weird fantasy about what happened which does not match reality

I am rubber; you are glue? I'm talking about words on a tape and the mis-characterizations of that tape. You're jackknifing all over the damn place.

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[serviscope_minor]

You're jackknifing all over the damn place.

I weas following the irrelevancies you brought up. Nice double standard by the way. If I address them I'm "jackknifing". If I don't your points are left standing. You probably think you're pretty clever for setting up a win-win scenario.

Sadly for you it doesn't work and your weak rhetorical tricks are very transparent.

Anyway there's no point in "debating" with you further (and I use that term loosely because when I talk and you blather incoherencies in reply it's not really a debate). You can't stick to the topic, you don't read what I write and you hurl insults when I address what you wrote.

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Shane_Optima]

Let me reiterate for the one or two people who may have followed this thread: I very clearly tied this back to your original claim that the "grabbing by the pussy" line was a description of a sexual assault, a claim you doubled and tripled down on.

And now you're running away, because *you* can't stay on topic (the topic being that tape and that sentence and the surrounding context) or answer a very simple question like "what do you think Trump meant?" which (counting this) I've now asked you three times. And your parting shot is to claim that I'm the one engaging in rhetorical tricks and off-topic incoherences.

Just to recap.

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[serviscope_minor]

"grabbing by the pussy" line was a description of a sexual assault, a claim you doubled and tripled down on.

Combined with the "I didn't wait bit", and with his apology clearly stating his actions didn't match his words, yes.

what do you think Trump meant?

So you first say " line was a description of a sexual assault, a claim you doubled and tripled down on", but you then say "what do you think Trump meant?" which (counting this) I've now asked you three times". Make up your mind.

Am I refusing to answer or do I keep giving an answer you don't like? You've literally contradicted yourselfe in the space of 3 lines. I think that's a new record :)

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Shane_Optima]

Combined with the "I didn't wait bit", and with his apology clearly stating his actions didn't match his words, yes.

Didn't wait for what? A "hello" ? Eye contact? How *precisely* do you imagine this implied scenario going down, this one that he was bragging about and then apologizing to the Republican base about?

I just want to you fully articulate this ridiculous, raging fantasy you obviously have going on up there... this assumption that to "not wait" can only refer to not wait *for any sort of consent or reciprocal speech/action whatsoever* and that his words can only reasonably be parsed to describe an assault. Please, annotate the whole thing if you want. Give us a blow by blow of the subtext, as it appears in your mind.

The apology is irrelevant. Trump has never apologized to or courted SJWs in his life. He was obviously worried about the Mormons and the rest of the evangelicals who genuinely do get into hissy fits when sex is even brought up at all (notice how things went in Utah?), let alone highly crude talk of extramarital sex.

Re: So sad that SJWs were the reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, Trump's character aside, as because in judging him, I think you'd be a decade or two too late if you'd heard his words live, let alone the recording, I was talking about your words, and I hope you do understand the point that I was making, it is more significant than you realize. Saying "if they let you do it" is a way to cause a lot of problems, since there are many "legitimate rapes" that are not involving actual resistance, for a variety of reasons.

Do try to exercise more care in the future.

Why is this downmodded

[HBI]

It's the truth. The first news out of all of the riot locations was "fake news" by the definition being bandied about today. But *that* fake news is protected speech, but this kind of fake news is damned to hell.

Re: Why is this downmodded

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the fakest part of the news was that BLM was a terrorist group of cop killers.

Even this weekend, with multiple assaults on cops, it came up, but so far none of them seem to be victims of any organized efforts.

Good on you for believing the story that all of the cops killing citizens were justified, that's fake too.

Who decides?

[BobSutan]

Who gets to decide what qualifies as "fake news" vs "real news"? Thus far the bulk of the stories surrounding the subject are largely just the left-leaning mainstream media outlets being butthurt over Trump's win and Bannon giving Breitbart a huge heaping of credibility. This move by the left to censor various news outlets is largely just a response to them getting their comeuppance for their hubris.

In the end let's call this #fakenews trend what it is: an attack on conservative and right-leaning media outlets not already in the fold of what constitutes the "mainstream media". Even if you don't take a news/media company seriously, that doesn't for a second think they should be excluded from the marketplace of ideas. That includes those on the fringe like Infowars, Hell, even The Inquirer has broken some very real and legitimately big stories over the years.

Re:Who decides?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gets to decide what qualifies as "fake news" vs "real news"?

I do! Next question please.

Re:Who decides?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true. Just because the White Nationalist are kicking butt right now doesn't mean it's fake news.

Re:Who decides?

[PvtVoid]

This move by the left to censor various news outlets...

There is no effort to censor anybody. The purveyors of "fake news" are free to publish whatever they wish. If Google, or Facebook, decides that they will no longer index such sites as if they were reliable sources, that's not censorship.

Re:Who decides?

[slack_justyb]

Okay I'll bite. But I'm sure I'll regret it.

So when the story is that Trump won the popular vote, that's fake news. It's pretty easy to show, Trump just up and up didn't win the popular vote.

My favorite from the Denver Guardian (to which I might add there is no such organization called the "Denver Guardian" which the "Denver Post" who does exist had to post a story on their site to ensure that no one confused them with this made up organization) of "FBI Agent suspected in Hillary email leaks found dead in apparent murder-suicide." The story went a little something like this for those who forgot, "Investigators believe FBI agent, Michael Brown, 45, shot and killed his 33-year-old wife, Susan Brown"... Needless to say all of those names are made up, the event is made up, no one of any of those names were ever shot/found dead in the Walkerville, MD area or by those names in the state of Maryland period.

One more just to hammer the point, Denzel Washington's support of Donald Trump. First, Denzel Washington openly supported Obama in 2008. Second, the words quoted as coming from Washington were actually someone else's words. Finally, Washington was never public about whom he supported in the 2016 election. He could've supported Clinton or Trump, but the fact remains we don't know because he never made any public comments about it.

Now some might argue that this is all lame crap anyway. Who cares what Denzel Washington thinks, seriously I can't remember the last movie I ever saw him in and he really doesn't strike me as being all that big of a political influencer!? One could say, "just look up the popular vote and those who don't actually research deserve to be treated like idiots." And finally, the Maryland murder some might just reply with, "Well that's what they want you to think!!" Or as I've heard a lot of folks make the argument for, "Well CNN/MSNBC/(insert some liberal scum's name here) are posting stories that aren't based on fact! So who are you going to trust!?"

The thing about it is that you need to take information in aggregate. We don't base scientific fact on just a single result, people shouldn't become homogenized to a single outlet, even though that is what every news site wants you to do when they say things like, "The most trusted source of ... ". Additionally, fact outright rids itself and refuses introduction of just false at face value results. Hence the reason we are sorely lacking in theories describing the relationship of unicorns to gravity, all of those theories tend to get ousted from the word go. And yes, one might argue that news is different from scientific fact, because news is subjective or whatever. The thing is, is that news is events that have actually happened. Finding out the exact details of what happened, why it happened, and what possible outcomes from it happening are domains of journalism and I would dare say that that's evidence that while the methods of getting from point A to B in science and journalism are different, they are both ultimately motivated by an underlying desire to find truth.

Is there going to be bias, yes. Of course, there will be bias, it happens in science, it happens in news, it happens in politics, there's always some level of bias and we should always go into something with the understanding that there's going to be that bias there and it's the reason why we need multiple sources of information so that we can see where the points of truth intersect between the different sources. Fake news, is a source where zero of it's points intersect with any source of information and sometimes zero of its points intersect with reality. Yes, it's fun to go full on tin-foil hat and think that everyone is in on it and thus the reason no points intersect is due to some larger conspiracy, but geez I can tell you it gets very tiring working for the Illuminati having to modify all those Tweets and news stories from local vendors to keep all the sheep happy, it's just a ton of work.

As someone

Re:Who decides?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, the far left ideologues taught you to call all who voted trump (rather than for the pseudoliberal crony Hillary) a bunch of white nationalists? I mean, the same people who kept pushing false information non-stop such as Hillary having a 98% chance of winning...

So just who is pushing all of the fake news again?

Re:Who decides?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's certainly a attack against free speech.

Sounds very childish to me to blacklist all news but I've come to expect these sorts of temper tantrums from far left ideologues who believe in free speech but only if you agree with them.

Re:Who decides?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Thank you for your post. Sincerely. It's one of the best written things I've read here on this topic, as it has been rehashed dozens of times over the past couple weeks.

People seem to want to focus all the attention on potentially biased news sources or whatever, but as you rightly point out, there are HUGE amounts of actual, literally FAKE news -- where everything in the story is false -- circulating and being passed around. Some of it is from trolls. Some of it is people writing parodies and hoaxes. Some of it is from propagandists on one side or the other. But a lot of it is actually FAKE. Not "biased" or "distorted" or "up for opinion" Literally asserting that things happened which did not (and the writer knows they did not).

But while we're all here debating the nuances of whether CNN or Fox or whatever is really all that bad -- this literal made-up crap is flying around the internet.

I'm NOT in favor of censorship. But should Google work to try to get this made-up junk that is LITERALLY FALSE from appearing in a "news feed"? Yes. Should we perhaps try to create some sort of tags for sites that are known "parody" or "hoax" sites, so people can ID them at the outset, rather than passing them around as if they were fact? Maybe. We all know about "The Onion," but there are plenty of other lesser known or more subtle sites like this, which we KNOW were sometimes passed around by prominent leaders in the past election cycle as if they were fact.

Don't censor the trolls. But for clear, egregious cases of outright falsehoods, I think at least labeling them somehow to make them easier to stop is perfectly reasonable.

Re:Who decides?

[Bing Tsher E]

So, basically, this whole controversy is about shutting down The Onion.

Good. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Re:Who decides?

[Xylantiel]

A long but good reply. Intentionally completely made-up news is not equivalent to bias or incomplete fact-checking. That is the false equivalence that seems to be being pushed by the trolls here on slashdot.

Re:Who decides?

[AHuxley]

Re "Who gets to decide what qualifies":
Teams of SJW's, staff from kingdoms, theocracies, cults, Communist nations, celebrities, NGO's, bureaucrats, mil/gov contractors, well funded activist foundations..
Web 2.0 and social media will be turned into a huge safe space.
Then they will come for search terms and stop search engines from finding actual results.
Language limitations and real time corrections in comments, apps, email, browsers to stop people from reading different ideas.
Free speech and fun will be gone.
Due to that gov sanctioned public private partnership all the best people, the fun people, the smart people will just drift to real US platforms that will allow freedom.
Freedom before during and after speech is what sells to the world. The internet will be fun again and the brands that failed to protect freedoms will just be understood as portals to boring govs and teams of SJW.

Re:Who decides?

[rtb61]

Well for a start, saying that it is left is false, far more accurate to call it the fake left. Liberal is to be open to knowledge and information not to be open to censorship, so not a left message at all, just a fake left message. Exactly the same as those fake conservative message, same deceitful people just hiding behind conservatism, just the same as they hide behind progressivism, when the only thing they believe in is exploiting everything and everyone to serve them.

So for the majority of people there is the left right political divide which is actually much closer together than most people appreciate. The divide is purposeful made wider by that parrallel political scale for psychopaths and narcissist between those who want to steal everything and those who want to kill everyone ie the private real face of those fake conservatives and fake progressives (they even put that in writing and yet you still refuse to accept it). Those who want to push censorship can not be from the real left, to be left leaning is to support open knowledge and information as a core tenet, every time you see censorship pushed, in corrupt individuals pushing a corporate agenda camouflaging themselves with a few left wing sound bites and you help them do it, by pushing their lie, that they are from the left, it is a lie. They are neither left nor right on normal human political scales, they come from that destructive one, steal everything on side and kill everything on the other side, do not support their lies.

Corrections

[Art Challenor]

Always remember that the reason newspapers post story corrections is to convince you that the rest of the information they printed was true. (Not quite sure how that translates to the Internet, but you get the gist).

Will this prevent wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will this also prevent the fake news that caused two wars in Iraq? You know news like the birds covered in oil in the early nineties to prove the evilness of the Iraq army in Kuwait, "Iraq soldiers dump oil in the Persian Gulf, a ecologic disaster", while the birds were from the antarctic area far away from the Gulf of Persia. Or the news about the weapons of mass destruction to prove that the NATO had to kill Saddam Hussein in the mid 2000's?

Re:Will this prevent wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up

Re:Will this prevent wars?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about the first war, I don't remember that story about the oil dump. Iraq really did invade Kuwait anyway, so there's a very good chance the war would have happened regardless. The second war: no, screening out fake news won't help when the government just straight out lies to the press. And when the government lies to itself - many members of congress were convinced by some embellished or falsified reports.

Screening fake news could maybe have prevented the Spanish American war though, which was basically caused by the press. Specifically Hearst and Pulitzer.

Re:but he did win

[skids]

dark Democrat money wouldn't be pushing the fake news agenda

You forget to add "and the large number of people who are sick and tired of having to debunk uncle bob's emails to nana for her"

Re:True Story

[MightyMartian]

I'm not sure whether I should be feel honored or mortified that I'm mentioned in this.

Re:True Story

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't answer his question

Re:MSM trying to get their power back

[Anonymous Coward]

I do wonder if in all this wanting to censor fake news, if they'd censor and remove what has been by far the most wide spread bit of fake news circulating. The bit that Clinton won the popular vote.

To those who want to argue that she did win the popular vote, let me ask you, was the election winner determined by popular vote? If you say no, then I ask you how Clinton could have possibly won something that didn't happen. If you say yes, might I recommend checking your meds.

Now to those who are going to argue this, remember, we have no idea how the election would have turned out had it been popular vote. I know I personally would have voted differently had it been popular, guaranteeing that the numbers we saw in this election would not have been identical in a popular vote.

By what definition?

[s.petry]

On the surface, like most leftist arguments I believe most people agree that sexual assault is a crime. That said, the definition of sexual assault has been expanded to include telling someone they are attractive, kissing them on the cheek, and in extreme cases women who regret their decision the next day.

Hate to tell you this buddy, but you are guilty of sexual assault too. Your partners have not yet decided to press charges, but you are absolutely guilty due to the broad definitions placed on the term.

Re:By what definition?

[amicusNYCL]

That said, the definition of sexual assault has been expanded to include telling someone they are attractive, kissing them on the cheek, and in extreme cases women who regret their decision the next day.

What does that have to do with anything? If you walk up to a woman you don't know and grab her crotch, is that sexual assault or not? Has that ever not been sexual assault?

Re:By what definition?

[s.petry]

Is a groupie guilty of sexual assault when they try to sleep with band members, actors, actresses? How about a more general woman who understands how to use sex appeal trying to sleep with people in power positions to get power? It is not a one sided issue, and you can't seem to follow a simple 30 second conversation. I have no confidence that you can see both sides of the claim.

Re:By what definition?

[serviscope_minor]

Well, you're absolutely right in that you're completely wrong and that's just a deeply odd fantasy of yours.

Re:By what definition?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Is a groupie guilty of sexual assault when they try to sleep with band members, actors, actresses?

Did the groupie grab the crotch of the band member/actor/actress without permission? Then, yes.

How about a more general woman who understands how to use sex appeal trying to sleep with people in power positions to get power?

Did the "more general woman" grab the crotch of someone "in power positions" without permission? Then, yes.

It is not a one sided issue, and you can't seem to follow a simple 30 second conversation.

No, it is you who seems interested in derailing a conversation by introducing irrelevant details into a conversation that's about something different. Yes, "sexual assault" might be ambiguous in some cases -- I don't think anyone here is denying that there can be ambiguity in personal interactions sometimes.

But you seem loathe to admit that if a person KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY grabs someone else's crotch without their permission, that IS sexual assault. Period.

Re:By what definition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a groupie guilty of sexual assault when they try to sleep with band members, actors, actresses? How about a more general woman who understands how to use sex appeal trying to sleep with people in power positions to get power? It is not a one sided issue, and you can't seem to follow a simple 30 second conversation. I have no confidence that you can see both sides of the claim.

I think you're confusing "assault","harassment" and "slutiness"

Re:By what definition?

[s.petry]

A groupie hanging with musicians offering sex is not committing sexual assault any more than the musician who sleeps with the groupie. It's not a one or the other thing, and rarely ever is. That is _YOUR_ logic failure, not mine. If real world circumstances "derail" the conversation it simply demonstrates your lack of ability to think and reason.

Re:By what definition?

[AthanasiusKircher]

A groupie hanging with musicians offering sex is not committing sexual assault any more than the musician who sleeps with the groupie.

Let's try again, shall we: If the groupie GRABS THE CROTCH of the musician WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION, that is sexual assault. Period.

"Offering sex" is different from literal unwanted physical sexual contact. When one says, "offering sex," that usually means something implies a verbal offer. Maybe a physical cue. Grabbing someone's genitals is MORE than merely "offering sex" -- it is acting with belief that the recipient already has approved the "offer."

"Offering sex" in an inappropriate context MIGHT constitute "sexual harassment" at best. And yes, in those situations, context may be much more ambiguous. But it is NOT sexual ASSAULT.

The fact that you seem unable to understand that distinction has gone beyond "logic failures." I'm actually disturbed by your willingness to excuse criminal behavior. I have no idea whether Trump actually committed sexual assault against any women, but IF he grabbed a stranger's genitals without her permission, he DID commit an assault. That's pretty much the legal definition of the term.

Re:By what definition?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet - no one has done that in this entire discussion. Know why you lost ? False news. Go read the CNN Hamilon reports about how Trump wants to "ban free speech" if you want some more.

Re:By what definition?

[amicusNYCL]

Is a groupie guilty of sexual assault when they try to sleep with band members, actors, actresses?

Are they walking up and grabbing crotches? If so, yes they are.

How about a more general woman who understands how to use sex appeal trying to sleep with people in power positions to get power?

Is she walking up and grabbing peoples' crotches? If so, then yeah she's guilty of sexual assault also.

It is not a one sided issue

It kind of is though really. The point you're trying to make is that people don't press assault charges if they welcome that behavior, but that doesn't mean it's not assault. The difference between an assault charge and getting laid is whether the other person welcomed the behavior. It's the same behavior though. Grabbing crotches in particular is sort of on the extreme edge of the "do you want to fuck?" continuum, right before just straight up trying to fuck them. I've kissed women without explicit consent, for example (which, yes, is assault also), but that's as far as I would be comfortable going. I wouldn't just go for the crotch grab out of the gate, I would do something like try for a kiss and if they pull away then I've got my answer whether or not they would welcome me grabbing their crotch. And, likewise, they are much less likely to press charges for sexual assault if I tried to kiss them versus grabbed their crotch. It's not hard to figure out.

Re:By what definition?

[s.petry]

No, you are absolutely wrong. Try a different extreme instead of a mantra chanted by morons. If you get invited to an orgy and visit the orgy, there should be the assumption that you are there for sex. Someone grabbing your private parts is not "wrong", it would be the normal given that scenario. That does not mean you can't say "no", but that you are in a situation that has an expectation that sexual contact is normalized.

If you don't want sexual contact, you would not be at the orgy. It is your decision to be there, and your decision to stay. That does not make anyone else at that event guilty of sexual assault because they are following the societal normal.

To claim that the same mentality of sexual contact can not exist outside of that extreme is simply asinine to the point of delusion/retardation. I have been hit on by women who want things. It was my choice to accept or rebuke the offers, and I'm not a person of immense wealth and power like an actor, or actress, or musician. Those type of people have tremendous amounts of pressure for sex, because sex is a method of advancement.

You can not deny that is factual, well documented human behavior and have any credibility.

The full conversation that you are talking about is Bush and Trump talking about exactly that type of woman. Trump shows his character after stepping off the bus and keeping his distance. Bush telling the woman to give Trump a hug led to Trump saying "it's okay, Ivanka lets me do that" so he tells her right away that he's spoken for.

You are a liar if you have never heard "guy talk" or "girl talk, unless perhaps you grew up a eunuch in a monastery. Even in the latter case I'm a skeptic. And yes, it seems like you have difficulty with honesty and reality.

Re: By what definition?

[Anonymous Coward]

So as someone who hangs out with swingers and actually goes to orgies, yes it is absolutely verboten to touch people without consent. It might surprise you but some people go to just hang out with friends or just watch. Sometimes they participate sometimes not. Just because you are there doesn't give other people the right to touch you. Your presence is not consent. Period. At best you will be kicked out of the party if you touch someone without permission, at worst you will get your ass kicked or have the police called on you.

Re:By what definition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course that is, but that's not what Trump was recorded saying. If you're alone with a woman and kissing her already, grabbing her by the pussy is basically skipping 2nd base and running across the pitcher's mound straight to 3rd. It's a bold move but not sexual assault.

Re:By what definition?

[vel-ex-tech]

How about a more general woman who understands how to use sex appeal trying to sleep with people in power positions to get power?

This can get complicated. Some girls think it's ok to just grab people by the.... One girl once when my woman suit was still brand new decided that she was just going to grab me by the chest. I think she was trying to get me to sleep with her so she could attempt paternity fraud. (Which is especially hilarious because despite what feminism says, it's a bit difficult to get a girl pregnant with a woman suit.)

While the legal issues get all kinds of murky there, I can guarantee you that just grabbing people by any body part than the hands is a great way to get people to hate your guts.

Incidentally in the intervening years I've found how to project a general aura of frumpiness around womyn-born-womyn that prevents most sexual advances.

On the other hand there's this crazy girl from the big city who keeps showing up at my house for the roommate's parties. At least she knows to ask before getting grabby with me.

I suppose that's one of the dangers of having a woman suit. Womyn-born-womyn may attempt to just grab you. I've never had that kind of a problem with boys.

I don't know. Maybe boys just like to be grabbed.

Re:By what definition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you don't attend many sex parties. Orgy rule number 1: Don't touch without asking.

Re:By what definition?

[amicusNYCL]

The full conversation that you are talking about is Bush and Trump talking about exactly that type of woman.

Really? They were talking about an entertainment anchor who was married (I'll leave it up to you to find out which one). Trump admits that he didn't get anywhere with her, that she refused him. He said he "moved on her like a bitch." So, if what you claim above is true, wouldn't he have succeeded? I mean, if that's exactly the type of woman who wants Trump to walk up and grab her pussy, wouldn't Trump have closed that particular deal? Once you reach a certain level of wealth or power, is it just assumed that every single woman you might meet at any point in your day is there because she wants you to fuck her so that she can advance in her career? Is that how you think? Or are you just going to reply to this with some stupid attack on me, like you've demonstrated so far in this very thread:

It is not a one sided issue, and you can't seem to follow a simple 30 second conversation. I have no confidence that you can see both sides of the claim.

If real world circumstances "derail" the conversation it simply demonstrates your lack of ability to think and reason.

And yes, it seems like you have difficulty with honesty and reality.

You can attack the messenger all you want, it doesn't make you right.

Make sure you read those AC replies above mine as well. You should probably also question their views on reality and thinking, that will help convince people that you're right. Insulting the people that you're arguing with is a sure-fire way to win any debate.

Re:By what definition?

[s.petry]

Thanks for proving that you can not follow a simple 30 second conversation. The discussion was about multiple women, not one. Thanks for playing "I can't see past my biases".

Re:By what definition?

[AthanasiusKircher]

If you get invited to an orgy and visit the orgy, there should be the assumption that you are there for sex.

You're shifting the goalposts from our previous discussion. An "orgy" is different from someone "offering sex" which is different from randomly grabbing the crotch of a stranger without permission. Let's try to be clear about what we're talking about.

If you don't want sexual contact, you would not be at the orgy. It is your decision to be there, and your decision to stay.

Agreed. Completely different situation from walking up to a stranger and grabbing their crotch.

I have been hit on by women who want things. It was my choice to accept or rebuke the offers

Did they randomly walk up to you and grab your crotch? Or when you say "hit on," do you mean something more like verbal cues, maybe a little "dirty talk" or innuendo, smiles, maybe a touch on a shoulder or hand or some reasonable part of your body that acquaintances might occasionally touch? That's quite different from grabbing a stranger's genitals.

You are a liar if you have never heard "guy talk" or "girl talk, unless perhaps you grew up a eunuch in a monastery.

Huh? Where did I say I've never heard "guy talk"? If you want to believe Trump's comments were just bragging about stuff that didn't happen, or exaggerating, or whatever, that's fine. I'd prefer it if my president didn't say such things where he might be recorded, but whatever. (You hadn't previously taken the argument that way -- that changes the interpretation significantly, if you're not taking Trump's words literally.)

BUT if what he literally said is true, and he walked up and grabbed genitals of women who were not previously known to him, that's concerning.

Re:By what definition?

[s.petry]

If what Mr. Trump said was true (grabbing them by the pu**y) there would at least be a court case. Instead, what we have is a setup question in a debate from an extremely biased liberal working in media followed by a dozen accusations which don't match the statement recorded. None of those accusations, even up to 40 years old, ever came up before the debates and no charges existed until then. Those accusations are all extremely weak (you can read) so I'd say not plausible that he's guilty. That does not mean impossible, but extremely unlikely. Double so when you have people like Clinton, who destroyed women her husband was guilty of sexual assaulting, telling people that they have to believe the accusations.

The first part of the tape is Trump saying he hit on someone and was turned down. Hmm, that does not seem much like a sexual predator to me. Then, if you pay attention to the end of the tape you see and hear that it was talk plain as day. He gets off the bus and keeps his distance from the lady Bush was saying was hot. Bush has to tell her "give him a hug", Donald keeps his distance. Then, he's not grabby at all and still keeps his distance. In fact he states right away that his wife allows it, letting the lady know he is spoken for. Again, not sexual predator behavior.

By the way, it is not moving the goal post to show analogy to demonstrate the argument. You did it twice, incorrectly in my opinion, prior to my analogy. My point is that sexual behavior among adults is common. Trump was the biggest reality star in Hollywood. If you don't believe he had tremendous amounts of pressure for sexual attention from women, you are a fool.

Re:By what definition?

[serviscope_minor]

If what Mr. Trump said was true (grabbing them by the pu**y) there would at least be a court case.

Bull fucking shit.

See this is how I know you're biased and irrational: when reality doesn't match your opinion, you simply invent a new reality.

Re:By what definition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is disgusting, however his assertion was that the women he was talking about were not rejecting his advances. He was saying these women were so star-struck that they would let a famous person do basically anything to them. Ahh, I remember grabbin' a few sweet pussies myself when I was a whipper-snapper (always at the request of a young lady, of course)!

Re:By what definition?

[mjwx]

On the surface, like most leftist arguments I believe most people agree that sexual assault is a crime. That said, the definition of sexual assault has been expanded to include telling someone they are attractive, kissing them on the cheek, and in extreme cases women who regret their decision the next day.

Hate to tell you this buddy, but you are guilty of sexual assault too. Your partners have not yet decided to press charges, but you are absolutely guilty due to the broad definitions placed on the term.

Sorry but this is absolute bollocks. The legal definition of sexual assault has not changed.

Your beleifs are the result of fake news. My favourite example is the old "you cant call it a gingerbread man any more, it's a gingerbread person" trope here in the UK. Nothing showed this to be bollocks more than when I was in Morrisons one day and found these. Supermarket chains get it in the arse for almost anything, so how can one be brazenly selling Gingerbread Men... Oh my word.

I'll tell you how political correctness and SJW's happen.

Deep within the bowels of the Daily Mail, there is a man named Steve. It's Steve's job to write articles. Because Steve is not a good journalist he makes up bullshit that gets people angry and riled up. Now down the hall from Steve is another man named Steve. It's Steve's job to sell advertisements. Steve likes it when Steve writes articles that get people angry for no reason because that makes people more susceptible to bad advertising.

Now Steve has made it clear to Steve that if the advertisements stop selling, Steve will be fired. There's no solidarity amongst Steves.

The problem Steve has is that Bullshit is like a bad drug. The more bullshit you take, the greater the resistance you develop to it. So Steve needs to create more and more incredulous bullshit to the people who read the Daily Mail eating it. So he starts writing about rumours, innuendos, taking things a 5 year old misunderstood completely out of context. It eventually gets to the point where the strength of the bullshit needed cannot be found in reality, so they start fabricating it completely.

People who believe in things like "PC", "SJW", "Nanny State/Statism" and "Righty/Lefty" who are the core of the Daily Mail's readership are the ones who swallow the most bullshit. That ladies and gentlemen are how SJW's work

Re:By what definition?

[Anonymous Coward]

None of those accusations, even up to 40 years old, ever came up before the debates and no charges existed until then.

Accusations against Trump existed before he was running for office. Check out Trump's actual history. People just didn't care. And Trump knew it.

My point is that sexual behavior among adults is common. Trump was the biggest reality star in Hollywood. If you don't believe he had tremendous amounts of pressure for sexual attention from women, you are a fool.

Your point is met by the one where sexual misconduct among adults is also common, and also commonly ignored and dismissed. If you don't believe he exerted tremendous amounts of pressure towards women who he sexually assaulted, then you are a fool.

Re:By what definition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when defending an obviously guilty person, it's always handy to throw up a cloud of hypothetical chaff. Not sure what "claim" you're saying there are two sides of. And if a band member pressed charges against a groupie, I'm sure the groupie would be prosecuted to the full extent. That's because the band member has money and power, and the groupie (usually) doesn't. If it were a rich groupie, then we'd have an interesting conflict.
Yes, poor men, subject to the depradations of cunning women. Nobody appreciates your kampf.

Re:By what definition?

[amicusNYCL]

And the one concrete example that Trump gave of a specific woman, who refused him, somehow does not disprove your "theory" that they are talking about "exactly that type of woman" and that "that type of woman" wants people with money or power to fuck her in order to advance her career. The only example either person gave of any individual woman was one who does not fit your ridiculous stereotype of what you imagine women to be like.

But, yeah, I can't follow a simple 30 second conversation. Right, attack me, not the obvious and basic error in what passes for "logic" in your arguments.

How about those ACs who shot down your "theory" of what a sex party is like? They're also wrong, aren't they? It's not that you have ridiculous ideas about what you think the world is like and just assume that all of them are true, right? It's everyone else who can't see past their biases, not you.

Re:By what definition?

[amicusNYCL]

If what Mr. Trump said was true (grabbing them by the pu**y) there would at least be a court case.

Is that how it works? The only reality is what goes on inside a courtroom?

Double so when you have people like Clinton, who destroyed women her husband was guilty of sexual assaulting, telling people that they have to believe the accusations.

No, I'm sorry, that never happened. The reason I know that is because there would be a court case. The only case filed against Clinton was for sexual harassment, by Paula Jones, not sexual assault. And if Hillary had "destroyed" women that her husband was guilty of assaulting, then there would be a court case against her, too.

Because that's how reality works. Also, I've never smoked marijuana in my life, because if I had, there would be a court case.

Of course, there was that one lawsuit against Trump for attempted rape in 1997, but I guess that one doesn't count because it was settled (although Clinton also settled his case with Jones, so I guess that case doesn't count either). There was also Ivana's sworn deposition that he violently raped her, but I guess that one doesn't count either because after Ivana agreed to a divorce settlement then Trump's lawyers convinced a book publisher to include a note saying that the word "rape" should not be interpreted in "a literal or criminal sense." I suppose Trump's lawyers know better on that one. There's also that lawsuit from a woman who says that Trump and Jeffrey Epstein raped her when she was 13, but that one doesn't count either, because it was filed during his campaign. Lawsuits that are filed when someone is running for office don't count and are always baseless and fictional.

But yeah, no court cases, which definitely proves that Trump has never done the things that he himself has said he has done.

Those accusations are all extremely weak (you can read) so I'd say not plausible that he's guilty.

If you don't mind, I'd like to tap your legal expertise on an unrelated matter. Bill Cosby - do you think it's likely that he assaulted at least one woman?

Re:By what definition?

[s.petry]

Yes, _YOU_ are the problem and no, the AC did not shoot down a theory. A person's personal anecdote does not disprove human nature. Dumbass.

Re:By what definition?

[amicusNYCL]

Yeah, Trump is talking about grabbing pussies but some random programmer in Arizona is the actual problem.

A person's personal anecdote does not disprove human nature.

I think you mean "a person's personal anecdote does not disprove my baseless analogy", but it sort of does.

Re:By what definition?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, you have to actually do it. Talking about it doesn't count. In Trump's case they were able to show that I think it ended up being all of them weren't even in the same city Trump was at the time. They were also paid to say they were sexually assaulted by the Hillary campaign I think.

Want to screw someone's political ambitions that is a guy - get a bunch of bitches to claim he sexually assaulted them and pay them. Unless he's a Democrat where that behavior is expected, it could send them down in flames. Ever notice that BTW, Democrats can do whatever the hell they want to women, that's fine. If anyone else does anything, heck they'll make crap up.. Now it's supposedly terrible.

I know a chick that used to be a guy. (S)he told me that that men are animals. Feel her butt, etc. Things I would never even think of doing or risk the woman slapping my face off my head, they do to her. Even frickin' (D) politicians try to get her to a motel. They don't seem to even care. So many politicians would be so easy to bag with this.

Re:By what definition?

[quantaman]

On the surface, like most leftist arguments I believe most people agree that sexual assault is a crime. That said, the definition of sexual assault has been expanded to include telling someone they are attractive, kissing them on the cheek, and in extreme cases women who regret their decision the next day.

Maybe that's true, maybe that's not.

But Trump was not accused of "telling someone they are attractive, kissing them on the cheek".

He's been accused, multiple times, of kissing them full on the mouth without invitation, often involving tongue. Groping them in intimate places, and continuing while the person has been asking them to stop.

He even bragged on radio about going into women's change rooms, without any announcement, purely for the purpose of seeing the women naked.

Why don't you try doing that a few times and tell us how it works out?

another misstep

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's made a lot of missteps lately. Add this to the list. In a few years, we'll be talking about how Google began its journey to being the next Yahoo.

Re:another misstep

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it has a long way to go before becoming the next yahoo.

Slashdot is just like my workplace

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is just like my workplace. It's been taken over by right wing nut jobs. Two years ago no one would have used the N-word at work for fear for being fired. Now they use it to describe the president of the United States pretty commonly. People I once thought were reasonable now turn out to be closet racists. This is getting seriously bad pretty fast.

Posting this twice

[NetNed]

So what's with all this worry now about "fake news"? Is that supposed to make me think that the mainstream garbage is all real? There is more bullshit and native ads on local, nightly, and 24 hour news then ever, but we are concerned about what someone deems "fake news"? The "fake news" could be substituted for "news we deem fake". The "we" being whoever wants to claim it is with out really having to prove so. It's the DMCA come to the news cycle. This leads to controlled propaganda news that has less truth to it than what we have now. I laugh like hell when President Obama puts in to a speech that we need to do something about "fake news" yet the Smith Mundt act (google it!) was repelled while he was in office. That's what's even more funny, that since Trump won the election the news channels and the democrats have carried on about a vast array of "thing we need to change" like they are actually going to do something and we are supposed to ignore the last 8 years. I am not for one party or the other, but what they are doing is like a husband getting caught cheating and continuing to tell his wife how their marriage should mean something. It's like a criminal telling a judge that they should do something with the system after they got caught.

Re:Posting this twice

[PvtVoid]

The "fake news" could be substituted for "news we deem fake"

So I guess you're arguing here that reality is entirely a media construct? Because otherwise, if actual facts exist, then there is an easy, objective definition for "fake news": false information which is knowingly and deliberately reported in order to influence public opinion. There's an older word for it: "propaganda".

Re:Posting this twice

[jez9999]

Apparently it's the Chinese. They've suddenly taken a great interest in Westerners knowing what is "valid" news.

Re:Posting this twice

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a good start for diving into fake news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0FAuP-Xyng

Timestamp in the video is 10/30.
The AP reported this as a car bomb that killed at least 10 people. NYT covered it and then later pulled it. It was still up on AP, yahoo, and a few other sites when I last looked.

There are lots of fishy things like this for many newsworthy events if you dive down the rabbit holes.

Re:Posting this twice

[NetNed]

Did you not read my post? I used the word propaganda right in the post. Was kinda hard to miss. Wait, Void? Like Voidzero???

Re:Posting this twice

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what's even more funny, that since Trump won the election the news channels and the democrats have carried on about a vast array of "thing we need to change" like they are actually going to do something and we are supposed to ignore the last 8 years.

No, I think you're confusing democrats in 2016 with GOP voters in 2012. I mean 2008. I mean democrats in 2004. I mean 2000.

Re:Posting this twice

[Xylantiel]

No. intentionally made-up "news" and biased news about actual events are not equivalent. The "fake" news problem is about actual fake stuff; intentionally and knowingly made-up stuff. Like with people in it that don't exist, etc.

Re:Posting this twice

[Anonymous Coward]

But how does anyone know any piece of news is propaganda or not?

Would an algorithm be able to do this? If so, don't you think people will succeed in "cheating" it, like we've seen for Google Search results over the last 20 years?

Would an AI be able to do this? If so, does creating such an AI equates creating God? After all God is the only being capable of discerning truth and lies with 100% accuracy. Do we want God in our lives? Do we want a God created by the GAFAs that will reflect THEIR political opinions?

My dear sir, you are dealing with issues bigger than yours.

Broken logic

[s.petry]

Is it not possible that Republicans could have won by larger margins, if we assume Democrats did rig? We call this affirming the disjunct, your logic is simply wrong.

Re:but he did win

[Trailer Trash]

dark Democrat money wouldn't be pushing the fake news agenda

You forget to add "and the large number of people who are sick and tired of having to debunk uncle bob's emails to nana for her"

Two things:

1. Ironically, my only uncle is named Bob. He's 83 now and finally took me off his mailing list at some point last year. But, yeah, I get it.
2. That said, this has nothing to do with people like him. If it did, we would have heard about it before Trump won.

Editorials as News

[PineHall]

When I was trying to find out who really was this Trump guy, an editorial was one of the news links on the Google News front page. I clicked on the link to learn more about him and had to deal with an editorial rant. That really bothered me. It was a clearly marked editorial in the opinion section of the web site. Google's algorithms should be easily able to remove those from the news. If Google News wants to post editorials, they should be clearly marked as editorials in the links. My trust of Google News was damaged and I am much more suspicious of Google News now. They can do better and should.

Re:Editorials as News

[Xylantiel]

These are usually marked as "Opinion:", so this is really just a processing mistake. This is obvious to anyone who has ever been to google news, so I don't know why you are pretending that google doesn't mark opinion as such. And you shouldn't "trust" google news for anything!!!! It's just a scraping service. If you don't pay attention to the actual source of the link you are part of the problem.

Ask your boss for a safe space

[sbrown123]

When this is all over we will come get you.

Who still uses Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the NSA / censorship Operation that is Google was exposed years ago.

Why are people still using a tool of the NSA?

If it's fake it's not news

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we stop dignifying conspiracy theories and flat-out lies by using the word "news" to describe them?

Re:MSM trying to get their power back

[fnj]

AC is deranged. Look, I'll make it simple for you. The people voted, and sorry to tell you, but YES, Clinton fucking won a plurality of the votes cast. DEAL WITH IT. That's what I'm doing. I'm not happy about it, but denying it is STUPID. Does it mean she won the election? Of course not. Everybody knows that.

Supporting BLM doesn't come w/o a price tag

[unixisc]

Thank 8 years of race merchandizing for things coming to this point. If President Obama didn't elevate the BLM thugs to the point that every other day, cops are targeted in the streets, it wouldn't have come to this. If President Obama had aggressively taken a bully pulpit to get Black gangsters on the streets off the streets, instead of leaving the po-po to hang out to dry, you wouldn't have seen this backlash

Re:Supporting BLM doesn't come w/o a price tag

[pseudofrog]

Yes, Slashdot has moved significantly to the right because the president said a handful of things about race relations over the past couple years. Great hypothesis.

Re:Supporting BLM doesn't come w/o a price tag

[unixisc]

I was actually talking about why the GP's colleagues started being more racist recently that they weren't previously. That is what was affected by the president cheerleading Black thugs in Fergusson, Baltimore and other places

Re: Supporting BLM doesn't come w/o a price tag

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure dude, keep telling yourself that it was all Obama's fault, those poor racists really are the victims here, and heck, even Flint Michigan is to blame for the lead leaching into their water.

Sweet.

[jimbob6]

Good.
Maybe now we can get the "From the Web" and the "Sponsored by Taboola" removed from Slashdot.

Re:Sweet.

[Bing Tsher E]

Slashdot is under new ownership. They're sorta scrambling to monetize the whole operation. As the site declines into becoming a tabloid, we will just have to deal with it. I guess.

The 'filter' functions are constantly being tuned. It isn't just to block crapflooding anymore.

Re:Sweet.

[yuriklastalov]

It's gonna be pretty hard for Whipslash to outdo DICE in the mismanagement department.

Re:but he did win

[skids]

If it did, we would have heard about it before Trump won.

Sometimes it takes a flashpoint to pop a seething bubble of frustration.

fake

[jmcvetta]

"Fake news" is fake.

Re:MSM trying to get their power back

[Anonymous Coward]

Clinton "won" only in California and New York.
We can slash millions and millions of votes if we do not count California and N.Y.

Divide and conquer ?

[cwsumner]

I have to wonder if our country, or maybe the world, is under a "divide and conquer" attack. An attack that uses psychological warfare operations, through the news systems and media services (including social media).

Or maybe it's just the political parties doing it? Nah... they are not smart enough. 8-P

Am I just kidding? You tell me, I don't know for sure. 8-)