Slashdot Mirror


Right-Wing and Fake News Writers Are Now Going After Elon Musk (qz.com)

Fake news galvanized US president-elect Donald Trump's supporters, and sullied his enemies. Now it may be Elon Musk's turn. Quartz adds: The CEO of Tesla and SpaceX has his fair share of detractors, but a new era in a public relations battle to discredit him appears to be taking shape. Bloomberg reports that hard-right groups are lining up to back misleading websites and fake journalists who attack Musk's business empire. Many of the attacks on Musk begin with something factual: His businesses were built, legally, with the help of billions in government contracts and incentives for renewable energy and space transport. But they go on to accuse Musk of fraud and wasting taxpayer dollars; some compare him to a convicted felon. At least three conservative sites have run negative pieces about Musk -- by a nonexistent writer named "Shepard Stewart" -- that include "Elon Musk Continues to Blow Up Taxpayer Money With Falcon 9" and "Elon Musk: Faux Free Marketeer and National Disgrace." Two later retracted the stories. "There's a very obvious precedent" for this, says Sam Jaffe, managing director of Cairn Energy Research Advisors. "That's Hillary Clinton." Musk tweeted this week, "Can anyone uncover who is really writing these fake pieces?"

736 comments

  1. What an empty life by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Folks that can't stand reality conflicting with their hate-based fantasies.

    1. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BBC...

    2. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Agreed. The left wing needs to stop the fake news smear campaign against Trump. It's sad that they can't accept the outcome of the election and, instead, continue making up lies about Trump and his character.

    3. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree, the left wing needs a dose of reality, but there's no hate like liberal hate. There's a lot of left wing fake news, including:
      * Michael Brown shot in cold blood by a cop (Michael Brown attempted to steal the cop's gun and charged at him)
      * Trump campaign might not accept the election outcome (Trump's campaign considered legal challenges just like Gore did in 2000)
      * Hackers caused Trump to win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (No evidence of hacking, but demographics can easily explain the outcome)
      * 2016 is the hottest year on record (The warming can actually be explained by adjustments to the data, thanks to some scientists having transparency)
      * Trump's economic plans to protect American workers were racist (Trump's economic plans were virtually identical to those of Bernie Sanders, who wasn't accused of racism in nearly the same way)

      When will we call out the left for their fake news? Why do we always blame the right? The left is far, far worse than the right.

    4. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is very sad. Fake news is responsible for hate groups like Black Lives Matter. Their whole existence is based on claims like Mike Brown being shot by an abusive cop, despite evidence that proves otherwise. BLM is an anti-police hate groups that exists because of liberal fake news. Stop the fake news and maybe the unrest and violence will stop.

    5. Re: What an empty life by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Half of the things on the left does not even seem to be in contradiction with the things on the right. :-p

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just look at how the democrats act ... and continue to act

    7. Re:What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you some kind of fucking retard?

      If you've ever used Facebook in your life you'd know the fake news thing is absolutely real. I've seen it over and over again for years, and it really ramped up during the election.

      Why do alt-right conservtards like yourself deny reality? Or are you just another vodka-swilling stooge doing what the Kremlin tells you?

    8. Re: What an empty life by dickens · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Make no mistake this is serious and these people are paid. It's about money and preserving the old energy business structure. Musk needs to hire massive PR and counterattack.

    9. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every thread devolves into sex; I didn't think this one would happen so early though!

    10. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a difference between fake news and biased takes upon it.

      It is subtle; but there is a difference.

      Michael brown: was shot by a cop; and the only "fake" part of this, is "in cold blood". But that is an interpretation of the news. the "Attempt to steal the cops gun and charged at him" is what the cop who shot him says right? So if the narative is the cop is lying, then it could easily be a true headline. What is being reported here, is that there is a dispute between what happened, and what is being reported. This is a case where there is some complexity. This is not fake news.

      Trump campaign might not accept the election outcome. Wheres the part where it was fake news? You agree that Tumps campaign considers legal action, the definition of not accepting the election outcome. So, you agree this is not fake news? PS. I'd like to point out that right now Clinton is considering legal action! would reporting that be fake news too? according to you, just because sometimes not accepting the election outcome is a thing that happens, that it is fake news!

      Hackers caused trump to win state X. This might be fake news. (Except, the news in this circumstance is more likely people reporting that Crazy person X says that hackers caused a Trump win - not "hackers caused it" but "crazy man says hackers caused it". I'm still calling it fake news so, thats something for you right?

      2016 is the hottest year on record. It is; according to the temperature data released by the scientists. Yes the scientists do modify the data to normalise it, that is how science works, if you don't understand it - please go and learn what they are doing. Is there room for different types of data manipulation? yes. That is what science does. Takes the figures; then normalise them to fix measurement errors. This is not fake news.

      Trumps economic plans to protect american workers were racist. OK, so your argument is Bernie had the same policies and wasn't called racist. But that isn't an argument against the headline. That is an argument about favourtism. As far as I can tell you fundamentally agree that Trump and Bernies plans were racist. Therefore, this is not fake news.

      As far as I can tell, you are 1/5. And that 1 is borderline.

    11. Re: What an empty life by burtosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I generally agree with what black lives matters is trying to do but am not a fan of how they run their organization.

      They often back people who were involved in police incidents without actually waiting for evidence to become available, then become entrenched and back them to the end in any case. In the original incident that spawned this group both civilian parties were acting badly, but in the end the person who shot was having his head smashed in on the curb or pavement with his assailant standing over him. In some actual cases the victim was the police who had to deal with a serious situation and were justified in action but this did not fit the narrative and much was made up to justify it. By backing these people they actually detract from the many legitimate cases of bad actors abusing authority that did lead to unnecessary violence. Media in general often runs pictures years out of date or shows selective clips to bias the reporting to maximize viewership, not even taking fake news into account. It is a serious problem; even just one bad person in a few thousand can ruin it for everyone through abuse of the system.

      Also people associated with the group are often a me only rights group and throw other groups like Native Americans who have it just as bad, as well as others under the bus. I don't see enough inclusiveness

    12. Re: What an empty life by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Fake news has been a thing for a long ass fucking time, why are they JUST NOW making a big deal out of it? Examples of really old fake news sites:

      prisonplanet.com and infowars.com (these sites are run by the same people)
      Every website owned by Kevin Trudeau
      naturalnews.com
      mercola.com
      Every 9/11 conspiracy theory site that ever existed

      I thought Trump supporters were going to be really fucking obnoxious when they lost...boy did I underestimate left wing supporters. Sure, Trump supporters would have created a lot of conspiracy theories too, but I really don't think they'd all suddenly turn 12 and block traffic and protest democracy, nor would they threaten to move to a country (Canada) that doesn't want people who want to ban firearms and block freeways.

    13. Re:What an empty life by Jzanu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      America owes the rest of the world an apology. And, when Trump is done and we come to rebuild your tattered industries and feed your starving people, thank us.

    14. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not usually that way on /. not that many posts here although GNAA sometimes stops by and starts threads out that way

    15. Re: What an empty life by lucm · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fake news has been a thing for a long ass fucking time, why are they JUST NOW making a big deal out of it? Examples of really old fake news sites:

      prisonplanet.com

      That site could fool anyone with their fake news; how could someone know that the current headline ("Butt-Hurt Losers Demand Election Recount!") is not impartial, objective news?

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    16. Re:What an empty life by redkcir · · Score: 1

      We are raising a whole generation of morons who think they are hurt by words and life in general. In California we have people suing a fast food place because they ate to much. We have people painting fake slogans so they can complain about it. The news organizations spending so much time writing fake news the real news gets unreported. We have brought this on ourselves for allowing our schools to teach "PC" instead of facts and terrorizing our children because the teachers think a chicken nugget was eaten to the shape of a gun or so other stupid idea that has nothing to do with teaching so mach as indoctrination of them.

    17. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahhahahahahahaha

    18. Re: What an empty life by lucm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think BLM is about every individual case (there's the ACLU for that), and we can all see that in some of those situations things are not that "black & white" (so to speak). In some demonstrations we can also see some form of hatred (against cops, against "white devil", etc).

      I think BLM is more of a reaction to institutionalized racism that persists to this day - things like black drivers being pulled over because they're black, which is real. The constant grind of discontent leads to this. Just like PETA they're a bit over the top and often biased and unfair, but they're the only way society can move forward. Middle-of-the-road opinions don't bring change.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    19. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People seem to be willing to believe stories that confirm their bias without checking facts or even using common sense.

    20. Re: What an empty life by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a systemic problem with their entitled mindset. Fake news is no different from the fake rape and fake attack accusations that individuals have been making recently, only instead of being actioned by individual actors fake news comes out via more organised organisations.

      They honestly feel that whatever their specific problem is, lying serves the greater good, which is a very childish position to be coming from.

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    21. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Michael Brown's shooting? I remember this. You can believe whatever story you want, but you'd best admit the stink is on both sides.

      I also remember what the DOJ investigation turned up.

      That police department, that city government had problems. You can focus on a single incident, but that'll miss the burning forest.

    22. Re:What an empty life by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      In California we have people suing a fast food place because they ate to much.

      Have you seen the calorie counts on some of these plates for a single meal? I get accused of "skinny shamming" my friends if I eat one-third of a 1,500-calorie plate in the restaurant and take home the rest for two separate meals.

    23. Re: What an empty life by execthis · · Score: 0, Troll

      Not sure what this MSM uproar over "fake news" is about. Is it blowback for the right exposing their coverup of Hillary's seizures? The idea that there is "fake" news sounds like something straight out of some dystopic authoritarian regime. Information is out there. Some is more factual than other. But we live in a society in which no one has the right to censor information of any kind.

      This entire "fake news" thing is bullshit, just like the rigged mainstream media in this sick plutocracy.

      Thank God for Donald Trump.

      Drain the swamp!

    24. Re: What an empty life by execthis · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Suddenly all this uproar over "fake news".

      Hell-effing-o: Magazines like The Enquirer and others have been around for - how long?

      *Now* suddenly its a big concern? Because - wait! - the right exposed their coverup of Hillary's seizures.

    25. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake news is responsible for hate groups like Black Lives Matter. Their whole existence is based on claims like Mike Brown being shot by an abusive cop, despite evidence that proves otherwise. BLM is an anti-police hate groups that exists because of liberal fake news.

      Nope. Black Lives Matter was actually formed as a result of a litany of incidents, far beyond the one involving Michael Brown. Which even if you write off, still leaves you with everything else that was uncovered by the DOJ investigation in Ferguson. It wasn't a pretty picture.

      Not to mention dozens of other deaths, false arrests, corruption, and general malfeasance. And yes, before you sputter in rage, BLM has denounced violence against police officers.

      Stop the fake news and maybe the unrest and violence will stop.

      Good idea. Too bad for you this includes the police departments lying about acts of violence under their watch. Too bad for you this includes the right wing noise brigade trying to sell BLM as a hate group. Too bad for you that you can't insist on real action.

      Just rant on about BLM.

    26. Re: What an empty life by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

      Huh? Drain the swamp refers to dishonest DC insiders, not the media, and so far Trump has appointed only cronies and lobbyists.

    27. Re: What an empty life by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One thing that Republicans/Conservatives (speaking as one myself) need to do better is recognized that racism still actually exists, but may not be typically seen by most white people. I heard the lone black Republican senator was pulled over seven times in a year. He admitted a couple of those were for speeding, but others seemed to be for trivial matters, or nothing at all.

      From the senator:

      Scott went on to describe a time an officer pulled him over and began questioning if the car he was driving was stolen. "An officer pulls me into the median and starts telling me that he thinks perhaps the car is stolen. Well, I started to ask myself because I was smart enough not to ask him, asking myself, is the license plate coming in as stolen? Does the license plate match the car? I was looking for some rational reason that may have prompted him to stopping me on the side of the road."

      It's unfortunate that the movement got started on a very questionable incident, in which it became apparent that the police did nothing wrong, because it gave the political opposition a reason to disbelieve the rest of the story. That shows the damage that "fake news" can do.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    28. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's APK when we need him?

    29. Re: What an empty life by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      People seem to be willing to believe stories that confirm their bias without checking facts or even using common sense.

      And this applies universally, even with news that is mostly accurate. (I say mostly, because I've yet to find a news article or video segment whose story I've done my own research on that tells you everything and has the details correct and/or doesn't emphasize a particular point of view at the expense of another. Even news outlets that claim to be neutral, like NPR, tend to do this.)

    30. Re: What an empty life by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

      Yeah, because so many liberals are attacking Musk for finally going after the fake news (faux) sites.
      Oh, wait, that's a Trumplie
      like 71% of the things he said during the campaign (Politifact.org)

    31. Re: What an empty life by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      "...Michael Brown shot in cold blood by a cop (Michael Brown attempted to steal the cop's gun and charged at him,.." from 148 feet away UNLESS Darren Wilson pursued while shooting at Brown. Yeah, Wilson LIED and yeah, eyewitness testimony says Wilson attempted to run over Brown and then shot him.

    32. Re: What an empty life by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 0

      No, fake news is responsible for hate groups like the Klan and Stormfront holding Trump rallies.
      Evidence from two eyewitnesses is that Brown was murdered.
      So, BLM is an anti-murder defense group with an agenda to stop cops walking away from crime.
      See? reality intrudes

    33. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Politifact.org haha haha has haha get out of here with that shit.

    34. Re: What an empty life by execthis · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, welcome to the world /.
      In the meantime, those of us - who are vegan - who are bicyclists - who opposed the war - etc. - etc. have known about black PR attack and smear campaigns for a really long time.

      You're only now becoming aware/concerned??

    35. Re: What an empty life by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      Fake news websites a problem, will main stream media the champions of fake news just fuck off, here is the reality http://www.internetlivestats.c... number of websites one billion, one hundred and twelve million, seventy seven thousand, nine hundred an six (excuse any error the number changes all of the time). So fake news, it would be a miracle to find (excluding of course the shit heads in main stream media) it, unless of course you are looking it (unless of course you are from main stream media looking for it but hey, they should just turn on the idiot box and look at the shite they broadcast).

      So if I looked at one site every second it would take me, 12,871 days odd without break and of course not reading them to see them and find the fake news. Hey want fake news, fuck you google and youtube, look at this shite, https://www.youtube.com/result... by far the majority fake and Google not only wont block the asshats but in a display of sheer unadulterated greed wont let you block them either, because first you see the fucking commercial and then you see the bullshit content, well the start of the bullshit content, then go to the next video and oh yeah, the next fucking commercial, fuck you Google.

      Now will those corporate fucker's wet dream be the ability to censor the internet of all competing non corporate propaganda content, of course. Wont to cut back on fake news, then bust up the fucking mega corps producing and that will get rid of by far the majority of actually accessible fake news corporate propaganda. As for the rest of the internet, seriously, think I can find those fake news sites out of the billion on offer unless I was specifically looking for them, no, but hey, fuck you main stream media and your endless bullshit.

      There is simply no reasonable polite way to put this, well, I suppose there is but global corporate censorship, let the fuckers burn in hell (I don't even believe in hell but maybe, just maybe, if enough of us believe in that fantasy, a whole bunch of snakes in suits will spontaneously combust, we can only dream).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    36. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the old joke is that everything from Amarica is fake. Fake bleeched teeth, fake boobs, fake reasosns for wars, fake everything. Trump did not start the fakeness.

    37. Re: What an empty life by Howitzer86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I kinda liked that site. It was a fun read. I also listened to Alex's show for the same reason. The best comparison I could make for it at the time is to the supermarket tabloids. It's not so much that it's fake news, as it was pure entertainment that happened to be taken seriously by random nut jobs we could easily ignore in our day to day lives. (And who Alex could profit from by selling crappy prepper merchandise)

      Unfortunately one of those people is our future President. I'm waiting for him to question the moon landing. Then we will be entering the prologue to Interstellar.

      His rise is symptomatic of an increasing number of people taking these shit-stain outlets seriously. The MSM de-legitimized itself and made this possible, and I place the blame squarely on their shoulders. Thanks to them we have to remind people that these sources are "fake", and that they aren't smarter than everyone else for having a pointlessly contrarian view of vaccinations, 9/11, global warming, the Earth's roundness, or the moon landing.

    38. Re: What an empty life by fredgiblet · · Score: 3

      I remember that one of the "news" stations literally recut the audio of Zimmerman's phone call to make it sound like he was saying racist things.

    39. Re: What an empty life by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Eyewitnesses, probably the least reliable form of information ever created.

    40. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, a PROPERLY. configured HOSTS file blocks 110% fake news.

    41. Re: What an empty life by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I can give you an equal raft who will back the police before and after the data comes out.

      This is why we need multiple body cams (front and back on the officer) and dash cams front/back/sides from the police car. And they need to be always on and they should all be released quickly when someone is killed.

      It's been shown over and over again that police... and people who accuse police... lie, honestly misremember, and selectively fail to report what they observe.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    42. Re: What an empty life by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Some of them are paid, but there are a lot of useful idiots amplifying their messages.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    43. Re: What an empty life by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Informative

      >Michael Brown shot in cold blood by a cop (Michael Brown attempted to steal the cop's gun and charged at him)
      No he didn't. And even if he had it wouldn't mean anything. You can't disprove a pattern by claiming (truthfully or not) that one example doesn't fit the pattern. You may have had a point if there wasn't Tamir Rice (cop acquitted), If the NRA had even MENTIONED Philando Castile, if there was no Eric Garner, of if the list of unarmed black men killed by US police this year alone was not currently at 1039 - that's an average of more than 3 a day, every day.

      >Trump campaign might not accept the election outcome (Trump's campaign considered legal challenges just like Gore did in 2000)
      He said he might not accept it. He SAID he would "keep you suspense". Oh, right, I forgot - it's a media smear if we quote him right ? You don't GET to consider legal challenges until AFTER an election. Even if you DO decide to raise one you STILL have to accept the results BEFORE you do. A legal challenge is a claim that the published result is not the ACTUAL result - it's is NOT a failure to ACCEPT the result - it's merely a quibble about what the result is. There's a massive difference.

      > Hackers caused Trump to win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania
      A small number of people said that, had good reasons for saying that - which were trumped by people with more expertise pointing out something they miss. There's no "hate" there. Are citizens now no longer allowed to question whether voting machines are accurate ? Because people have been doing that on /. ever since I started reading this site in the previous century. We've had headlines over concerns that Diebold machines cheat in every election since 2000 ! Now all of a sudden asking if voting machines are trustworthy is 'hate' ?

      >2016 is the hottest year on record
      It is, your claim to the contrary is a lie. You are either a sucker or a liar yourself. Science doesn't stop being true because you don't like it.

      > Trump's economic plans to protect American workers were racist
      Nobody said that. We said his immigration plans and comments about refugees were racist. Well actually somebody DID say his economic plans were racist, but that only happened once, Friday - never before, and the person who said it was Bernie Sanders.

      >Trump's economic plans were virtually identical to those of Bernie Sanders
      Only on the surface, go read Bernies recent speech about them - and how he clarifies what the differences are and why those differences are extremely important. Indeed - HE says that THOSE differences makes Trump's version racist.
      You can't hold similarity to Bernie's plans up as proof he isn't racist when Bernie himself has pointed out racist differences in the plans. The plans also have, in reality, almost nothing in common anyway. Taking an example. Both claim to want to invest heavily in infrastructure. Sounds the same right ? Wrong, because HOW they want to do it has nothing in common.
      Bernie wanted to spend federal dollars fixing the infrastructure most in need of repairs - that would be the infrastructure in poor neighbourhoods and cities where there isn't any profit to be made and the local communities cannot afford to fund the upgrades themselves.
      Trump wants to set up an incentive scheme to encourage private companies to do infrastructure upgrade projects as for profit business ventures for tax breaks: that means they will only upgrade it where they can make money. In the wealthy neighbourhoods where the people can afford price hikes to pay them (and where the need for upgrades is smaller meaning they can spend less.
      While both would create jobs Bernie would have created a lot more, and his projects would have helped people like those in Flint Michigan. When you're only helping already rich, mostly white, suburbs due to the structure of your plan: that's pretty much the definition of a racist program. FDR had the same problem, many structures of the new deal excluded black people and a

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    44. Re: What an empty life by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So you dismiss the ONLY information (even though COROBORATED eyewitnesses are MUCH more reliable) ... and instead accept the account of the person with every incentive to lie ?

      And that is how the police have shot 1039 unarmed black men in America in 2016 alone. That's almost 3 a day. And it's a list that includes way too many 12 year old boys with toys who were never a threat to anybody.

      I would believe the right was in any way sincere about anything they say (And not just being a bunch of racist fucks) if the NRA had actually spoken out about the ONLY example in the entirety of the Obama administration's tenure where a gun right was actually violated. But it didn't matter because it was a black guy who was shot for owning a legal gun which he didn't in any way threaten the police with, and we have video proving he did nothing wrong. The NRA never even made a public statement about the incident.
      They glorify white guys who carry loaded AR15's into restaurants to scare children - but the one time somebody was actually harmed by a government official for exercising his second amendment rights they pretended it never happened. Black people aren't supposed to have the right to bear arms I guess ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    45. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we're supposed to believe that this was because news organisations recut the audio, and not because your hero can't stop himself from saying racist things.

    46. Re: What an empty life by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Not paying attention? Many in the media move laterally between DC insiders and the media itself. Between the two, especially in the beltway there is no difference.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    47. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, like it or not, laws against owning and carrying firearms were first created to stop black people from being armed. That's a sad genesis for the rabid gun control groups out there willing to see thousands die each year in Chiraq, with their dream gun control laws fully in place there.

      That being said, I hope you can discern between NRA leadership (which botched the Castile case), and NRA members, who were also outraged:

      http://www.nola.com/crime/inde...

      "This time, however, the NRA faces an internal division as its members argue the group did not do enough to defend gun owners' rights by speaking out on behalf of Castile."

      Let's also remember that the shooter in Castile's death wasn't a white guy - he was, however, a blue guy. And that's the problem - blue guys have too much power over us. We should not outsource our personal self defense to blue guys, and we should have much stricter rules of engagement for blue guys. I get it, it's a shit job and there is real risk of being shot in an ambush by thugs, but *that's the job*. The past few notable unjustifiable cop shootings I've seen have been driven by jittery cops, not any form of systemic racism.

      A few thoughts for reform:

      1) end police unions - cops who shoot people have way too many union protections to allow them time to make up phony stories.
      2) use tech to avoid risk - maybe video conference via drone to the driver suspected of some traffic violation "sir, please place your license and registration in the slot", and have the drone return it to the officer who is a safe distance away from any possible ambush, or just use facial recognition to find someone's license and registration, instead of asking them for a fucking paper copy.
      3) national right to carry - when seconds count cops are just minutes away
      4) no more "broken tail light" crap stops - unless you're going to fix it on the spot for the person. We've got traffic laws built for revenue generation rather than public safety, and the unintended consequences (as well as the intended ones), are bullshit.

    48. Re: What an empty life by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      I am not him.

    49. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 0

      "2016 is the hottest year on record" is fake news if you don't include the error bars in your measurements. Even if you're doing data adjustments for various reasons, you don't get to pretend that you can measure the average global temperature to the 100ths of a degree with any sort of accuracy.

      This is similar to the "fake news" of presidential polls, which while *provided* with error bars by the polling organizations, were *presented* as if those error bars didn't exist by news organizations. Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com was about the only MSM outlet making any reasonable attempt to speak to the high uncertainty of the election.

      "protect[ing] american workers [is] racist" is also fake - it may be *nationalist*, but it sure as hell ain't racist.

    50. Re:What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I presume you're talking about the Jews who run the entire mainstream media?

      LOL at their pathetic attempt to silence dissent by labelling the truth as 'fake news'... nobody is buying it, except idiots like you.

      The goyim know! Shut it down!

    51. Re: What an empty life by silentcoder · · Score: 1, Informative

      >Well, like it or not, laws against owning and carrying firearms were first created to stop black people from being armed. That's a sad genesis for the rabid gun control groups out there willing to see thousands die each year in Chiraq, with their dream gun control laws fully in place there.

      There's a big difference between targeted gun control and universal gun control. And you conveniently forget that anti-gun-control movements share the exact same genesis. Gun-nuttery more than anything has always been driven by fear of black people.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    52. Re: What an empty life by guises · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There was a good article comparing the coverage of the deaths of Michal Brown and Eric Garner. Garner's death happened first, and there was broad consensus that it was wrong. The police in that instance did something bad, and had few defenders in the media or elsewhere. And thus: nobody paid attention to it because there was nothing to talk about.

      Only after the death of Michal Brown did Eric Garner's death come into the larger public's attention, because Brown's death was not nearly so clear cut. People disagreed about whether or not the officers were in the right in that case, and arguing gets people's attention. Arguing makes people angry in a way that the events themselves do not.

      So the lesson was: your cause may be right, but if you want to actually accomplish anything then it's more important to be controversial than it is to be completely correct.

    53. Re: What an empty life by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This is the first time that fake stories being posted to Facebook and the like had a real effect on a major election. It's also relevant to the winning candidate being a post-truth one, which undoubtedly increased people's willingness to accept improbable stories.

      The Enquirer is a gossip tabloid sold in supermarkets. People know it's not real, and it's not really big on the political stuff. Plus, it's fake news tends not to extend to the level of fake paedophile rings.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    54. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "white devil"

      You been watching too many 70s flicks, son.

      Even better, in attempting to be reasonable you compare them to an animal protection organisation.

      The irony is very, very thick.

    55. Re: What an empty life by Maritz · · Score: 0, Troll

      "fake news". Put it in scarequotes a few more times. That helps to make it "not a real thing". Genius. Please, mention "Hillary's seizures" in your reply, you know you really want to.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    56. Re: What an empty life by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Well, name three. I think you're talking out of your hat.

    57. Re: What an empty life by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I suspect you find them somewhat more reliable when your prejudices don't get in the way.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    58. Re:What an empty life by Maritz · · Score: 1

      The only thing worse than PC going too far are these kinds of fucking whinging. You're massively exaggerating the problem, because if you give it an accurate characterisation your whinge dissolves away to almost-fuck-all. Jesus, get the fuck over yourself.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    59. Re: What an empty life by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Something something HOSTS file something... "Dark side"..... LOL!

      ...apk

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    60. Re: What an empty life by Layzej · · Score: 2

      The Enquirer is a gossip tabloid sold in supermarkets. People know it's not real,

      Well, not everyone.

    61. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the same people who were funding Clinton's "Clear the Record" goons. Don't forget that Wall St and the bankers wanted Clinton.

    62. Re: What an empty life by Layzej · · Score: 4, Informative

      2016 is the hottest year on record" is fake news if you don't include the error bars in your measurements.

      2016 is so far ahead of previous records that it is well beyond the margin of uncertainty. Nevermind 1/100 of a degree. This year is over 1/4 of a degree warmer than the previous peak.

    63. Re:What an empty life by rholtzjr · · Score: 0

      Agreed, most of the fake news in the past year have been coming from CNN, MSNBC, etc..

    64. Re: What an empty life by Maritz · · Score: 1

      global warming

      Wrong audience I'm afraid. Mentioning GW along with those will get you supressive person status on /.

      Denialist echo-chamber.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    65. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course both extremes need a dose of reality, but it is pretty disengenious to pretend that the far-right and far-left are equally guilty of exploiting completely fabricated news to rally support. Moreover, the straw men you set up to illustrate your point completely fail to illustrate your claim about "liberal hate", unless of course by "there's no hate like liberal hate" you literally mean that liberal hate does not exist and is therefore unlike all hate. This is of course bullshit, but your straw men are at least consistent with the claim.

      Let's briefly examine your examples of fake news.

      1. The "shot in cold blood" claim is actually a quote from an eyewitness. The eyewitness later changed their story, but it is not exactly "fake news" to quote an eye witness to a major news story.

      2. This is similar to the first one. It is not fake news to quote Trump. Sure, most of what Trump says directly contradicts things he has said previously, and it is reasonable to assume that most of the words out of his mouth are just hot air, but it is not fake news to quote him on claims that the election is rigged, that he will only accept the election outcome if he wins, or that his supporters will riot on the streets if he does not win.

      3. I am a computer security expert who knows most of the "experts" quoted in these stories, so I have been following it somewhat closely. I have yet to stumble across a singl article in a reputable news source that doesn't refer to Russia hackingg the election as "unlikely". The most concrete claim they make is that 1) *if* Russia wanted to hack the election, *then* Russia probably could, and 2) Russia has been caught hacking other countries' elections in the past. They also point out that many other nationstates could do so, and that many other moderately skilled programmmers could as well. If Hillary had one, not auditing paper ballots would be equally negligent. If two entirely different candidates had run a non-controversial campaign, not auditing paper ballots would be equally negligent. If we want to pretend we live in a democracy, then auditing the paper ballots in each and every election is crucial. No fake news to be seen here.

      4. This is an example of hyperbole, perhaps, but not fake news. Real measurements by real scientists suggest that 2016 is the hottest year on record. Of course other reasonable people disagree and say that it is merely *among* the hottest years on record. In fact, not reporting this sort of claim would be the fake news equivalent to lying by omission. It is of course true that the mainstream media does a terrible job of presenting the nuances of scientific research, and reports about climate change are no exception to this rule.

      5. Racist vs. nationalistic is largely a matter of perspective. Supporters of the Nazi party would call them selves "nationalistic" rather than "racist" and the same is true in other, less-cliche examples. Even white supremacists have begun rebranding themselves as "white nationalists". You can put lipstick on a pig, but when the left-wing media points out that it's still a pig, this is not an example of "liberal hate" or "fake news".

      By all means, when the left says stupid bullshit, call them on it. Some of your examples above contain a "Fox News" level of left-wing bias, and that definitely ought to be called out.

      But--and this is a big but--there is a *major* difference between Fox's biased news and the alt-right's fabricated news. The xtent to which the left in America has a fringe group comparable to the alt-right, who spend their days fabricating news to support their ideology, is the extent to which everybody ignores the far left. The day fake news from the far left starts making headlines is the day that I, for one, will start calling out the left for their fake news.

    66. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think BLM is more of a reaction to institutionalized racism that persists to this day - things like black drivers being pulled over because they're black, which is real.

      No, what is real is that blacks are pulled over more often than whites. What remains to be proven is that they are pulled over BECAUSE they are black. That's an assumption on your part for which there is no evidence. You are letting your beliefs dictate your interpretation of facts. In fact, I'm willing to bet your feelings are so strong on the issue that if I tell you blacks are more likely to be doing something to get pulled over for that your gut reaction is to assume I'm a racist. However, I doubt you would dispute that blacks are overrepresented in poverty, and that poverty and crime are correlated. For example, blacks are only about 13% of the population of the United States, but where the race of the offender is known commit 53% of all murders.

      The constant grind of discontent leads to this. Just like PETA they're a bit over the top and often biased and unfair, but they're the only way society can move forward.

      The only way to force an outcome that these idiots think is fair is to start ignoring crime. There is literally no other way, and as long as police are human and value their own lives that's never going to happen. BLM is literally arguing against enforcing the law for black people.

    67. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We can taste your fear.

      You've been sucking on the American teat far too loud and are terrified at the prospect of us ripping it away.

      Sorry. America is once again for Americans. Not for you.

    68. Re: What an empty life by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I could give a shit about tabloid rags. What I care about is that you don't have to make even an attempt to be factual in order to call what you're doing "news" in this country.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    69. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh politifact said it?! It must be true!

      Oh, wait... They're owned partly by Chelsea Clinton? No bias at all!

      You fucking moron.

    70. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you adjust for errors....

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12

    71. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes are fucking insane.

      Take your meds.

    72. Re:What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Versus the lives of Slashdorks who sat around for years telling us that Windows was dying or dead...

      Seriously, these opinions mean nothing.

    73. Re: What an empty life by Layzej · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're using a data set that ends in 2014. Surprised that it doesn't show 2016 as the hottest year?

    74. Re:What an empty life by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Nothing new here fake news has been around since the .com boom and probably earlier. But who fact checks the fact checkers? Snopes.com is very good but I don't want all my facts checked by one site.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    75. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Middle-of-the-road opinions don't bring change."

      Pure and utter rubbish. The extreme is really only good for mustering torches and pitchforks. It is the practical and well regulated mind that can actually do the work of effecting change. Gandhi was no wild eyed extremist. Martin Luther King was also no hatred spewing radical. It was precisely their level headed approach that allowed for change to happen. People usually are not convinced to embrace a particular change when the advocates of that change exhibit dysfunction.

    76. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL "Liberal fake news"

    77. Re:What an empty life by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      America owes the rest of the world an apology. And, when Trump is done and we come to rebuild your tattered industries and feed your starving people, thank us.

      That is the future I see for this country. Thanking you ahead of time. :/

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    78. Re: What an empty life by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. The left wing needs to stop the fake news smear campaign against Trump. It's sad that they can't accept the outcome of the election and, instead, continue making up lies about Trump and his character.

      With all due respect, you are so full of shit.

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    79. Re: What an empty life by fche · · Score: 2

      Wait a minute - are you saying that "fake" == "not impartial, objective"? Then there is a whole lot of "fake news" out there.

    80. Re: What an empty life by c · · Score: 1

      Musk needs to hire massive PR and counterattack.

      If it's truly fake news, lawyers with libel/slander lawsuits might be more effective. Particularly if the ad networks are dragged into the mud, too.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    81. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald, is that you? I thought you prefer twitter.

    82. Re: What an empty life by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      I think the difference is, no one expects the Enquirer to be accurate. I mean, for fuck's sake, they've had stories about Bigfoot and Elvis meeting.

      With print publication, there are startup costs, printing costs, distribution costs. Some dingus scrawling conspiracy theories and passing them out at the Circle K is not going to have a wide distribution, for example.

      But it's relatively easy to create a fake news website. It can be relatively cheap. Much cheaper than trying to get national level distribution for something like the Enquirer.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    83. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BLM is institutional racism. If it was the KKK chanting 'White Lives Matter' and burning shit down, the police would have jail every last one of them a long time ago. BLM is allowed to exist be because they have support from the state, which make their act of racism 'institutional racism'.

      Just like PETA they're a bit over the top and often biased and unfair, but they're the only way society can move forward. Middle-of-the-road opinions don't bring change.

      This was the reasoning behind the KKK, IRA, FARC and Al-Qaeda; The only true power is violence. And as you said, 'Middle-of-the-road opinions don't bring change'.

    84. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you are rooting for the failure of the global economy and hundreds of markets lions of people to be plunged into poverty and anguish just because some of those people disagree with you.

      Who's the asshole again?

    85. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to need to correct the record, but it's called Correct the Record.

    86. Re: What an empty life by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Yes, because those who question the "science" behind CAGW hysteria are obviously Moon landing "deniers" also. Obviously. Hey, come to think of it, isn't there a discredited, nonsense paper about just that?

      I now await your thoughtful flinging of insults and attempts to take a big shitty dump on the website I just linked to because it's "funded by big oil and stupid science denier people who want to destroy the planet". Please don't disappoint me.

    87. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      why do we Americans care about a 3rd world shithole.

    88. Re: What an empty life by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      "black drivers being pulled over because they're black, which is real"

      I'm hoping that increased use of police body cams as well as driver dash cams (obviously, two-camera models would be better) will reduce this phenomenon.

    89. Re: What an empty life by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      " maybe video conference via drone to the driver"

      Mini radio-tethered, oblique view camera drone deployed whenever a cop unholsters his weapon. Do it!

    90. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because many areas in the US are 3rd world shitholes, so people have first-hand experience with it?

    91. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, nope, must be fake news!

    92. Re:What an empty life by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's also worth remembering that the margin for error in calorie counts in chains is aroudn 1-2%, but the permitted margin of error by the FDA is a lot higher (I think 20%, but I'm not completely sure), so you can bet that the printed counts are all below by the maximum permitted amount.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    93. Re:What an empty life by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      I get accused of "skinny shamming" my friends if I eat one-third of a 1,500-calorie plate in the restaurant and take home the rest for two separate meals.

      Sounds to me like you need to find some better friends.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    94. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you're a vegan?
      Nice meme.

      Enjoy your dramatic and sudden illness outta nowhere.
      Veganism is healthy by process-of-elimination, not the veg.
      Majority vegans had a shit diet to begin with, never ate any actual food, just processed junk.
      Eating literally anything but that junk would improve their health.
      This is why all those silly fad diets 'help people lose weight and feel great', because they stopped eating shit food and technically fast most useful nutrients, which end up being sourced from the rest of your body via catabolic recycling. (In turn, body eats itself, you lose weight)

      Also, fat vegans exist. That's just hilarious. (Read: sad)
      Again, enjoy your slow deaths. At least you picked the least worst of the delusions to follow.

    95. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brown's autopsy was clear cut. The eye witness accounts were not because half of them were lying or inaccurate details due to regular old unreliable memory.

    96. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats why i still own a slave.

    97. Re: What an empty life by Megol · · Score: 1

      No it isn't obvious - and the poster you replied to never claimed it was. Those are similar though as both are anti-science, easy to disprove etc.

    98. Re:What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who disagrees with me is a millennial, you millennial! Thanks for correcting the record!

      Captcha: unreal

    99. Re: What an empty life by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 2

      exactly, fake news works because people see it shared by their friends on facebook etc and trust it because of that.
      fool one person, have them infect some friends with their gullible folly and then it can spread as a chain reaction though large groups of people

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    100. Re:What an empty life by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Folks that can't stand reality conflicting with their hate-based fantasies.

      What?! Everyone knows that if you keep shouting something over and over so no else can say anything it becomes reality, riiiight? It's similar to putting your fingers in your ears and saying "lalala I can't hear you". It's the magical secret sauce of the universe man. In fact, I think I'll go out in my backyard right now and incessantly yell as loud as I can, "The money tree shall come forth!" Anyone who comes by to call me crazy I'll just talk over them so they can't get a word in edge-wise and I will become RICH! Tee hee! Woo hoo!

      --
      We'll make great pets
    101. Re: What an empty life by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Only three? Okay. Teddy Davis, Jay Carney, Eric Dash, Ronan Farrow, Kate Albright-Hanna. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    102. Re: What an empty life by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Nope. I accept the forensic evidence.

      If your comment about the NRA was in response to Philando Castile then his gun rights weren't really violated, blaming the NRA every time an armed person gets shot is retarded. Also the NRA has black people on their board of directors. The NRA is actually very inclusive, it's not their fault that the Republicans are the only politicians interested in protecting gun rights, if the Democrats were interested in the same then they'd back them.

    103. Re: What an empty life by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Not really? If the forensics say one thing and the witnesses say something else then I'll go with the forensics every time.

    104. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blaming MSM for people getting their news from free Internet blogs and Facebook???
      How? You want places like NYT to give away their product with something less than CNN or foxnews level world class annoying advertising?

      It's not MSMs fault they can't sell news to half the country without pitching things like "gold coins with first amendment protections" to pay for it.

    105. Re: What an empty life by pipingguy · · Score: 0

      Facts don't matter in climate hysteria, only fear-inducing headlines matter.

    106. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I think it's you that's the teat.

    107. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The police shouldn't be killing anyone, period. That is not how the police operate in Europe. In America, the police response to any threat no matter how slight is to kill the person. That cannot be allowed to continue.

    108. Re: What an empty life by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      There's also white people being pulled over because they're white.

      I cannot tell you how many times I was pulled over in Far Rockaway, Queens because - why else would a white guy be there than to buy drugs or sell guns?

      I was stopped practically every day for a couple of week until my car was recognized and then ... nothing.

      Was it right? No.

      One solution is to NOT have checks for drunk driving. To stop checks for seat belts, etc... These intrusions are not caused by police but by the civilian authorities (read your elected officials) who demand a crack down after an accident. Or, want to raise revenue.

      On a side note? What is far -right? Is it the neo-nazis or free-market, pro-gay marriage libertarian outfits? What is the definition of far - right? Or is it simply - they disagree therefore they are far right?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    109. Re: What an empty life by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Er... the parent was trying to use a dataset that ends in 2014 to prove that 2016 is not the hottest year. I think you mean facts don't matter because denial? Here are the facts (Including 2016 YTD)

    110. Re: What an empty life by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      No, draining the swamp is about changing the way lobbying works. Banning people from being lobbyists after working in the government, banning them from ever lobbying for foreign governments, a proposed constitutional amendment for term limits in congress, etc. It has nothing to do with replacing bad people with good people but with changing the system that enables systemic corruption. These are not things he can do until after inauguration, though, so whether or not the swamp will be drained is unknown, but cabinet appointments have nothing to do with it.

      The speech: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...

      And the five points:

      First: I am going to institute a 5-year ban on all executive branch officials lobbying the government after they leave government service.

      Second: I am going to ask Congress to institute its own 5-year ban on lobbying by former members of Congress and their staffs.

      Third: I am going to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.

      Fourth: I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

      Fifth: I am going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    111. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real issue is oppression of the poor regardless of race. I learned the lesson after listening to this first-hand account by former civil-rights activist Chuck McDew. It completely changed the way I see this issue. Well worth a listen.

    112. Re: What an empty life by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Castile did nothing wrong. He told the officer he had a legal gun - and the officer shot him with no cause. I don't blame the NRA for that. I blame the NRA for not SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    113. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes zero sense.

    114. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey look - Jews!

    115. Re: What an empty life by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      So we should be fixing the 3rd-world shitholes on our own land before we go try and fix them overseas. Let's figure out what works before we spread the disease.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    116. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what is real is that blacks are pulled over more often than whites. What remains to be proven is that they are pulled over BECAUSE they are black. That's an assumption on your part for which there is no evidence.

      Other than you know, the testimony of cops themselves. They've been caught speaking about it. It isn't neutral. They've even been spotted hiding the data.

      That alone is a problem.

      However, I doubt you would dispute that blacks are overrepresented in poverty, and that poverty and crime are correlated. For example, blacks are only about 13% of the population of the United States, but where the race of the offender is known commit 53% of all murders

      The term you want to use is homicides. For which they had approximately 15,000 in their data. About 5,600 were attributed to blacks. But even if we ascribed every homicide to blacks, that's a tiny number, as there are around 38 million blacks in the US. And you don't mention poverty at all. Or how many of them are drivers. Your data is useless.

      The only way to force an outcome that these idiots think is fair is to start ignoring crime. There is literally no other way, and as long as police are human and value their own lives that's never going to happen. BLM is literally arguing against enforcing the law for black people.

      You don't know what the word literally means either. You are just letting your beliefs lead to you creating conjecture and then defending them by misusing words.

      You'd at least be honest if you stuck to it being your own figurative portrayal, but no, you have to put the blame on BLM for your concoction.

      No, they are not making that argument, that is your representation of it. Please learn to use adjectives properly.

    117. Re: What an empty life by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell you fundamentally agree that Trump and Bernies plans were racist.

      How is telling people who are here illegally to GTFO and only come back when they're willing to follow established legal channels to get a work visa and participate in the tax system that supports local and federal infrastructure racist?

      Let me guess, because people born here won't be hit by it? First of all, at worst that's nationalist, not racist; I'll remind you that people of all races are born here and, if born here, are natural citizens and will not be hit by this. Second, we're talking about millions of people not paying taxes while, at the same time using the services paid for by those taxes, which drives up budget requirements across the board and increases your taxes.

      That's why we have these laws, period. Trump is just going to actually enforce them now.

      I'm more worried about what he's going to do to international relations with our current allies than what he's going to do with people who shouldn't be here in the first place. You should be, too.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    118. Re:What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Folks that can't stand reality conflicting with their hate-based fantasies.
      So you think it's the Israelis ?

    119. Re: What an empty life by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      BLM needs to, first, target the majority of Black Lives that are taken by other Black Lives. It's not a racist viewpoint, it's a fact: most Black Lives are taken by Black men.

      The Black community needs to no longer be known for their willingness to murder, in cold blood, people they should perceive as being on the "same side"; only then will all the groups commonly thought to be "the enemy" of the Black People be able to interact with them on level ground. Yes, the problem is caused by a very small portion of the Black community. That does not negate the damage it does to that community as a whole.

      To put it another way, consider the following: The number of White cops who shoot Black men in cold blood is relatively small, less than a fraction of a percent of White men. The number of White men who snap and go on shooting sprees is relatively small, less than a fraction of a percent of White men. The number of White men who actively participate in the systemic racism I keep hearing about is relatively small, less than a fraction of a percent of White men; the rest of us are just here as a matter of fact and we need the Black community to help us change it as much as they need us to help them change it.

      If reporting (on both sides of the issue) is to be believed, if you were to put all of the White men and all of the Black men who are actually part of the problem in a room together, you'd note two things: A) There would be more Black men than White men in that room, by at least a factor of two and B) the problem would solve itself; the lone survivor of the ensuing fight wouldn't be able to cause any notable issues.

      Why reporting on both sides? Because both sides have bias and considering data from both sides helps to remove some of that bias. The only other thing we have is gut feeling and, well, gut feeling is what drove us here in the first place. We'd better start actually looking at that data soon if we're going to fix this.

      Do I benefit from my Whilte-maleness? Almost certainly. Can I enumerate those benefits? No. Do I seek them out? No. Do I feel guilty about it? Hell no. Why not? Because I get attacked just for being White and male, for the "privilege" afforded to me by other people, which I do not seek out for myself.

      Yes, I have the privilege of being told I am part of the problem, when I am likely one of the few who can actually see what the root of that problem is and has ideas that might actually work to start solving it and undo some of the damage.

      How dare I, a White cis male, purport to understand the problem, though, right? After all, I can't possibly understand the suffering, they tell me. And they're right, I can't, I'm sure. But they're also wrong; one need not understand the suffering in order to understand the cause of the suffering. In fact, one who is suffering is less likely to understand the cause; it's why even trained doctors go to the doctor. You can't treat yourself when your head is clouded by disease.

      And yes, systemic racism in this country is a disease.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    120. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admirable job so far. Here's the thing.

      A consumer culture relies on the fact that people have money to buy shit. IANAE, but when the economy is all about debt, and everyone is already going "shit, we hate taxes but still want stuff like freeways and such to be in working order without us paying more for being able to get to our minimum wage work so we can diss expensive stuff HAD our own people made it for a reasonable wage", I start wondering if certain idiots don't get the point.

      Let's take a rural town in Oregon for example. Their idea of making said town great and vibrant with people is to plan a whole slew of 250k or more houses with the idea that some young rich people would show up and pay taxes there.

      All this while not using tax dollars for culture, tech or anything that would make people want to move in with mounting debt.

      Sure, some people can pay premium, but had it occurred to you that for example it is cost-prohibiting in the wrong sense if you cut people off housing, care and food? There's a reason people fucking shop at Walmart, and why it's successful if inane. PEOPLE CAN AFFORD IT.

      Of course, Whole Foods does make it easy to stay thin.

    121. Re: What an empty life by burtosis · · Score: 1

      meanwhile Brown and his GF were going on racist rants against white people but this was not really covered. Zimmerman is essentially Hispanic and took a black date to the prom.

    122. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you. When I was growing up in the eighties, this freezer called Finland had snow in mid October. Now, even with winds and storms from Siberia, we get rain from Siberia.

      Past ten years at that.

      Siberia. And our fucking capital is on the same parallel as Nome, Alaska. Enjoy your grizzly-polar bear hybrids.

    123. Re: What an empty life by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      It's one of the big reasons why I no longer consider myself part of the left in this country. I'm still a liberal (mostly), but I don't stand with people trying to create a race war.

    124. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      So, targeted slavery is bad, but universal slavery is okay?

      Universal gun control would be removing guns from police, secret service, and outlawing private security from carrying, as many rich and politically connected people do.

      Make no mistake, all gun control is targeted against the lower-class masses, and privileging the government above the people.

    125. Re: What an empty life by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In the meantime, those of us - who are vegan - who are bicyclists - who opposed the war - etc. - etc. have known about black PR attack and smear campaigns for a really long time.

      You seriously think that there's a smear campaign against vegans? Look, even plenty of vegetarians think you're batshit crazy. No orchestrated smear campaign is necessary when you won't shut the fuck up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    126. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      If the uncertainty bars are greater than 1/4 of a degree, would you agree that you're spouting fake news? :)

      Let's check for ourselves:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

      "Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable."

      Call me when you get above .46 of a degree :)

    127. Re: What an empty life by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, draining the swamp is about changing the way lobbying works.

      There are a lot of problems with that idea. The biggest one is that pretty much all of his ideas are unconstitutional, except maybe the last one which is easy to work around.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    128. Re: What an empty life by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      "UNLESS Darren Wilson pursued while shooting at Brown. Yeah, Wilson LIED and yeah, eyewitness testimony says Wilson attempted to run over Brown and then shot him.

      So you are saying that a cop should NOT pursue a fleeing criminal? Remember even the autopsies done for the parents say that Brown was NOT shot in the back but was facing the cop. First I've heard the claim of the cop trying to run over Brown.

    129. Re: What an empty life by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 1

      That would make sense, which is why it isn't going to fly... also because it goes against the prosperity gospel.

    130. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who was married to someone who was allergic to fish, dairy, apples and such, yeah I kinda agree with you.

      But I'll laugh at you laughing at genuine people with allergies as a cook. Vegans by choice (speaking as someone who was vegetarian because I knew as a farm boy where meat came from and recently had to wring a duckling's neck with my bare hands cause Mommy Duck bit off his beak), how about you raise an animal and then eat it.

      I do love meat. Don't get me wrong.

    131. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most of these people are unaware Sharlto Copley put it best when he sang "you spin me right right baby right round" in the A-Team movie.

    132. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because many areas in the US are 3rd world shitholes, so people have first-hand experience with it?

      Wow your an entidled peice of shit. Non of the US is third world. You dont like it because their is not an over intrusive goverment to pay for your shit? Oh no my entery level 25k a year position isnt enough wahhh

    133. Re: What an empty life by Miguelito · · Score: 1

      The best comparison I could make for it at the time is to the supermarket tabloids. It's not so much that it's fake news, as it was pure entertainment that happened to be taken seriously by random nut jobs we could easily ignore in our day to day lives.

      That's the same reasons I like to watch some of the crazy stuff like Ancient Aliens now and then. Yeah, it's all complete bullshit, but damn they come up with some crazy/interesting theories sometimes.

      Honestly it's not that far from the full backstories and stuff they come up with in Movies/TV shows at times.. like all the stuff in the Stargate TV universe matched to all the mythical gods and such.

      --
      - My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
    134. Re: What an empty life by Miguelito · · Score: 1

      Eyewitness testimony also started the "hands up, don't shoot" crap that was proven to be a lie based on the autopsy but also there was conflicting eyewitness reporting. People are still using the chant to this day.

      --
      - My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
    135. Re: What an empty life by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Sorry. NOAA shows global temperatures with uncertainty of ± 0.08. This is confirmed by several scientific studies. Conspiracy blogs don't trump science.

    136. Re:What an empty life by Miguelito · · Score: 1

      Or are you just another vodka-swilling stooge doing what the Kremlin tells you?

      I love that the left suddenly hates the Russians.

      --
      - My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
    137. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if /. was a real news site. Slashdot is, itself, promoting a liberal agenda.

      The fairy that liberals live needs to be cut out of public funding. If the technology is good, you don't need public money.

    138. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. People Eating Tasty Animals is the best path forward.

    139. Re: What an empty life by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      What's unconstitutional about them? Also, since when does anyone care about the constitution?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    140. Re:What an empty life by redkcir · · Score: 1

      These idiots only looked at the calories for the wrapper, which was 300, without adding the rest of the items they put on it. They were suing because the meal was over 300, the only item they looked up. Any item prepared outside of a lab will very widely due to the person making the item and the batch it is made from. Personally I like mine to be on the bigger side! If dieting or content is that important to you, you should eat at home or prepare your own food. That should be a no-brainer, but looking at who we are talking about...

    141. Re: What an empty life by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I have no clue what your rant had to do with my post; I haven't seen someone miss the mark by that much in as far back as I can remember. Bravo!

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    142. Re:What an empty life by redkcir · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. Being an older person and remembering what school was like before PC and comparing it to what it is like now gives me a perspective you may not share. I would consider calling the police on a young child and kicking them out of school be cause they pointed a finger at someone, or to a six year old for kissing a classmate (they wanted to label this child a sexual predator) well beyond exaggerating the problems. These are only two of many actual outcomes from overreacting school officials. It doesn't even begin to address the overt anti-Americanism, racial hatred, and re-editing of history by our colleges. Our colleges are now spending more time teaching non-tolerance than preparing out kids for the real world and getting an actual job. And, no, I don't consider a job as a paid activist as a real job. And just for your information I worked in the labor force thirty years, paid taxes every year and that after serving in the armed forces, enlisted, not drafted. I am also a disabled veteran. Even retired I volunteer seven days a week. I earned my right to my opinions and I have no need to get over myself.

    143. Re: What an empty life by lucm · · Score: 1

      "white devil"

      You been watching too many 70s flicks, son.

      Even better, in attempting to be reasonable you compare them to an animal protection organisation.

      The irony is very, very thick.

      Once you remove the stick that's up your ass, look at this:

      "When the tragic shooting of Trooper Dermyer happened right here in my own city and it directly impacted my community," said Capps. "I took it personally. I wanted to do something about it."

      And so the 16-year-old conservative blogger, who has interned with national news outlets like Fox News, decided to organize a Blue Lives Matter rally.

      Critics of the rally point to the recent Black Lives Matter movement that spawned in response to the killings of young black men at the hand of white officers. They took offense and slammed Emma as a "White Devil" on social media.

      http://meredithaz.worldnow.com...

      or:

      UC Berkeley Student Columnist Maggie Lam Attacks the “White Devil,” “Skinny White Girls”

      http://heatst.com/culture-wars...

      or any other results that google will give you for "black lives matter white devil".

      Also apparently you don't know what irony means.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    144. Re: What an empty life by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      so basically you are a racist denier and think that you can justify yourself. Is that about right?

    145. Re: What an empty life by lucm · · Score: 1

      Gandhi was no wild eyed extremist. Martin Luther King was also no hatred spewing radical.

      I'm sure they would have gone along just fine. As described on Wikipedia:

      In 2016, a group of Ghanaian academics, students and artists called for the removal of a statue of Mahatma Gandhi from a university campus. They accused Gandhi of being racist towards black people by holding the view that Indians were higher than them. This view was also held by two South African professors Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed who claimed that Gandhi described black Africans as “savage,” “raw” and living a life of “indolence and nakedness”. Gandhi also demanded separate entrances for blacks and Indians at the Durban post office while he was living in South Africa.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    146. Re: What an empty life by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 1

      Although your examples may not be valid it is true that there are and were false posts targeted at both sides, just more targeted at conservative readers. And it's not just false information, it's misleading information.

      Here's an example targeted at liberals today: The Secret Service is opening an office in Trump Towers because Trump's family won't be living at the White House. This implies that it's the Secret Service is doing something unusual and that Trump is misusing government resources. It's not true. Typically Presidents will have a home away from the White House. George H. W. Bush went to Kennibunkport. IIRC Clinton went to the Hamptons. George W. Bush had his farm in Texas. In each case the Secret Service had to do whatever it is they do to keep the President and his family safe. If anything Trump Tower is probably easier to secure because of it's location.

      But anyway this isn't a pissing contest. We aren't blaming the right, we're recognizing that people are being manipulated. These posts need to be stopped whether they're targeted at liberal or conservative voters.

      --
      I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
    147. Re: What an empty life by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >So, targeted slavery is bad, but universal slavery is okay?
      False analogy fallacy. Gun control has less than nothing in common with slavery. It's not even widely considered a bad thing - yet you're conflating it with something that today is almost universally considered one of the worst things humanity ever did.

      >Universal gun control would be removing guns from police, secret service, and outlawing private security from carrying, as many rich and politically connected people do.
      Actually yes. Once you have decent gun control you can and should disarm the police. The UK has done exactly that. Their police are not armed. Their weapons are kept in safes at armory's and ONLY issued if they are going on an operation where armed resistance is reasonably expected to be found. In the USA police have killed over 1000 black men this year - that's just black men and just this year. In the UK the police has killed just 2 people in the past 20 years. It's a LOT easier to believe that the people they kill gave them no other choice when it's an average of one a decade.

      >Make no mistake, all gun control is targeted against the lower-class masses, and privileging the government above the people.
      Except that countries with universal gun control can and do disarm the police - as I just showed you. And in case you missed it - the government IS privileged above the people by definition: they get to make laws and you don't. Democracy and republicanism means you have certain powers to act as a check on theirs, and certain constraints on their power - but the only system where the people are privileged above the government is a direct democracy and if the founding fathers had thought that was a good idea they would have created one.
      Since it's them you rely on to justify being a gun nut, you can't dismiss them on this.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    148. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love to see the globalist media dying and sucking the last breath. Lashing out calling everyone racist, misogynistic, nazi as they miss the fact that control words no longer work on thinking good hearted people.

    149. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Michael brown: was shot by a cop; and the only "fake" part of this, is "in cold blood".

      No. The evidence supported the account of the police officer, including the fact that he was shot in the hand at close range when attempting to take the cop's gun and that the pattern of bullets shows that he was charging the cop when shot.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-grand-jury-findings/?tid=a_inl

      So according to the evidence it was self defense. However, the MSM is still pushing the narrative that he was killed in cold blood.
      http://www.salon.com/2016/10/12/the-new-american-idiot-why-drive-by-truckers-american-band-is-essential-listening-in-the-trump-era/

    150. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as responses go, that was right up there with "I know you are but what am I?" More than a few of your examples are incorrect from a neutral point of view.

    151. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Gun control has less than nothing in common with slavery.

      Other than both were targeted towards black people in the United States.

      The reducto ad absurdum is meant to make you think - does making an evil "universal" make it moral, whereas when it is targeted it is not?

      The UK has done exactly that. Their police are not armed.

      They do a great job of shooting people without being armed :)

      http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-226...

      "A man has been killed in a machete attack and two suspects shot and wounded by police in Woolwich, south-east London."

      And in case you missed it - the government IS privileged above the people by definition: they get to make laws and you don't.

      But surely you agree they shouldn't make laws that don't apply to them, and *target* only the masses, right?

    152. Re: What an empty life by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but there are so many of those folks. They just elected a president. The US is dead. The rest of the world needs to route around the asylum.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    153. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Fails the laugh test. Nobody can possibly assert we measured 1880 global temperatures +/- 0.08, yet they take their 2015 (where they assert such accuracy), and compare it to the other, much less certain years.

      Here, direct cite to the paper that claims greater uncertainty: http://www.eike-klima-energie....

      tl;dr - discounting measurement noise as randomly distributed gives you a false sense of certainty.

    154. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I don't believe in the arbitrary, pernicious concept of "race".

      Even if I did believe in such an arbitrary, pernicious concept of "race", I certainly wouldn't say that all americans are a single "race".

      The idea that protecting *americans* is synonymous with protecting a single "race", is silly.

    155. Re: What an empty life by OldeClegg · · Score: 1

      Yes? Are they even still around?

    156. Re: What an empty life by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Fails the laugh test. Nobody can possibly assert we measured 1880 global temperatures +/- 0.08,

      Maybe read the page and see if says that. Then read my post and see if I claimed that it says that. Then come back if you have anything interesting to add.

    157. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The page represents uncertainty ranges for a single year.

      The page compares temperatures from 1880-2015.

      The implication of the comparison is that it is apples-to-apples, that is, we can say that X year is the hottest year in 1880-2015, because we have the same uncertainty in measurement for every year.

      Now, if in fact the error bars around earlier temperatures in the range of 1880-2015 are significant (say specifically for 1934), it is possible that our "hottest year" claims are only a probability, not a certainty.

      The bottom line here is that flat claims of "hottest year ever" without specifying uncertainty, across the entire scale of comparison, is fake news. One may argue that the general public is too ignorant to comprehend uncertainty, and the differences in uncertainty over the years, but the answer to that isn't inappropriate simplification, it's better education on uncertainty.

    158. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta keep the race war going, lest the class war finally get underway. But with the "Russian" narrative being pushed, it looks like that will be used to keep the poor blinded.

    159. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, don't forget that Mitt Romney likes to bind up women.

    160. Re: What an empty life by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      The only news reporting that is 100% objective and without bias is the raw info about sports or stocks: box scores and stock listings. (Though I don't know when was the last time a newspaper actually printed stock prices.) It is about verifiable facts, not opinions. No "Sources close to the first base coach state that ...". No "It is believed that McDuck's repurchase of outstanding shares ..."

      The facts to be reported are selected before the events occur. Hits, runs, errors, etc. Stocks, prices, volumes.

      It's because they're filling in a template, essentially.

      For a lot of news, there is no template.

      But for a lot of news, there could be.

      An example. Murder: victim's name, approximate address, occupation, demographic info. List of suspects, if any. Each suspect's name, approximate address, occupation, demographic info. If no list, the explanation given by the police for the absence.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    161. Re:What an empty life by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      No, America owes the world an apology for Obama. See how Greece rioted when he showed up? Even the Chinese snubbed him, look it up. Joke of the world and we're the butt of the joke. Everyone knows what a failure he is except Americans. Point out the emperor is wearing no clothes and you're called a racist, instead of captain obvious like you should be. The only president to have never passed a budget in his administration. He's the worst. No question about it. Well maybe if you count releasing felons from prison, then he's #1. Releasing all his buddies. Works just like with rats, they will release other rats that are trapped too.

      Check back after Trump is out of office. I might be roasting him too. I'm sure he'll be a success after this President. He has such a low bar to exceed. In fact he's already brought jobs back from Mexico with the Ford deal, Already pushed the Dollar to a 14 year high, and so on and he's not even president yet.

    162. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald, don't you have an intelligence briefing to leak to the Russians?

    163. Re: What an empty life by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Since you allege the point of guns is protection, from people with guns, it is obvious why you would use the logical fallacy Reductio ad absurdem to fail to make your point

    164. Re: What an empty life by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      As opposed police, who routinely destroy video evidence in order to protect their habit of "Testalying"(sic)?

    165. Re: What an empty life by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Wrong.
      Autopsy says he was shot from the front, in both arms, in defensive posture.
      In no way does that prove that his hands were not up when the shooting started.

    166. Re: What an empty life by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Shooting at unarmed men? HELL YES, NO Shooting UNARMED men!

    167. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The point of guns is protection from people who present a clear and present danger to yourself or other innocents. Whether or not your attackers are using guns, sharp sticks, or just their fists, if they have the ability, opportunity, and you or others are in jeopardy of grievous harm or death, being able to defend yourself is important.

    168. Re: What an empty life by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Self defense is the least likely use for a gun and its a terrible tool for the job. So if that is your argument then its defeated by itself. Its a method that has near zero odds of achieving the stated goal. Indeed the gun most likely to shoot a person is their own.
      Not to mention the problem is solving itself. Crime rates have been dropping universally for decades with no sign of stopping and completely independent of gun laws (since the trend is universal across all countries). So as the risk of an attack gets smaller every year while the risks of gun ownership remain the same there must logically be a point where there is no rational justification for the negative trade off.
      We passed that ages ago.

      The 'defense against tyranny' argument also fails. No gun law has ever prevented or even slowed a revolution. By the point where people rise up against a governmenr they will find guns. They do not need to have them in advance.

      Gun nuts would actually get more sympathy from me if they dropped all the bullshit attempts at rationalization and hust admitted there is nothing rational about it. Just admit it. You like having guns. It makes you feel good. Whether its a penis compensation thing or a feeling of power or a (false) sense of safety or a passion for their engineering or whatever else. Just admit it. Its an emotional thing. You have some emotional need your gun satisfies and a constitutional right to do it and we cannot stop you until enough people have met those needs some other way that we can get rid of that ammendment.
      America with the most unregulated guns have had more mass shooting in the last 20 years than the next 20 countried combine... twice over. Add them all together and its 22. America has had 48.
      Just admit you care more about whatever good feeling you get out of your gun than you care about those dead people. Just admit (like Heston to his credit did) that you are okay with letting them die to satisfy your emotional needs.

      Then we can have an honest conversation.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    169. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      John Lott. More Guns, Less Crime. Decent book, worth a read for you.

      Now, that being said, gun control nuts would actually get more sympathy from me if they dropped all the bullshit attempts at rationalization and just admitted there is nothing rational about gun control. Just admit it. You're just scared of guns. It makes you feel uncomfortable. Whether it is just a mangina thing, or a cry for a benevolent daddy of government to protect you from boogey men. Just admit it. It's an emotional thing. You have some emotional need to remove guns from the hands of your fellow citizens and leave them only in the hands of your government minders and tenders, as if any of your laws would ever stop a criminal from having a gun.

      Just admit you care more about preserving your good feelings of moral superiority by trying to take away the ability of people in harsher circumstances from defending themselves, than you care about all the people raped, murdered, or assaulted who could have remained unvictimized if they had, or some other nearby citizen had, been armed. Just admit that you're okay with letting these people get raped, murdered or assaulted to satisfy your emotional needs.

      All mocking aside, if you're going to have a gun, learn safe handling. The basics for children should be taught in school:

      1) stop
      2) don't touch
      3) leave the area
      4) tell an adult

      For adults, proper safety knowledge of firearms should be mandatory:

      1) treat every weapon as if it is loaded
      2) never point at anything you don't want to destroy
      3) keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot
      4) be aware of what is in front of and behind your target

      As for an honest conversation, I'm not quite sure if you're ready for one yet :) But if you are, please, tell me, what would convince you that individual americans should have the right to self defense with firearms?

    170. Re: What an empty life by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      Police are eyewitnesses too.

    171. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The left will never accept anything. That's why they're working to destroy the American democracy to make sure their person gets to power.

      The whole concept of freedom is foreign to Democrats. The whole concept of truth is foreign to Democrats.

    172. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Provide the links to the data you are referencing to support your idiotic assertion about the temperature data. It will take me about 3 minutes to rip your stupid statement to pieces, I just need you to provide what data you "think" supports your idiotic statement so you can't weasel out of it later.

    173. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone making under$ 1.25 million , thinking. Orange- orangutan boy will save anything is a SUCKER.P.T.Barnum was right , one born every minute

    174. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is exactly *zero* evidence for your assertion that blacks are pulled over for being black. Seriously this article is about fake news and you are just reporting another fake news point like a moronic sheep. Think about what you write before you write it and actually try looking at some data to see if your pea brained talking point is supported or not.

    175. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MLK was unequiviocally a "hatred spewing radical". Seriously open a history book before writing your idiotic nonsense. Ironic that in an article about "fake news" you just wrote a load of horseshit that you probably heard from a "fake news" report. MLK was a racist black supremacist that advocated for reparations and special treatment for blacks. If history were reported honestly by the media, instead of the false nonsense they (and you) spew, hate mongers like MLK would not be idolized, and would be left in the dustbin of history where they belong.

    176. Re: What an empty life by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > what would convince you that individual americans should have the right to self defense with firearms?

      Evidence that, with the lowest crime rate in human history and dropping - self defense is a need you should give a thought to at all. Humans are horrifyingly bad at risk assessment, NEVER trust what makes sense because what makes sense to people is ALWAYS wrong. Trust numbers. And numbers say the risk of something happening that needs defense is extremely tiny and dropping.

      How about evidence that guns are actually a good tool for self defense ? All the numbers say they aren't. In the one in a billion odds of you actually needing self defense a decent self-defense class is far more likely to save you than a gun ever will be. It's simply the wrong tool for the job on every level. And ironically, the more you follow the rules to reduce the risk of accidents - the less useful it becomes for self defense. An unloaded gun with the bullets kept in a separate safe isn't worth much if you actually ARE attack - since your attacker does not need to find the bullets and load his gun. His safety will not be on.

      How about any reason to believe that the default approach to self defense should be lethal force ? Shouldn't you be BETTER than the few people that we still need defense against ? If you respond with lethal force, how are you not just escalating the situation forcing them to use lethal force as well and taking a RISK of somebody dying and making it a guarantee. Even the practicalities aside - it's morally wrong to suggest that you are justified to use lethal force for self defense at ANY moment up to where lethal force has been used against you. As long as there is a chance to end the situation with the attacker alive, you are obligated to use that.

      The difference between my post and your mockery, is that my post is real. I don't fear guns - very few gun-control advocates do. But I do fear idiots with guns and if you don't - then you're the biggest idiot of all. There has never been a MORE rational and justified fear than the fear of a moron with the power to kill. And the idiots will always outnumber the smart people.
      For everybody who is smart enough to handle guns safely, there will ALWAYS be 20 who are idiots with them and get innocent people killed. So far America is averaging two people shot by toddlers a month this year. Toddlers - kids who cannot possibly understand the risks of guns, or the rules, who should never have been anywhere near them. But there are always enough idiots that some of them will get guns - and when toddlers play with guns people die -often other toddlers.

      > as if any of your laws would ever stop a criminal from having a gun
      Nope, they won't - but then that was never the point of gun control. We're not that stupid - it's a strawman to pretend it is. The point of gun control is more than anything else to end gun ACCIDENTS. Which almost exclusively happen with legal guns. The second major thing it prevents is mass shootings - because the people who do those, they aren't criminals (at least - not until they actually do it). They don't have contacts, they aren't trusted.
      You think you can just show up at the docks in Australia and buy an illegal gun ? Nobody there will sell you one. If they don't know your face, if they don't have a history with you - or at least with whoever referred you - you cannot get one. Because they won't take the risk that you may be an undercover cop. The mass shooting types - it stops them, because they can NOT get guns, your average street criminals aren't stopped - but they don't NEED to be. In all of human history never before has people been as safe from crime as we are right now. And next year, we'll be even safer. If the current trends continue many countries will be crime-free before the end of this century !
      We don't need to disarm criminals - they are a dying breed anyway. We just have to wait until there aren't anymore, and the risk of having to deal with one now is already so low that if you ever spend a sing

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    177. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Evidence that, with the lowest crime rate in human history and dropping - self defense is a need you should give a thought to at all.

      So for you, the casualties of criminals who cannot be stopped in time by a government police force are simply acceptable collateral damage?

      It's simply the wrong tool for the job on every level.

      I'm not sure what kind of reasons you would believe that a woman accosted by multiple men wouldn't be better off with a firearm for self defense. Are you arguing that perhaps pepper spray or a rape whistle are better at self defense?

      it's morally wrong to suggest that you are justified to use lethal force for self defense at ANY moment up to where lethal force has been used against you.

      Actually, the law looks at three things - Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. To assert that one must wait for actual lethal force (rather than jeopardy of serious harm or death), is silly. Should a police officer wait to be shot first before shooting back?

      But I do fear idiots with guns and if you don't - then you're the biggest idiot of all.

      The answer to idiocy is education. Teach people proper handling of firearms. Hell, I fear idiots with *cars* more than I fear idiots with guns, and if you don't, then *you're* the biggest idiot of all :)

      For everybody who is smart enough to handle guns safely, there will ALWAYS be 20 who are idiots with them and get innocent people killed.

      Apply the same thought to cars. Tell me if you feel any differently :)

      The point of gun control is more than anything else to end gun ACCIDENTS.

      The best way to prevent accidents is training.

      The second major thing it prevents is mass shootings

      Interesting, Australia did something like that in response to a mass shooting, and while they haven't had another mass shooting since, they've had increases in rape, murder, assault, and suicide by means other than firearm. Acceptable losses in your mind?

      We don't need to disarm criminals - they are a dying breed anyway. We just have to wait until there aren't anymore, and the risk of having to deal with one now is already so low that if you ever spend a single second worrying about it

      That's an amazingly optimistic view of Chicago :)

      Now, look, I get your argument - you're doing a cost benefit analysis, and you've measured the costs in accidents and mass shootings against the benefits of lawful self defense, and found it weighed in one direction. I'll caution you that perhaps your cost benefit analysis is skewed, and those who disagree with you aren't gun nuts, but simply rational actors who have used your same basic argument, but have started from different premises.

      Again, if you want to educate yourself further, I highly suggest John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime". Even if you don't agree with his end conclusion, it may provide you with some food for thought if your mind is still open to learning more on the topic.

    178. Re: What an empty life by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >So for you, the casualties of criminals who cannot be stopped in time by a government police force are simply acceptable collateral damage?
      Not at all. But that problem is already solving itself. There are about a thousand gun accident victims for every crime victim now - are THOSE just collateral damage to you ? How far does the ratio have to skew before you care more about them than about the few who still get killed by criminals ?

      >I'm not sure what kind of reasons you would believe that a woman accosted by multiple men wouldn't be better off with a firearm for self defense. Are you arguing that perhaps pepper spray or a rape whistle are better at self defense?
      That particular crime is actually best addressed with all the things you rightwingers dismiss as SJW feminazi things. Treat the rape culture that encourages it.Teach men not to rape. Teach sons that you never, ever touch another human being unless you are invited to. Giving the woman a gun, or indeed any advice on 'how not to get raped' is just a way of saying 'make sure he rapes a different woman instead'. But even THAT crime is dropping.

      >Actually, the law looks at three things - Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. To assert that one must wait for actual lethal force (rather than jeopardy of serious harm or death), is silly. Should a police officer wait to be shot first before shooting back?
      I spoke about morality, I said nothing about the law. The law is hardly universal anyway, even within the USA for example you have stand-your-ground laws in some states and not in others. I spoke about justice, this is an area where (especially thanks to gun nuts) the law and justice rarely resemble each other.

      >The answer to idiocy is education.
      You can't teach intelligence or responsibility. It's simply beyond the means of most people to learn.

      >Teach people proper handling of firearms.
      We can't get people to wear their seatbelts and you think you an achieve THIS on a sufficient scale to make a dent ? That's so, utterly, naive.

      > Hell, I fear idiots with *cars* more than I fear idiots with guns
      I fear both - but it's a LOT easier to defend myself against the former. I know how to drive defensively, I even took extra lessons to learn how to do that better. I can invest in cars with extra safety features (which I do as a matter of principle - I will not put my child in a car without airbags, ABS and ESP). But there is nothing I can do about idiots with guns. If some moron leaves his gun out and my child has a playdate and his kid gets the gun and shoots mine... an accident that happens about twice every month in America what the fuck exactly could I have done to reduce that risk ?
      I'll tell you - there is exactly one thing I could do: try to advocate for sensible gun control, if you can't pass a test on gun safety - including but not limited to proof you can actually hit what you are aiming at with VERY high results - then you shouldn't have one.

      Now here's the kicker - I love guns. I was a professional sport-shot. I can hit a 1-inch bulls-eye at 50 yards 9 out of 10 times - and I can do that with pistols. But I don't have a single gun in my house and I never will. Exactly because I love guns - I know them better than most gun nuts - and so I respect them - and I know that the vast majority of people are too stupid to treat them with the proper respect. My dad was a cop. He always used to say he was far more scared of being killed by a dumbass rookie who didn't treat his gun with the proper respect than he ever was of being killed by a criminal. As he put it: "Eight out of ten cops are trigger-happy idiots".

      >The best way to prevent accidents is training
      Training only works if you restrict access to those on whom the training worked. We license you to drive. We don't let anybody who wants to fly a passenger jet - you have to prove you know how to do it safely. Training without testing is non-existent.

      >Interesting, Australia did something like that in response to a mass sh

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    179. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      There are about a thousand gun accident victims for every crime victim now - are THOSE just collateral damage to you ? How far does the ratio have to skew before you care more about them than about the few who still get killed by criminals ?

      And this is *almost* the right question. You're on the right path though...here's what we need:

      1) deaths due to accidental/negligent discharge of a firearm per year (about 505 according to the CDC in 2013)
      2) lawful defensive use of firearms per year (estimated a minimum of 760,000)

      For me, that's a pretty skewed ratio. Granted #2 is only a possible death or serious injury, but my bet is that eliminating the lawful defensive use of firearms would create much more than 505 deaths per year.

      Treat the rape culture that encourages it.Teach men not to rape.

      And teach terrorists not to terror, and murderers not to murder, and thieves not to steal :) In the meantime, in a world of unreformed rapists, terrorists, murderers and thieves, I'd like my daughters to be prepared to defend themselves with lethal force.

      I spoke about morality, I said nothing about the law.

      Okay, so morally, we should expect our police officers to be shot at first before ever using their service firearms? Do we wait for the hostage to be shot in the head before sniping the kidnapper?

      You can't teach intelligence or responsibility. It's simply beyond the means of most people to learn.

      Are you sure you've learned it? :) And given that pessimistic view of humanity, should we be letting them drive around in cars?

      I fear both - but it's a LOT easier to defend myself against the former. I know how to drive defensively, I even took extra lessons to learn how to do that better.

      Do you walk on sidewalks defensively too? And if you're allowed to have a car to drive defensively, why would you decline to allow people to defend themselves with firearms?

      We can't get people to wear their seatbelts and you think you an achieve THIS on a sufficient scale to make a dent ?

      Absolutely. I'm an optimist :)

      if you can't pass a test on gun safety - including but not limited to proof you can actually hit what you are aiming at with VERY high results - then you shouldn't have one.

      I agree entirely. Practice and training are key, and you'd be horrified to hear that most police only have to qualify with their sidearm once a year, and a passing score can be as low as 70% in some jurisdictions.

      Now here's the kicker - I love guns. I was a professional sport-shot. I can hit a 1-inch bulls-eye at 50 yards 9 out of 10 times - and I can do that with pistols.

      That's an awfully nice pistol for that kind of accuracy :) I never competed professionally, but did both rifle team and pistol team in high school and college. For self-defense, I can hit center body mass 10 out of 10 times at 20 yards with a pistol, although I would never take a shot at that kind of range in a self defense situation. At 20 yards with a pistol, it's time to run for cover. I'd estimate the longest distance you'd want to even attempt a shot would be 21 feet (as per the Tueller drill).

      And yeah - acceptable losses since all together those are STILL less than what used to be killed by gun accidents - by a factor of a hundred.

      I take it if the data showed a reverse ratio, you'd reconsider your position?

      Crime is not a risk that concerns me, crime rates are dropping, and have been for a century, they will keep dropping.

      That's a wonderful amount of self-security you have :) I hope you can accept that for victims of crime, this is cold comfort.

    180. Re: What an empty life by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Okay, so morally, we should expect our police officers to be shot at first before ever using their service firearms?
      No. Like the UK - our police officers should not be armed at all.

      >Are you sure you've learned it? :) And given that pessimistic view of humanity, should we be letting them drive around in cars?
      We already limit that to those who have passed an exam to prove they at least know how to do so at a minimum safety standard. That many don't drive that way after the test is a sad fact, but it would be a LOT worse without licensing. So why can't we do the same with guns ? Why can we not at least restrict gun ownership to people who have proven they know how to be responsible with them ? I can't imagine why anybody would want one in a residence, it makes as much sense to me as using a caterpillar crane for your commute to work - but is that not a feasible compromise ?

      >Do you walk on sidewalks defensively too?
      Yes actually.

      > And if you're allowed to have a car to drive defensively, why would you decline to allow people to defend themselves with firearms?
      False analogy - using a car defensively REDUCES the risk of ANYBODY dying. Using a gun defensively just increases the risk of it being somebody else who dies. That aside - because I proved I know how to use a car safely before I was allowed to drive one.

      >Absolutely. I'm an optimist :)
      Then what the fuck do you need a gun for ? Optimists don't worry about negligible risks like violent crime.

      >I agree entirely. Practice and training are key, and you'd be horrified to hear that most police only have to qualify with their sidearm once a year, and a passing score can be as low as 70% in some jurisdictions.
      Yet another reason to disarm the population - because once we do, we can disarm the cops. I really don't trust cops with guns - but I can't in good conscience take their guns away and let you keep yours.

      >That's an awfully nice pistol for that kind of accuracy :)
      Yes, when you're in a competition as a professional you invest in the best gear. I wouldn't say I can do it that often with a *cheap* pistol. A top quality weapon, in perfectly maintained condition. But it was locked up, in a safe, at a gun club. Never in my home. I stopped shooting after I finished university, lost interest, haven't touched a gun in over a decade. I doubt I would be quite that good if I picked one up now - but it wouldn't take more than a few shots to hit my target. But in the one in a million chance of an attack - I believe my knowing how to burst both your eardrums before you can blink is much more reliably a good way to save lives and protect my family than my skills with a gun - and comes with zero risk of my child getting her hands on it and shooting my wife.

      > I'd estimate the longest distance you'd want to even attempt a shot would be 21 feet
      Well that's competition shooting - it's a test of marksmanship, it's not supposed to test your self defense skills. A human body is a lot bigger than a bulls eye.

      >I take it if the data showed a reverse ratio, you'd reconsider your position?
      I might, but I'd need another piece of data. A reasonable projection - based on the century long continuous decline in voilent crime rates - of when that reverse would come into being if it really hadn't done so already. If that period is sufficiently far in the future - then I'd reconsider. If we're 5 to 15 years away, then we may as well plan ahead.

      >That's a wonderful amount of self-security you have :) I hope you can accept that for victims of crime, this is cold comfort.
      I'm aware of that. But then so is the fact that somebody else got off slightly better because they were armed. That this is extremely rare an event doesn't help. Guns are really not very good tools for self defense. A responsible gun owner, by definition, is not keeping his gun ready - that would not be responsible. And a gun that isn't ready, isn't

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    181. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      No. Like the UK - our police officers should not be armed at all.

      Looks like they've been readjusting their expectations: http://news.sky.com/story/poli...

      So why can't we do the same with guns ? Why can we not at least restrict gun ownership to people who have proven they know how to be responsible with them ?

      No problems there. Not everyone should have a gun, but anyone who is willing to learn and train and abide by the law should have that right.

      I can't imagine why anybody would want one in a residence

      Not saying these are high frequency occurrences, but the obvious answers:

      * home invasion
      * WROL scenario (riots, for example, that I have personally experienced)

      Put another way, it's better to have a gun and not need one, than need a gun and not have one :)

      Using a gun defensively just increases the risk of it being somebody else who dies.

      Defensive use of a gun doesn't require you to discharge your weapon, just as defensive use of your car doesn't require you to sideswipe a reckless driver off the road. Simply having the weapon can be enough to deter a criminal most of the times, and more than that, just having the *chance* of having a weapon can be enough to deter a criminal most of the time. tl;dr - there's a reason why most high profile mass shootings happen in gun free zones

      Optimists don't worry about negligible risks like violent crime.

      Sure they do. It's idealists that don't :)

      I really don't trust cops with guns - but I can't in good conscience take their guns away and let you keep yours.

      Funny, I feel exactly the opposite way. Knowing the culture of "gun guys", I would much rather have the guy practicing at the range with me armed than a cop who simply requalifies once a year. In fact, given the fact that civilian use of force is so much more scrutinized, I'll even argue that civilians are much more likely to be safe with their weapons than police. A police officer who kills someone in the line of duty has the protection of his union, and a bunch of the legal system. A civilian who kills someone in self defense, even when it's completely legit, is held accountable in extreme ways.

      A reasonable projection - based on the century long continuous decline in voilent crime rates - of when that reverse would come into being if it really hadn't done so already.

      My problem with your choice of a century as a timescale is that there are too many confounding variables. Society, culture, technology, economy, infrastructure, have all changed dramatically over 100 years, and it's very hard to assert even a standard reporting of violent crime over that period of time.

      Cognitive dissonance exercise for you (since I think you mentioned you believed in global warming obliquely) - given that 1916 was a worse time for humanity than 2016, and we experienced a change of approximately +0.8C of warming, why shouldn't we expect the same benefit from the next +0.8C of warming over the next hundred years?

      A responsible gun owner, by definition, is not keeping his gun ready - that would not be responsible.

      I firmly disagree. A CCW holder is a responsible gun owner, and keeps his gun ready. And even if you're not carrying in the house, if you have a proper safe, you can get to your loaded firearm in an emergency while still keeping your family safe from accidents. (Oh, and don't forget to keep your wife trained and your kids trained in safety and operation too!)

      Those guys may not be any better with a gun than you - but they show up with their guns already loaded and they are q

    182. Re: What an empty life by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I don't think BLM is about every individual case...

      To me, BLM means Bureau of Land Management. That is the federal agency that handles Native American matters. To me, anything BLM has to do with "indians", not "blacks."

      It is weird how three letter acronyms change... and we are supposed to keep track of all that? Meh.
       

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    183. Re: What an empty life by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree about the consequences of middle of the road opinions. Maybe middle of the road opinions don't lead to massive sea changes over night, but I've seen large changes over the course of even my short life. Gay rights for instance have come a helluva long way in the last few decades as demographics have shifted effectively moving the middle of the road.

      PS. Do you know anyone other than PETA members, that take PETA seriously? How long will the BLM movement be relevant if they stay on the PETA path?

    184. Re: What an empty life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was NBC pushing their false narrative that Zimmerman was a racist.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/nbc-news-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-call_n_1401167.html

      The media was also pushing the false narrative by claiming Zimmerman was "white".
      They went so far as to call him a "white hispanic" and "light-skinned hispanic" to try and make it about race when it turned out Zimmerman was not white.

    185. Re: What an empty life by Layzej · · Score: 1

      The bottom line here is that flat claims of "hottest year ever" without specifying uncertainty, across the entire scale of comparison, is fake news.

      As already mentioned at the top of this thread, 2016 is so much hotter than previous years that it exceeds the uncertainty by several orders of magnitude.

    186. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      You need to qualify that with the uncertainty for every year through which you're comparing it.

      That is to say, if 1880-1978 are different than the satellite era of 1979-present, you cannot blithely state that 2016 is the hottest year from 1880-2016 (note, I'm not saying it *isn't*, I'm saying that proper uncertainty bars aren't being presented).

      In particular, I'd love to see the uncertainty bars around 1934. I haven't seen any presentation of NASA data that characterizes that specifically, although they have presented uncertainty measures for recent data (oddly unreported by our MSM fake news :) ).

    187. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Looks like this is the closest I could find to 95% confidence intervals: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

      The difference in uncertainty between early measurements and recent ones is *huge*.

    188. Re: What an empty life by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Doesn't change a thing though. 2016 is so far ahead of previous years that there is no question and no ambiguity.

    189. Re: What an empty life by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      No he didn't. And even if he had it wouldn't mean anything. You can't disprove a pattern by claiming (truthfully or not) that one example doesn't fit the pattern. You may have had a point if there wasn't Tamir Rice (cop acquitted), If the NRA had even MENTIONED Philando Castile, if there was no Eric Garner, of if the list of unarmed black men killed by US police this year alone was not currently at 1039 - that's an average of more than 3 a day, every day.

      The parent poster didn't mention Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, etcetc. What he was discrediting was Michael Brown as a poster child as various BLM groups have done. Those groups have a lot of good points about policing in America, but you cannot pick a worse headliner for your cause than Michael Brown.

    190. Re: What an empty life by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      "Hands up, don't shoot" came from a few witnesses, all of whom have recanted their testimony or been found to be lying. Every other witness testified that Brown did not have his hands up or was surrendering. It WAS a cause championed by Al Sharpton, who always wades in without knowing what he's talking about.

      Forensic evidence at the scene is consistent with Officer Wilson retreating backwards. The county autopsy found gunshot wounds in Brown's arm, coming from both the front and the back, and said nothing about 'defensive posture.' It's entirely consistent with eyewitness accounts. The independent autopsy was done after evidence had been removed from the body and it had been washed and embalmed, and admitted it would be unable to forensically reconstruct the scene. The federal autopsy ordered by Eric Holder was consistent with the previous two.

      I would agree with a protester who said "Even if you don't find that it's true, it's a valid rallying cry... it's just a metaphor." That's fine. And there certainly HAVE been unarmed people shot by nervous police who were making no threatening gestures. Let's just not pretend this was the case was Michael Brown.

    191. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Actually, take a closer look here:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

      I think this does a good job of presenting the % probability based on the 95% confidence interval what years might be considered ranked as what.

      tl;dr - claiming any "hottest year evar" is fake news, being specific "X% possible hottest year evar" is real news.

    192. Re: What an empty life by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Very poor summary. I'm not sure you quite understood the paper. Even still 2016 will be a clear winner without ambiguity because it is so far ahead of other years (as noted previously) - this is even in spite of the fact that 2015 was already so hot that it was given at an astounding 94% certainty!

    193. Re: What an empty life by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      On a side note? What is far -right? Is it the neo-nazis or free-market, pro-gay marriage libertarian outfits? What is the definition of far - right? Or is it simply - they disagree therefore they are far right?

      It's a side note, but it's the more interesting one, IMO. :-D I think it comes down to different definitions of conservative. Whether it's "preserving the traditional way of things," or "preserving freedom," both considered right-wing but they can also be at odds.

      Take the traditional conservative Christian evangelical. They wish to preserve the traditional morality of society, at least one where their morals were considered the standard, the default, the enforced. This is considered "conservative," because they wish to conserve their way of life in society, and reject societal changes which threaten their interpretation of The Good Book.

      Then you have the Libertarian wing, or perhaps those a bit further to the right of the Libertarian Party. They believe in freedom from government interference, freedom to act according to their conscience. Freedom to do what they want with their own property. They are conservative because they don't feel like someone a thousand miles away has the right to, say, dictate water policy in their state. Or determine if they can cut down trees on their property. Or without property from the market at all. Or tell them who they're required to buy from or sell to. That is conservative in the more "you can't make my decisions for me" vein.

      Sometimes those two groups come together for common purpose, whether it's against laws requiring the removal of religious symbols from public grounds, disagreement with the concept of "hate crimes," disagreement with affirmative action or quotas, encouraging tax cuts, etc. Even then they can be somewhat strange bedfellows, and their alliance may be one of convenience -- dislike of central authority being the thing that binds them together.

      But often the groups might be at odds. Your freedom-loving libertarian might find especially distasteful sex laws governing behavior between consenting adults, such as anti-sodomy laws. Your typical conservative evangelical has no problem with those laws, nor would they have a problem with government promotion of Christianity, something a libertarian might find distasteful. The libertarian might consider anathema the idea of a draft, or of American forces sent to fight a war in another country that hadn't attacked us. Both might find common ground in the notion that the -federal- government should not be the ones to make mandates, but that the local government is constitutionally free to. IE, 'you run your town the way you want to, we'll run ours the way we want to.'

      It's a strange mix at any time.

    194. Re: What an empty life by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Brown was never the 'headliner' he was the straw that broke the camels back.
      Brown cannot be mentioned WITHOUT mentioning the others or you ARE being deceptive (whether deliberately or not).

      Facts without all appropriate context are better known as 'lies'.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    195. Re: What an empty life by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Just like PETA they're a bit over the top and often biased and unfair, but they're the only way society can move forward. Middle-of-the-road opinions don't bring change.

      Moderate animal advocacy groups have brought some change. Most reasonable people, and everyone not already sympathetic, completely ignore PETA, the ALF, etcetc.

      The riots in Ferguson have done nothing other than convince most people that there are some fucked up violent people who traveled to that city to burn, loot, and attack police.

      Occupy Wall Street had no effect, NONE, other than spawn a bunch of homeless-like camps that everyone who didn't live in them hated. Find Barney Frank's interview on NPR for why he knew Occupy would be a total failure after he visited a few rallies.

      The looney fringe does not drive societal change, because only the moderates are listened to by moderates or people from the other side. Violent radicals engender support for law enforcement to stop their violence, and the message gets lost because most people do not like such violence and city shutdowns, regardless of the cause. The British listened to Ghandi because he was more appealing to deal with than the terrorists bombing and butchering at the time. MLK got far more support in the US, and far more done, than the especially racist Nation of Islam ever did, or the Black Panthers.

    196. Re: What an empty life by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I think the difference is, no one expects the Enquirer to be accurate. I mean, for fuck's sake, they've had stories about Bigfoot and Elvis meeting.

      In the National Enquirer? Or Weekly World News?
      The Enquirer is a celebrity gossip tabloid, but purports to be real. They've won some lawsuits, lost others, but they're not a Bigfoot/Elvis publication. Their specialty is he said/she said stories that are difficult to prove or disprove.

    197. Re: What an empty life by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Evidence from two eyewitnesses is that Brown was murdered.

      They recanted.

      Witness 22 said she saw Wilson kill Brown in cold blood. She admitted later that she wasn't in the area and was just passing along information her boyfriend told her.
      During grand jury testimony, she admitted "I just felt like I want to be part of something... I didn't see what I told the FBI what I saw."
      One of the other witnesses who said Wilson murdered Brown admitted in a phone call that he didn't see the incident at all.
      Witness 35 said Brown was "on his knees" when Wilson shot him in the head, despite forensic evidence indicating otherwise. Witness 35 admitted in his grand jury testimony that he made that part up.
      Witness 37 said Brown was shot in the chest at the vehicle, then started giving contradictory recounts, eventually saying "If none of my stuff is making any sense, like why do y'all keep contacting me?"

    198. Re: What an empty life by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      That's a wonderful amount of self-security you have :) I hope you can accept that for victims of crime, this is cold comfort.

      Laws should not be passed to give victims comfort. It may sound harsh, but outliers and a sad story with a friendly face should not drive policy.
      MAAD is not making a reasonable policy when they claim that anyone who has even small, tiny amount of alcohol should not drive afterwards, or that legal BAC limit should be reduced from .08% to .01% (they've argued both positions over the years).
      The tragic murder of Polly Klaas was whipped into a panic resulting in the passage of California's "three strikes" law -- a horrible mistake that saw prison populations soar with non-violent felons.
      The violent crime rate has dropped precipitously, but it's not at 0%. There will always be victims of violent crime, and the question is whether we're safer overall armed at home, or not.

    199. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Agreed - and I think that your rationale works for the self-defense side - "outliers and a sad story with a friendly face should not drive policy". As tragic as negligent discharge accidents are, we shouldn't use these outliers to disenfranchise millions of safety conscious, law abiding gun owners. There will always be victims of accidents, be it with firearms, buckets with water, or falling furniture, the question is whether the incredibly rare accident should eliminate the right of self-defense, water use, or furniture ownership.

    200. Re: What an empty life by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're really getting the point here. It's fine to state "94% certainty that 2015 was the hottest year", but it is irresponsible and fake news to flatly state "2015 was the hottest year".

      I'm not arguing what year was the hottest, I'm arguing that it is fake news to report it without the caveats of uncertainty - even if they're above 90%.

      tl;dr - some people reported that clinton had a 99% chance of victory, and some people reported flatly that clinton was going to win. One of these was fake news, the other one just didn't beat the odds.

    201. Re: What an empty life by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Not the eye witness testimony the Justice department released. The only person who was on Brown's side in his testimony had just robbed a store with him.

      As far as Brown trying to steal the gun, there is evidence of it, so we don't have to take the police officer's word for it; fingerprints on the gun, and blood inside the car on a bullet hole, as well as gunshot residue on Brown's hands. Also, Brown charging Wilson has evidence for it in the angles of the gunshot wounds. I have never heard Brown was 148 ft away though, as that would be some seriously good shooting on the officer's part.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... All of the spent casings are feet away. When someone assaults a police officer, you expect them to just let the person walk away and not try to arrest them?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 7 witnesses corraborated the police officer's story, 3 disagreed with him. Totally a clear cut case of the police officer lying. All three of the disagreeing witnesses were proven false by multiple conflicting stories and the evidence, I am sure they are totally work listening to though.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    202. Re: What an empty life by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      3 Witnesses indicated that Wilson shot Brown in cold blood. Every one of them was disproven by evidence or the person recanting their statements.

      7 Witnesses indicated that Wilson shot Brown in self defence.

      But don't let the facts get in the way.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    203. Re: What an empty life by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Lie, and lie, and lie.
      Wilson attempted to run over Brown, then shot him in the hand then claimed he "turned to attack like a bull" lying about him being over 148 feet away

    204. Re: What an empty life by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Yes, by all means, trust Comey to tell you the truth and ignore the three eyewitnesses the Prosecutor refused to put before the Grand Jury

    205. Re: What an empty life by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      "why are they JUST NOW making a big deal out of it?"

      Because a way larger percent of the public is consuming those fake news stories now vs 8-16 years ago. And a higher percent of consumers of conservative media appear to be targeted with fake news vs liberal news. For instance, there are interviews with hackers/programmers/web designers in Macedonia who said that when they made fake news sites designed to entice Bernie supporters into viewing/clicking clicks, they got far fewer hits then when they created fake pro-Trump stories.

      And in general the topic of truth in politics is now an issue because Trump lies so brazenly and blatantly. Even very easy to debunk stuff, like "you said X on this date". "No I didn't". Google X, first hit is Trump saying "X" on that date.

    206. Re: What an empty life by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that the witnesses lied? The prosecutors proved out the lies of the witnesses against Wilson, but you know better than the justice system! Are you batman now, going to mete out vigilante justice because you KNOW what happened?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    207. Re: What an empty life by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The three eye witnesses that recanted? Or the one whose testimony was proven to be false by the actual evidence? You must just hate those police officers to believe the lies you are spouting.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. spez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dont worry Spez has their backs. He can just change what they post on the internet and make it sound however he likes.

  3. I really don't get the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a far right guy but I seriously don't understand why they'd go after Musk instead of Bezos or something, idiotic neocons.

    1. Re:I really don't get the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a far right guy but I seriously don't understand why they'd go after Musk instead of Bezos or something, idiotic neocons.

      Bezos went after your guy through WaPo, but it didn't work. Musk might run in the future. This has nothing to do with reality, it has to do with eliminating potential threats to the consolidation of power. A charismatic businessman who actually knows something about what he's talking about is a grave threat to your leader. And even if he's too dumb to realize it, his backers aren't that dumb.

    2. Re:I really don't get the point by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure anyone is even doing anything. Some guy I've literally never heard is said to have written 3 critical articles that I've never seen before.

      As best I can tell, everything right now is about /u/Spez and pizzagate, if there's anything going on about Elon, it's kinda weird that I'm reading about it here first.

    3. Re: I really don't get the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk is not natural born us citizen, so he could run for Congress, but not the Presidency.

    4. Re: I really don't get the point by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Electric vehicles and solar power are a massive threat to the internal combustion engine and fossil fuels. This is about money as much as it's about politics. One question is whether it's being done to manipulate the share price for short term profits or to damage Musk and his businesses in the long term. Probably both, because why not?

    5. Re:I really don't get the point by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Like you I've never seen any of this "fake" news anywhere I frequent. So I followed the links to one of these "fake" stories. Here is what I found:

      From the Slashdot summary you click the link and end up at a news site called Quartz. Wikipedia characterizes Quartz as a site that "targets high-earning readers who traditionally read other left-leaning publications," a bit of the left wing echo chamber, in other words. In the Quartz story you find one link to what is described as a fake news story at a site called The Daily Signal. The Daily Single is a Heritage Foundation deal; a piece of the right wing echo chamber. The story itself is categorized by The Daily Signal as "Energy / Commentary," and — indeed — it reads like commentary, making no pretense at being news. The last paragraph:

      It’s past time for the American people to stand up to Musk and demand that our legislators and other elected officials bring him back to earth before spending one more dollar of our money. He’s wasted enough of it already.

      Pure commentary.

      I conclude that this Slashdot story is fake; the one "fake news" story being cited by Slashdot via Quartz isn't a news story at all; it's political commentary, labeled as commentary and reads like any other piece of commentary. If this is what the left is hanging its hat on I say go for it; your delusions aren't helping you at all and I hope you continue to indulge them.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  4. Soft target attacked by cowards by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The same argument applies far more to Lockheed with their joint smoking fighter. Instead of going after real waste these cowards are attacking the little kid in aerospace.

    1. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      The same argument applies far more to Lockheed with their joint smoking fighter.

      The USS Zumwalt is coming up strong on the outside in this category.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Every good patriotic defense contractor runs wings around Elon Musk when it comes to wasting the taxpayer's money. But that's ok, they make big weapons to appease the warhawks and bring the pork to their districts, whereas working with renewable energy is a serious sin in the culture wars.

    3. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      I had to think of their fusion project when I saw Lockheed.

    4. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I thought of Kitty Pride's pet dragon.

    5. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Was it the "Bandersnitch" in one of the Nightcrawler comics?

    6. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      We're doing the national equivalent of "rolling coal" by electing Trump-Pence. Hopefully the rest of the world will stay patient with us, as it is but a phase.

    7. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the rest of the world will stay patient with us

      China is already pushing hard for a Pacific trade treaty with many other nations to increase their influence and try to become the world's leading economy. Russia will probably take advantage of the void on the military influence side.

    8. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      In two years the Dems will most likely take Congress and defang Trump, in 5 when he's failed to accomplish most of his goals and screwed up a bunch more of them he'll be gone...provided the Dems don't try to shove Hillary down our throats again.

    9. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hopefully the rest of the world will stay patient with us

      China is already pushing hard for a Pacific trade treaty with many other nations to increase their influence and try to become the world's leading economy. Russia will probably take advantage of the void on the military influence side.

      It's interesting to think that both military and commercial dominance are very much dictated by energy. Many companies costs are dominated by energy after people costs. A country which generates all of it's own needs in renewable energy and has enough spare energy to start creating liquid fuel from electricity at economic prices is a country which is free to act without having it's wings clipped by the middle east.

      Apart from the Koch brothers and friends, both Russia and China likely gain by ensuring that the USA falls behind in renewable energy. An unholy alliance of the three groupings is quite likely.

    10. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I wish you were right, but given the track record of American voters I think we can expect 8 years of Trump.

    11. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Remove "renewable" to be more general, then add our "friends" Saudi Arabia as number four to the mix to depict the wider situation. The Saudi driven oil glut appeared to be deliberately designed to drive the shale oil and other marginal US energy source providers out of business. It was timed just as those producers borrowed very large amounts for plant and before they could bring things online. Even if it wasn't as deliberate as it looked it removed a chance to get increasing energy independence from the middle east. Considering how much it has hurt the Saudi economy in the short term it is almost certain that it was a deliberate move for that reason.

    12. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      We're doing the national equivalent of "rolling coal" by electing Trump-Pence. Hopefully the rest of the world will stay patient with us, as it is but a phase.

      The sad thing is how many people voted for Trump believing that he would bring back coal—believing that environmental regulations are the reason that coal is dead—when nothing is further from the truth. Coal is dead. Natural gas killed it. Forget the environmental issues; natural gas plants are much cheaper and easier to set up.

      You can stick a natural gas cogen plant right next to the business that needs extra power, and the neighbors don't sue you for putting up a nasty, soot-belching smokestack in a residential neighborhood and lowering property values. The proximity also means you don't have to run extra high tension lines and you still have less transmission loss. And so on. Those cost differences add up.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    13. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by dywolf · · Score: 1

      yeah, but the last one destabilized the entire middle east and crashed the world economy.
      and the one before that killed wage growth for 40 years, and hit new records for corruption scandals.
      and the one before that dragged out the Vietnam war in order to win an election, while promising a "secret plan" the whole time.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    14. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by dywolf · · Score: 1

      don't bet on it.
      most of the seats up for grabs are dem seats.
      and most of those are in states that went Trump, and which have enacted further voting restrictions and gerrymandering over the years, and like to add more, to further tilt the board.

      no, 2018 will be a bloodbath.
      and 2020 likely will be too, as redistricting again due to the census wont really be possible until 2022.

      and by then we're actually facing a permanent GOP super majority (hell we already are! look at state houses and governors), in government if not in actual population, so its not clear how much of that will actually be possible to be undone. basically facing permanent apartheid type rule by oppressive political minority.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    15. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by fredgiblet · · Score: 1

      There's been 2 one-term presidents in the last century, and both of them were probably more effective than Trump will be.

    16. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      But Trump has the best words. He has better words than anyone. If anything goes wrong, it will be someone else's fault, he alone will know how to fix it, and he'll tell everyone with so much energy that 51% of Americans will believe it even though the rest of the world is flabbergasted by how gullible they are.

    17. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the ship that died while transiting the Panama canal this week and ran into some locks? Oh ya, that one....

    18. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Also don't forget that those jobs he promises to bring back won't be coming back. The jobs people want to come back are long gone, automated out of existence. The jobs that are available are fewer and require more skills and training.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    19. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The proximity also means you don't have to run extra high tension lines and you still have less transmission loss.

      A lot has changed in the last century with power transmission and it takes quite some distance before those losses are significant.

    20. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I suspect it's not just "cowards".

      See. I've seen derogatory news stories and articles about Musk like this before... except they weren't in English. They were in Russian, and actively shared on LiveJournal and VKontakte. They started actively floating around about 2 years ago, and there have been several spikes since.

      Make of it what you will, but keep in mind that oil-producing countries have the most to lose if the West is to switch to electric cars sooner rather than later. Especially those oil-producing countries that don't really have other significant sources of revenue, and are in financial dire straights already...

    21. Re:Soft target attacked by cowards by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      And yet, the costs for buying land to build the infrastructure is still considerable. The industry is trending very strongly towards generating power closer to the point of consumption in spite of fun things like superconducting power lines that bring the losses to essentially zero. No reduction in coal regulation is likely to change that reality.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  5. Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait - not everything on the Internet is true?

    1. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nothing on the Internet is true (including this).

    2. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      "Nothing is real, and nothing to get hung about."

    3. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nothing is real, and nothing to get hung about."

      If you don't guard the republic, almost anything will get you hung.

    4. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Nothing on the Internet is true (including this).

      Thanks. You just shut down my androids.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, better then getting hanged, I suppose.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      I just mash the keyboard and let the Reddit admins correct anything they think is wrong.

    7. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Butbutbut Pizzagate!!!

    8. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This story is all about you. You've posted hundreds of derogatory/sarcastic comments about the viability of space travel in general, and you constantly attack Elon Musk. You pissed yourself with glee when that SpaceX rocket exploded on the pad.

      Don't you have something better to do you loser?

    9. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, better then getting hanged, I suppose.

      Than, you stupid fuck. When correcting someone's grammar, try to not fuck it up yourself.

    10. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Typos != grammar.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, New Your Times has gone out an appoligized about them lying during the election and that they will stop doing it (probably) so I guess... no?

    12. Re: Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame Lennon and McCartney. I thought it was "nothing to get hung up on" but apparently not.

    13. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Getting a letter wrong in a word isn't a grammatical mistake. It's weird that you don't know that.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    14. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Obviously not.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    15. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you clearly haven't read my history.

      And probably confusing me for the other Member of the 10100 Digit UID Club.

    16. Re:Wait - not everything on the Internet is true? by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Wait - not everything on the Internet is true?

      Only the stuff about aliens and the Illuminati is true, everything else is false.

      --
      We'll make great pets
  6. Right wing corporate lovers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so sad that the right-wing big corporate screw the poor guy republicans are taking issue with Elon Musk, master of corporate subsidy and now proud owner of an empire built on taking money from the poor and giving to the rich.

    Let's be honest. Net metering is stealing from the renters to subsidize homeowners. ZEV lanes and rebates are ways to take from the poor and give to the rich. Congress just rolled over and told the Air Force to pencil whip SpaceX's space rating, as they didn't have nearly as rigorous a design process as their competition did, and then when that didn't work, bribed congress to prohibit ULA from buying more engines.

    Yeah, great democrat, defender of the poor.

  7. thanks for taking the time... by publiclurker · · Score: 2

    to collect all of the bullshit into one post so the grownups don't have to waste time wondering what the hate groups are spewing.

    1. Re: thanks for taking the time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure, then, that you have a counterargument instead of just rudeness.

    2. Re: thanks for taking the time... by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      The root post was composed of compound lies, so there is nothing to respond to.

    3. Re: thanks for taking the time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that you have a counterargument

      Category error. A convenient summary of the lies being peddled serves to alert us, it isn't to be argued against.

    4. Re: thanks for taking the time... by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      why legitimize your garbage by pretending that it is worthy of a response. Of course, since you are too much of a pussy to attach your name to it we already know that you don't even believe this junk

  8. Shepard Stewart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love to know how "qz.com" knows that "Shepard Stewart" is "nonexistent". A cursory Google turns up this and this.

    Partisan hack, sure. But "nonexistent" is a strong claim.

    1. Re:Shepard Stewart by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      A pseudonym isn't a real person. Does Richard Bachman exist? He is listed as author on multiple published several novels.

    2. Re:Shepard Stewart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are missing is that a byline doesn't prove that a journalist exists. All it proves is there are more articles posted under the same name.

    3. Re:Shepard Stewart by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A cursory Google turns up this [dailycaller.com] and this [theliberta...public.com].

      Did you really just point to two of the biggest fake news sites to use them as evidence that a fake person exists?

      I think you missed the point of this whole "fake news" controversy. These twenty-something goofballs start a fake news site to make money off the alt-right, and alt-right news sites who don't do any fact checking immediately pick up the stories.

      In the past few days, there have been several interesting interviews with some of the people who run fake news sites. The reason they say that fake news doesn't work on the Left will blow your mind.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Shepard Stewart by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Did you really just point to two of the biggest fake news sites...

      Be careful. When you paint with a broad brush, you run the risk of getting paint on sites you probably like, such as motherjones, etc. There are some real echo-chamber nutcase sites out there, like infowars. It's a mistake to throw all the sites you don't like in the same heap with them. Fever swamps like infowars need draining, not more roughage heaped into the stew.

    5. Re:Shepard Stewart by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think you missed the point of this whole "fake news" controversy. These twenty-something goofballs start a fake news site to make money off the alt-right, and alt-right news sites who don't do any fact checking immediately pick up the stories.

      In the past few days, there have been several interesting interviews with some of the people who run fake news sites. The reason th doing it. Alsoey say that fake news doesn't work on the Left will blow your mind.

      I heard about this story yesterday on NPR, about an alt-right fake-news writer living in Los Angeles.

      TL/DR: Jestin Coler (the fake-news writer) claimed that he does it to show how easily hoodwinked people are by fake news, but when pressed, he admitted he could make lots of money doing this. A few interesting quotes from his interview:

      The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly false or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction.
      [...]
      We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:Shepard Stewart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PopeRatzo isn't concerned with truth or facts and is a paid political poster.

    7. Re:Shepard Stewart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to know how "qz.com" knows that "Shepard Stewart" is "nonexistent". A cursory Google turns up this [dailycaller.com]

      Go to that article and take a good look at the "writer's" photo, zoom right in. Notice how it strangely doesn't look like a real photograph? Nor, outside a few articles in the alt-right press, will you any other pictures of "Shepard Stewart" resembling this identikit image (either in searching his name or searching the image). Does this guy have no life outside these articles?

      OK, he's a "freelance writer," I'd like to hire him, but where is his personal web-site, where's his portfolio. I know I'll go to his Facebook page ... hmm that's odd, his time-line starts on the very same day that original article about Elon Musk was written ... it's a co-incidence I'm sure. I'll ask one of his friends ... oh he's got none. This guy really doesn't seem to have a life outside these article.

    8. Re:Shepard Stewart by wept · · Score: 2

      We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.

      This sounds a little too exactly-what-liberals-want-to-think-about-themselves. I would be really surprised if this is true.

    9. Re:Shepard Stewart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if a self-admitted conman said it, it must be true.

    10. Re:Shepard Stewart by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      I don't believe it was the liberal media who outed Sean King. The fact that he's still quoted a lot by liberals kinda belies that bolded text.

    11. Re:Shepard Stewart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      publish blatantly false or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction.

      And then what? They don't care about facts. Blatantly false or fictional stories that were immediately debunked were what got the fascists to power. Because the majority really is that stupid.

    12. Re:Shepard Stewart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.

      This sounds a little too exactly-what-liberals-want-to-think-about-themselves. I would be really surprised if this is true.

      Ok, let's pursue that line of argumentation. If Conservatives are really well informed critical thinkers who debunk false statements almost immediately, how do you explain Trump rallies?

    13. Re:Shepard Stewart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The reason they say that fake news doesn't work on the Left will blow your mind.
      lol, because american liberals totally don't fall for fake hate crime news reports all the fucking time ("this racist DRUMPFKIN grabbed a proud muslim transwoman's hijab on election night!"). you're a dupe.
      also,
      >Left-wing extremist. Expertise in critical theory and post-WWII literature.
      do you work in academia? if so, do you ever contemplate how much money you've swindled from young, impressionable people?
      there was a time when "left-wing extremist" would've meant someone who cared about worker's rights, but now it simply denotes a middle class social parasite with a sinecure position at a university. you ought to be sentenced to several years of hard labour.

    14. Re:Shepard Stewart by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well if a self-admitted conman said it, it must be true.

      Trump's entire campaign was based on this fact.

      And the guys who provide these fake news stories to alt-right websites aren't con men. They're just giving the alt-right exactly what it wants.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:Shepard Stewart by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Jesus, that's what you're resorting to? Deeply pathetic.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    16. Re:Shepard Stewart by dywolf · · Score: 1

      motherjones's investigative reporting is right up their propublica and is no way comparable to infowars.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    17. Re:Shepard Stewart by mukinrestak · · Score: 1

      "how do you explain Trump rallies?"

      With the fact that there are perfectly reasonable reasons to support the giant Oompa Loompa over Hillary?

    18. Re:Shepard Stewart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Left fact checks. The Alt-Right, and to a lesser extent, the Right doesn't. They don't for a good reason. It's because they value their religious bearings. They have faith replace verification in so many aspects of their life, it would be foreign for verification to be part of their news process.

    19. Re:Shepard Stewart by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      And therefore... (wait for it)... liberals are smarter than conservatives! QED, it's obvious!

      (Flattery always works with liberals)

    20. Re:Shepard Stewart by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Actually, the relationship between intelligence and political leaning is complicated. One study indicated that conservatism is associated with cognitive rigidity and therefore difficulty with intellectual challenges. Another indicated that intelligence tends to be associated with a stronger tendency to weigh more factors when rendering an opinion about something, and therefore it tends to make people more moderate (i.e., centrist.) In other words, that cognitive rigidity tends to steer people towards more extreme ends of the spectrum. And yet another showed intelligent people can display mixed tendencies in both directions. Also, cultural and historical context can have an influence.

      https://www.psychologytoday.co...

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    21. Re:Shepard Stewart by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The Left fact checks.

      Sorry but that's just total bullshit. Some people with left leaning political views may fact check but there are so many gullible naive ignorant twats ranting on about gender pay gaps, rape culture, online harassment and other bullshit without the slightest understanding of the basics facts or the truths they reveal.

    22. Re:Shepard Stewart by hey! · · Score: 1

      And therefore... (wait for it)... liberals are smarter than conservatives! QED, it's obvious!

      As a liberal, I don't believe this is true. It's not intelligence; it's emotional engagement that makes you gullible.

      So it's a matter of circumstance we're looking at here. Conservatives believed in the last election that they were at risk of losing their country. They truly hated and feared Hillary Clinton, and that made them gullible. Well what about liberals and Trump? I think the problem is that fake news couldn't get traction because Trump himself had already saturated his negatives. Before people could take the bit in their teeth they would be distracted by real bad news, or go back to seething over reality.

      People in general are sheep because they allow themselves to be emotionally manipulated.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    23. Re:Shepard Stewart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people with left leaning political views may fact check ...

      And that's all it takes to make the story fizzle out. What does this tell you about alt-right readers?

    24. Re:Shepard Stewart by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

      Its amazing with all the news stories that agree how smart liberals are that they continue to lose right?

  9. Two possible motivations by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure what the motivation is for these attacks. Musk hasn't been particularly political and mainly stayed out of this election. As far as I can tell, the primary motivations are one of two things. Either one, the people behind this are simply hateful and without a major target like Hillary must choose another, or two, they hate Musk because much of his work (electric cars, solar cells, even wanting to use methane for rockets because methane is a potentially renewable resource) has been to deal with issues related to global warming. If the second is the motivator, then it says something really fascinating: that there are elements of the right which not only are convinced that global warming is some sort of evil hoax, but that they actively hate people who disagree with them and are trying to take steps to destroy someone who is trying to help. If that's the case, it is truly a frightening example of the depth that people can sink to, and the levels they'll go to not just ignore facts they don't like but to actively try to harm people who try to deal with those factual issues.

    1. Re:Two possible motivations by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, having thought about this slightly more, another possible motivation occurred to me: there is a fair bit of evidence of Russian meddling in this election and that some of the anti-Hillary propaganda came from Russian sources to try to push the election to the candidate they favored. By the same token, Musk is potentially a real danger to Russian interests, since Russia is heavily oil dependent and also has an advantage when the US is dependent on Russia for manned space launches. If they have the now existing resources and hooks into the US public, then using it to harm Musk is a natural thing.

    2. Re:Two possible motivations by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      I can think of two motivations: if it's not the regular tall poppy syndrome that most of the internet haters depend on then it'll be fossil fuel companies trying to keep their dying businesses alive.

    3. Re:Two possible motivations by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you really surprised? The opposition to global warming was never founded on the basis of pretty much anything but economic concerns, especially by the fossil fuel industry, because there's a LOT of money in it. At the very least, that's where the money to oppose it comes from. It's really not at all surprising to me that there are a few who think Elon Musk is a threat, probably more because of his push for Solar Power and usable Electric Cars/infrastructure.

    4. Re:Two possible motivations by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Move over Spanish inquisition, this era starting about 1995 and continuing onward to the present day is what will be defined as the American inquisition.

    5. Re:Two possible motivations by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "There may be Russians under your bed at night."
      -- Joe McCarthy.

      "Blame Canada!"
      -- South Park.

    6. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      motivation is simple, MONEY. same as it was during election, fake sensational news generates ad revenue. These are people that are mostly poor looking for anyway they can to make a buck and fake news is a rapidly growing new fad as they have realised it is very easy.

    7. Re:Two possible motivations by CaptainDork · · Score: 5, Informative

      This.

      Fossil fuel is (I know it's hard to fathom) more desperate for survival than tobacco was back when, and the IP industry is now.

      I helped litigate tobacco and the conversation went like this:

      Scientists: Your shit is killing people.
      Tobacco: Jobs.
      Lawyers: Your shit is killing people.
      Tobacco: Jobs.

      Rinse, repeat.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    8. Re:Two possible motivations by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes, global warming is treated as an absolute lie by a huge chunk of the country. They treat anyone falling for it as either a fool or a part of the conspiracy, internal sabateurs trying to destroy America.

    9. Re:Two possible motivations by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      If the second is the motivator, then it says something really fascinating: that there are elements of the right which not only are convinced that global warming is some sort of evil hoax, but that they actively hate people who disagree with them and are trying to take steps to destroy someone who is trying to help.

      Remember what's said about religion: heretics and apostates are hunted down not because they are wrong but because they could be right.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:Two possible motivations by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what the motivation is for these attacks. Musk hasn't been particularly political and mainly stayed out of this election.

      From the article linked in TFS:

      Jaffe says that whoever is behind the attacks is aiming at Musk personally because they fear he could go into politics. He cited the allegations of fraud (emails) and negligence (Benghazi) levied at Clinton during the presidential campaign, charges that cemented the public’s perception of her as shady. “It’s the exact same thing as Musk. There’s a portion of the political spectrum that is scared to death of Musk as politician. They see him as a threat. They’re starting that process.”

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    11. Re:Two possible motivations by brokenpineapple · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The motivation? Page views. Duh! It makes a lot of ad money. They don't give a damn about the consequences as long as the ad revenue keeps flowing.

    12. Re:Two possible motivations by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      ... or three: the writers are being paid (indirectly, naturally) by individuals and companies whose finances are closely tied to fossil fuels. *cough* Koch brothers *cough*.

      Have you seem some of those right-wing news sites: some of them don't have a lot of ads, suggesting an alternative source of funding.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    13. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The news about Fake News it itself Fake News! This about Elon Musk is so blatant that its just stupid, an attempt to legitimize the Fake News propaganda. All so they can censor the internet even more.
      And people like you eat it all up. Russia didnt do shit, Hillary really is a crooked bitch, and she has always been. You think the negative information about her just came out this year??
      No, rumors has been going around even before Bill was president! And people, LOTS of people who have tried to speak up about this or tried to investigate for real has fucking died, most of them in "accidents" or "suicides". Sure a few is a coincidence, but the amount of people around the Clintons who have died is unprecedented!
      Im sorry, but youve all been lied to. Not by Fake News sites, but by your own government AND the mainstream media. And this shit has been going on for DECADES!

    14. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO, conservatives wouldn't necessarily be automatically dismissive of climate change if it were presented as the impetus for civil engineering projects (*) instead of arguing for policies that will make everything cost more and ultimately reduce our standard of living.

      (*) Examples:

      * Building a causeway/dam with locks between San Francisco Bay and the Pacific to keep the bay's height constant regardless of what happens on the Pacific side of the barrier. Kind of like the one that protects St. Petersburg, Russia from flooding. Then doing the same thing in New York (a new barrier dam with locks for ship traffic and a shiny new 6-10 lane freeway on top between Sandy Hook and Rockaway Point, and another between long Island and Connecticut).

      * Along the rest of the east coast, dredging out the Intracoastal Waterway & inland bays, and using the excavated soil to raise the terrain of barrier islands (protecting them as beaches, and using the islands themselves as barriers protecting inland areas from flooding). Kind of like Chicago did in the late 1800s (they literally jacked up every building in the city, raised its foundation, and lowered them back down onto the new (higher) foundation... and added a few feet of fill dirt to the surrounding yards & roads to raise them, too. I think they even ended up reversing the direction of the Chicago River's flow.

      * Selectively abandoning currently-uninhabited low-lying coastal areas that are just swampy mud flats anyway, and just letting them flood, and/or using them as dredging sites to get fill dirt to raise the coastal portions of urban areas along the Gulf Coast.

      The Pacific coast is easy... most of it ends with a cliff between urban areas and the Pacific. The Gulf Coast is a little more work, but probably 80% of it is just undeveloped mud flats nobody will miss anyway. The East coast will be a bitch to shore up & fortify, but the fact that ~60% of the US lives within a hundred miles of the east coast will justify the expense. And frankly, most of the east coast hasn't even HAD anything that vaguely resembles a natural coastline since the 19th century, so we'd mostly be expanding on civil engineering that's already been done to allow residential development there.

      Of course, environmentalists will bitch forever and call it an "environmental holocaust", but frankly, if it comes down to abstractions like "saving the environment" against "allowing multi-million-dollar homes to flood", the environment will inevitably lose.

    15. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Dude, stop blaming the Russians - Hillary made her vile bed and now she's got to lie in it. You can't pretend that Americans want another Obama decade, after all the shit he's pulled, they want somebody who represents (potentially catastrophic, but real) change. And anything's better than supporting those pedo fucktards in the DNC. That Podesta creep and and all the money from Middle Eastern interests that flowed into the Clinton Foundation should give anybody pause.

    16. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There may be Russians under your bed at night." -- Joe McCarthy.

      Which makes it all the more amusing to see Republicans try to make light of the undeniable Russian interference --both by feeding leaked emails via Wikileaks (as confirmed by the NSA) and the saturation bombing by Russian troll factories on social media --in the election. Did you see the jubilant scenes in the Duma after the result was announced. Quite a coup!

    17. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suck my Fox, Rushtard

    18. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sources for strong evidence of this meddling by Russia? None by the Clinton News Network or such trash. None from right wing BS either. Yeah it'll be tough, best I've seen is moderately suspected. Not doubting it, but the propaganda is so strong today with all sides it's getting harder to see behind the curtain anymore.

    19. Re:Two possible motivations by Capsaicin · · Score: 3, Funny

      The 2 Russian girls I know are both very attractive... I wouldn't mind finding either one of them under (or on top of) my bed...

      Don't be a fool man! They're only there to sap your precious bodily fluids!

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    20. Re:Two possible motivations by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If by "not so much" you mean "way, way more" then I agree with you.

    21. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tobacco is an optional product. Fossil fuels are not. If fossil fuels disappeared tomorrow, more than half the current world population would be dead of starvation within a year. Fossil fuels are at present the lifeblood of our society. We cannot survive without them or at least most of us cannot.

    22. Re:Two possible motivations by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 4, Informative

      The "jobs" argument for fossil fuels just doesn't make sense though. There's already more jobs in renewables than in oil or coal (Either one by itself. Not combined, yet.). We hit that tipping point this year. Jobs growth in renewables has been crushing fossil fuels for the last several years. Investments in renewables are growing exponentially. And if you look out past five years or so (Yeah, I know, most MBA types are congenitally incapable of looking past the next quarter. Whatever.) we're close to profit growth; and not long after, profits being larger than fossil duels. Renewables ARE where the jobs are, and it's where the money is fi you play the long game.

      Clean-Energy Jobs Surpass Oil Drilling for First Time in U.S.
      Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels

      Governor Schwarzenegger put it brilliantly. Even if you *don't* believe in global warming (Which is still a stupid-ass position.) fossil fuels are eventually going to run out. Before they run out, they're going to become more expensive to extract. Renewables are the future. Renewables are where the jobs and investment opportunities are, moving forward. And what sort of moron wants to be the last investor in Blockbuster when Netflix is about to crush them?

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    23. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that something doesn't make sense doesn't stop people believing it if it is yelled hard enough. E.g. Trump.
      He has multiple "pants on fire" ratings from objective fact checking sources but this didn't bother his fans one iota. He lied about Clinton repeatedly and got elected.

      Musk is pissing off the oil industry in the states, the Russians (who probably fund this) with Space X, the automotive industry and the coal/nuclear industries. Plus he's an immigrant.

      If the US pisses him off pretty much any country on earth will take him...

    24. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyting you said is true. But you missed a few things.

      1) Those new jobs and new profits are in new companies; companies that have not paid their dues by bribing... I mean lobbying... the republicans for many years.
      2) The renewable industry is mostly a product of the technology hubs of the west coast and New England. These area tend to run liberal; so they, their populace, and the businesses therein, can all go fuck off and die so far as the republicans are concerned.
      3) The jobs being created tend to be skilled labor in technology companies that require college degrees, or equivalent experience, or sheer brilliance. This is not the republican demographic. See Trump's dominance in the non-educated school dropout demographic in the election. So repubs don't care about that sort of job growth.

    25. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think the out of work coal miners are now working in renewables?

    26. Re:Two possible motivations by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      You just described the fanatics on both sides. 'Deniers should be tried.' Remember that one?

    27. Re:Two possible motivations by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      That excuse doesn't follow though. Everything about Musk's persona, presented either publicly, or within Tesla (I've a good friend who works at HQ in Palo Alto.) shows a man utterly dedicated to making his businesses succeed, a la Steve Jobs, and definitely NOT someone interested in walking away from Tesla and SpaceX to go run for office. Plus, he's not a natural-born citizen. He was born in South Africa and immigrated (Which may actually be the reason republicans would hate him.). So he could only go as far in politics as Schwarzenegger did, topping out at California governor.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    28. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If 500 jobs go away and 10000 new jobs are created, is that not a net gain? Consider that the many of the jobs in renewables are in R&D and skilled manufacturing specialties and pay better than mining anyway. Its better for the economy, as these people will have more money to spend on other things, as Henry Ford discovered. And if someone decided they were too cool for school and abandoned their education why should there be sympathy?

    29. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was a CEO at why not invest in renewables as well? Seems like a great growth opportunity.

    30. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/Jobs/Money/g

    31. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between denying evidence (evolution is true, the sun shines) and wanting to lock people up for being so irrational that they'd threaten their own survival science. One is based in reality (aka survival) the other is not. Trying to equivocate "they are just as bad" because it goes against your ideology is childish. Ignoring the evidence of science leads to death. Imagine if someone claimed "germs" were a conspiracy, are we to go back to the dark ages before modern medicine and biochemistry (science?). The four humors perhaps?

    32. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did the NSA confirm that thing? Give us the link to the NSA source please.

    33. Re:Two possible motivations by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This is new though. They have managed to convince a large number of useful idiots that climate change is a scam designed to make them poorer, so they attack it on behalf of the corporations. The corporations realized that politicians will act if they think it's what people want, so convincing voters to support corporate policies has a very high ROI.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When did the NSA confirm that thing? Give us the link to the NSA source please.

      It was reported here last week. Here's a clip of the NSA director all but naming Russia.

    35. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooooh is Ronald Reagan spinning in his grave right now.

    36. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you thought about the fact that Musk's ideas are unrealistic? That some of his ideas are even pure nonsense?

      First there is his idea that global warming is a non issue because we can just continue living our lives like we and our parents did, just replace our regular car with a battery powered electric car. This is simply not true. The problem is still that we move tons of steel/aluminum/carbon over large distances every day to work, to do shopping, etc. which is a very inefficient way to be productive.

      Second there is his idea that we will colonize Mars within a few years or decades. He does this by using mid-20th century technology. Space colonization is not realistic. Mars is not a new America. Mars isn't even the Antarctic where people can't live without continues supply. To colonize North America, the first colonists needed a continues supply from the home country too for the first decades. And that was a North America that was similar to North West Europe: the same air, the same ground, almost the same climate. Mars is completely different then earth. It's dead.

      Then there is his idea that he got from Ford: the more you produce of one type of product the cheaper it gets. But Ford's idea of production was already outdated in the 1930's. Japan's vision of production made it a world leader in only a few decades after losing the world war. Its flexible last minute delivery of all parts of the supply chain made it possible to create a different car with different options every few seconds. A 1920's style production line will create Model-T like electric batteries and not the variety that is needed today and was delivered by the modular Japanese production lines of the 1960's and the flexible pop-up factories of the Chinese of the 1990's-2000's. Especially the Chinese type of production needs a very flexible workforce that can only be delivered by a totalitarian but yet technological advanced country like China with massive amounts of work willing but still sufficiently educated poor.

      And another is his view on the world: we live in a simulation and he will fund scientists that will proof what he already knows is true. Of course he will find scientists who will proof what he thinks is true, for the right amount of money of course. In that regard he is no different than the oil lobby, the tobacco lobby, the sugar lobby, ... But guess what? We don't live in the software simulation of a computer of an advanced society. It's a nice idea for a science fiction movie. But it's not real. It's just philosophic crap that can only be used for yet another type of religion. Yet another religion with potential radical followers is not what we need in this world. There are other radical religious people who will never give up their idiotic believe system for another idiotic believe system.

      There is very little opposition towards Musk's ideas in main stream media. In the contrary everything he says and does is almost always glorified. Journalist often don't understand the technology and don't fact check with scientists or manufacturers. Politicians all over the world fall over each other to be the one who awards Musk with nice subsidies so the politician's name will be for ever connected with the name Musk. When the main stream media fails to offer a critical opinion and only gives opinions by fans, you can't be surprised that the fake positive news will be countered by other fake negative news.

      I'm not against electric cars. I'm not against research and development of better rockets. I'm not against space exploration. I think that the climate is influenced by human activities and that global warming and pollution is a serious threat. But I don't think that all of Musk's ideas are correct. We can't solve the climate change by throwing lots of money at ideas of false prophets. I'm not religious but I still think that the false prophet concept is a nice warning to future societies to be skeptical about self proclaimed leaders... as has been proven time and time again in the

    37. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh fuck off, it's not a grass roots crowd or political troglodyte association who are developing a bad opinion of Musk, it's paid shills campaigning to discredit the guy that is totally disrupting the transport and energy sectors. Who knows what else he will disrupt next. Roofing is the most recent surprise. There are thousands of people who would prefer he didn't upset the current markets, they're heavily invested in futures and Musk is fucking them every which way of Sunday.
      He's a visionary and a risk-taker and a renegade. He must be delayed at every opportunity.

    38. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what the motivation is for these attacks.

      This story is simple hysteria, designed to drum up sympathy for the victim and principally turn people away from "fake" news sites. Whether there are actual attacks or not, and their extent, is entirely secondary

      The story was written to support the recent media narrative about "fake news". It would not exist otherwise. The extent of its truth or falsehood can only be considered through that context.

    39. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The motive is simple. The creators of the simulation we live in does not like being exposed.

    40. Re:Two possible motivations by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Fossil fuels are at present the lifeblood of our society. We cannot survive without them or at least most of us cannot.

      We could all survive without fossil fuels tomorrow by cutting the waste. We have whole industries which exist solely to pad the pockets of fuckheads. Every also-ran doing a shit job can be taken out of business to leave resources for everyone else, and universal income can be instituted to pay the people who are currently shitting all over our ecosphere whether they want to or not because "you have to work". Make-work is killing us all.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re:Two possible motivations by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The 2 Russian girls I know are both very attractive... I wouldn't mind finding either one of them under (or on top of) my bed...

      They're busy trying to find moose and squirrel and ain't got no time for that. But if you are a cheeto-colored fraudster who sleeps on bags of other people's money, they might be interested in marriage.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:Two possible motivations by doug141 · · Score: 1

      This study may interest you. Conservatives like money-saving light bulbs, as long as they don't have a "good for the environment" sticker on them: http://news.nationalgeographic...

    43. Re:Two possible motivations by dywolf · · Score: 1

      mod up

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    44. Re:Two possible motivations by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Or conversely, this is nothing but the MSM deflecting blame on the horribly biased coverage for the past year and saying it is those dang pesky right wingers AGAIN! Just like the deplorable Russian hackers that stole the election.

      Considering the above mentioned article came from the left leaning author, of course it is the right wingers fault. Some of his sources are coming from a documented bipartisan non-profit organization that gets their data from public records. Wait for it, public records will show this same group to now lean left pointing out waste in the right wing government soon to be in power.

      This whole "fake news" assassination quest is actually pointing more to corporate sponsored censorship. While there are bogus sites reporting invalid information, this is up to the people to decide if it is bogus or not, not the corporate media (and yes Facebook is a media company that is why it is called "social media"). Can they refute the information? Fine, then publish the information that shows it for what it is and not just suppress it. This points out the much bigger issue of the current "Journalistic Integrity" being nothing more than another person's opinion and not fact.

    45. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they should start responding to the multiple bug reports I've filed. :(

    46. Re:Two possible motivations by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      ... so convincing voters to support corporate policies has a very high ROI.

      The ROI is the survival of the politician, as well.

      Each Congressperson has a built-in delay when pressed for a position on a particular issue, because it takes a little time to come up with the answer that will get them re-elected.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    47. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when Bush & Cheny gave lots of govt contracts to their company? That's "crony capitalism".

      Remember today when Trump is putting his family in charge of govt, so they can push their businesses? That's also "crony capitalism", with a heavy dose of nepotism.

    48. Re:Two possible motivations by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I would take global warming more seriously if the proposed solutions from the left were not carbon credits and exemptions for India and China. It's basically "we're all gonna die! Now give us your money and freedom and we'll all still die anyway!"

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    49. Re:Two possible motivations by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Well he did confirm it was a state-sponsored hacker. When did he say Russia. You are making assumptions not based on facts. Check this link to discount your assumption. Who should we believe, the current appointment of Obama (who was involved), or a former deputy director of the State Department during multiple presidents both Dem. and Rep.? This raises the question "was it state-sponsored"? Probably. And it very well may have been our own state-sponsored hackers.

    50. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they meant was that it was their job to kill people...

    51. Re:Two possible motivations by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I would take global warming more seriously if the proposed solutions from the left were not carbon credits and exemptions for India and China. It's basically "we're all gonna die! Now give us your money and freedom and we'll all still die anyway!"

      1) the Democrats are not the left
      2) this is not a reason not to take global warming seriously. it's a reason not to take the Democrats seriously.

      If you want to stop carbon release, you cap and tax. Not cap and trade. Cap and tax. Actual leftist here. HTH, HAND.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    52. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of it in terms of a business. These aren't just some random people creating these sites, they're being paid for their efforts. It seems to me that Musk's competitors simply saw how well fake news worked in the election, and have decided to utilize these same services.

    53. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All good points. However, the point is making the rhetoric rather than facts. Like appealing to the public about a "poor" coal worker who is going to lose his job and not able to feed his family because of some imagined threat this new technology presents. Usual stuff when corporations want to stay incumbent.

    54. Re:Two possible motivations by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      China and India have grudging exemptions, because it's better than nothing. We can't wait until everyone is in unanimous agreement It's like when teachers try to break up a fight on the playground and all the students say "I won't let go until he lets go first!", it never gets anywhere that way. Everyone wants China and India to comply, we're not offering them a free waiver instead they are demanding one for themselves. So either we halt all attempts to solving the problem until China and India are more enlightened or else we move ahead anyway and hope they can catch up.

      Freedom here is a red herring. Everyone has to give up freedoms to live with other people, it is necessary. We give up our freedom to dig holes in the next dor neighbor's yard without their permission, we give up our freedom to dump pollution into rivers, and so forth. Giving up freedoms is necessary to exist as a society.

    55. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "jobs" argument for fossil fuels just doesn't make sense though

      It rarely does any other time it's used, either. It's not about logic, it's about getting enough Congressmen to believe that "jobs" will get them reelected so that they will continue your tax breaks, subsidies and exceptions to various laws and regulations.

      "Jobs" is the magic four-letter word that can make almost anything happen.

    56. Re:Two possible motivations by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
    57. Re:Two possible motivations by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Between the lines, the sticker implied "The Government demands you buy these fragile, expensive, flickering, failure prone, mercury-containing CFLs because Global Warning is your fault". Fortunately, I resisted to some extent, and am now populating sockets with LEDs, which are nice. Greenies are stuck with a houseful of CFLs.

    58. Re:Two possible motivations by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Commie.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    59. Re:Two possible motivations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well he did confirm it was a state-sponsored hacker. When did he say Russia.

      Oh please, don't be so precious. You think it was Lichtenstein?

      Who should we believe

      Certainly not a certified tin-foil hatter like Pieczenik! I means seriously: "In order to stop this coup, we in the intelligence community and others involved have informally gotten together, and with their permission I am beginning to announce that we have initiated a counter-coup through Julian Assange and WikiLeaks." This is what counts as conservatism these days?! I'm old enough to remember when the loonies were on the friggin' radical Left. You should never believe your own propaganda!

      Putin's preference for Trump is naked and it's not so much about their proclaimed personal liking for each other. The Russians want to disrupt the aggressive neocon foreign policy stance which Clinton pursued as Secretary of State seamlessly following on from the previous administration. It was Clinton who was the conservative (business-as-usual) candidate here and business-as-usual has been a nuisance for Putin's imperial ambitions. Not entirely effectual, but a nuisance none the less.

      Now they have not only what looks to be an incompetent US administration (let's pray that a Petraeus gets the nod, but one rather doubts it). An administration not only too busy navel gazing at your internal culture wars to be effective globally, but also a President who has stated a desire to step back from NATO. And you wonder why they were congratulating themselves in the Duma when Clinton conceded?!

      Just wake up and smell the fucking coffee! This is not merely a disaster for the US.

    60. Re:Two possible motivations by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      There are people on space forums criticizing Musk of his government funded "hobby rocket" and "Mars colonizing fantasy" (I agree the latter is a fantasy, as for the former all rockets are government funded except for those of you flying Estes). Though Elon may be the new Tony Stark and generates lots of excitement among younger generation, he is not an almighty God. Telsa and SpaceX have their problems and baggage but if these companies go, it will leave a huge gaping hole of capability. Who knows when Orion or CST100 will fly, Dragon provides both up and down cargo carrying now, and has a big door for big pieces of equipment to move in and out of ISS.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    61. Re:Two possible motivations by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      The "jobs" argument for fossil fuels just doesn't make sense though.

      It doesn't need to be true to be effective propaganda :)

      Here's how a anti-agw/pro-oil "think tank" might make the case:

      1. Renewable energy is more expensive, therefore
      2. Cost of goods and services will rise, therefore
      3. People spend less, the economy slows, therefore
      4. less jobs.

      Of course, in countries that are way more aggressive implementing renewables than the US, there has been no evidence of negative economic impacts. But those above 4 things "sound correct", so repeated enough times and half of America now believes them to be true.

  10. Fake news, everyone! by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Funny

    WTF? Didn't you guys get the memo? Fake news was last week. This week it's hacked voting booths. Next week will be hacked fake news sites. Week after we will be voting for fake new hackers (they're actually middle aged).

    1. Re:Fake news, everyone! by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      No, the fake news hackers are Russian young adults who are otherwise unemployed and mostly unemployable.

    2. Re:Fake news, everyone! by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Not sure I would classify them as unemployable. They have exhibited an excellent understanding of human nature and what drives eyeballs to stories and turning that into profit. They could have an excellent future in someplace like google if they could lower their moral standards a little more.

    3. Re:Fake news, everyone! by Gussington · · Score: 1

      WTF? Didn't you guys get the memo? Fake news was last week. This week it's hacked voting booths. Next week will be hacked fake news sites. Week after we will be voting for fake new hackers (they're actually middle aged).

      Actually, they're all fake news, and fake news will continue to be the topic for at least the next few years because a lot of people simply lack critical thought capability needed to defend against it.
      Why do you believe what you believe? Do you have an opinion and try to justify it, or look at the evidence and try to form an opinion based on it?

    4. Re:Fake news, everyone! by hey! · · Score: 1

      The irony is that you don't have to hack voting machines to swing the election. You just have to distribute them (or just the functioning ones) unevenly. I'm convinced that's why touch screen voting machines are preferred to optical scan ballots.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. Hold on to your butts! by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

    We're entering the "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" stage of history. It's gonna be a fuckin' riot.

    Personally, I can't wait for CG to hit that sweet spot where one can make an absolutely convincing replica of anyone and make it do or say anything. Because who needs an objective reality anyway?

    Then again, AI replacing the human thought process is going to be pretty sweet too. IT'S NOT MY FAULT, THE COMPUTER TOLD ME TO DO IT!!!

    Oh boy, oh boy, we're living in the future folks. Hurrah!

    1. Re:Hold on to your butts! by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      I like that "post-truth" is word of the year.

    2. Re:Hold on to your butts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're entering the "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" stage of history. It's gonna be a fuckin' riot.

      Been that way a LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGG time.

      If you are just "entering" you haven't been paying attention.

  12. Lawyers by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Defamation, slander and libel laws are already on the books. I'm sure Mr. Musk can and will take care of himself.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not slander when the accusations are factual. His companies build death traps because they cut corners with safety. His rocket has the Worst reliability record in human history. His self driving car has an accident rate far exceeding manual driving rates. This monster need to be stopped before he gets more people killed.

    2. Re:Lawyers by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Your mom is not factual. Regarding the rest, any person with a brain can look up information disproving those claims.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another right-wing troll. I guess you cann't stand somebody actually succeeding in a business venture unlike Trump, and Bannon or a welfare Queen like Pence and Preibus

    4. Re:Lawyers by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Dear fellow Murican Conservative. I also share your views and wish to know more. Kindly send links for citations.

      Regards, MAGA.

  13. Fake news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fake news! What can't it do?
    It elects Presidents!
    It sullies their enemies!
    It slices!
    It dices!
    It even tarnishes Elon Musk!

    Order now, and get this 100% authentic MSM absolutely free! Made of 24 karat bullshit, it is indistinguishable for other fake news, but costs 100 times as much.

    All this can be yours, for the low price of just $29.95 (plus shipping and handling).

  14. misrepresenting the reason for these stories by gravewax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I doubt this is about pushing any agenda, Fake news drives large amounts of hits/click bait, which in return drives advertising revenue. Their are people all over the world who have realised this and their entire job is to generate fake news, not for any agenda, simply profit. The more controversial and topical the more likely to earn money. Up until a few weeks ago it was all about Hillary and Trump, now they need to move on.

    1. Re:misrepresenting the reason for these stories by rrohbeck · · Score: 2

      However it's mostly uneducated/desperate/poor etc people who fall for this. That was exploited by Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh etc and now it's the same in the right wing echo chambers on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit & co that gave us Pizzagate.

    2. Re:misrepresenting the reason for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so slashdot just gave them what they wanted... attention. peachy.

    3. Re:misrepresenting the reason for these stories by gravewax · · Score: 1

      exactly! their current stories will have skyrocketed in hits from the various news articles about them and they will have just made a mint, when that one dies off they move onto the next story.

    4. Re:misrepresenting the reason for these stories by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Oh please. Falling for fake news is no more restricted to the uneducated than falling for Nigerian schemes.

    5. Re:misrepresenting the reason for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However it's mostly uneducated/desperate/poor etc people who fall for this.

      It doesn't matter who the audience is as long as there's revenue to be made by getting them to view your stuff. I think gravewax could be depressingly accurate about this. Musk is high profile and has views at odds with a large demographic who lap up 'infotainment' and only get more interested more the more batshit crazy the stories are. A lot of people learnt they could make good money posting imagined up controversy during the election and they aren't going to just sit around waiting 4 years until they can again.

    6. Re:misrepresenting the reason for these stories by rrohbeck · · Score: 2

      There's lots of research that contradicts you.

    7. Re:misrepresenting the reason for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite likely. If these people had an agenda, they would not have needed to resort to fake news. There is plenty of legitimate dirt against the leader of the Cult of Musk.

    8. Re:misrepresenting the reason for these stories by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

      Go ahead, show me a fake news story by CNN,one not backed by historical evidence with quoted sources
      now show me the Iraqi WMD Fox said is in Syria

    9. Re:misrepresenting the reason for these stories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNN, among others, claimed for months that Trump was a Racist without citation. Where were you during the primary and presidential? The lugenpresses hyped false stories that result in the current anti-Trump hysteria e.g.: SJW terrified about the impeding death camp, transsexuals committing suicide over the election, #NotMyPresident riots in Democrat controlled cities... That hysteria come from irresponsible mainstream media that publish FAKE NEWS.

  15. Buuuuuullshit by Sartr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am a right winger. We like Elon Musk. He produces a quality product at a decent price. He is against over regulation in his industry. This fucking epidemic of stories about fake news this week is ridiculous. The Liberal media lost big, predicting a Hillary landslide, and they NEED a scapegoat to blame for their own idiocy. Trust in the media is at an all time low, and people aren't fooled by the MSM putting on a different hat and calling themselves "impartial fact-checkers" anymore. So the new plan is to declare any website we don't like as "fake news" and tie them into the other demonized group we made up, the "alt right". They are the enemy and they must be stopped.

    1. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Vermonter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Regardless of how you feel about tax subsidies for businesses, you can't fault Musk for taking them. I think corn subsidies in the US are stupid, but if I were a corn farmer, I guarantee I would take them, otherwise I would be at an unfair advantage.

    2. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Jzanu · · Score: 0

      Corn subsidies are critical for US food security; crops are extremely inelastic goods and farming requires planning a year in advance for demand that won't exist until the end of that year's season. Just think about those relationships for a while and you'll understand why underestimating demand and planting less, and why planting barely enough to meet demand doesn't work either (hint: crops require particular temperature conditions to thrive, are exposed to blight and insects, etc).

    3. Re: Buuuuuullshit by poity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      See, this GP and reply is exactly the conversation I seem to see most often online about Musk/Tesla/SpaceX. An ostensibly right-leaning (or libertarian) commenter will praise Musk for doing something privately that rivals and even surpasses NASA. Which is then followed by a rebuttal by an ostensibly left-leaning commenter who tries to point out the subsidies and public research further up the stream that fed into these successes.

      This is why it's very weird to read this Slashdot post about right-wing people trying to take down Musk. In my experience, the right wing folks have been very enthusiastic in holding him up as a triumph of capitalism, and as a literal John Galt brought out of the pages of fiction into our reality.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    4. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes?

      In the same way that you call Trump smart for not paying taxes for 20 years, you should call Musk smart for -building businesses off Taxpayer schemes intended to encourage investment.

      Trump takes money from government to err just get richer and run businesses = smart
      Musk takes money from government to start business = smart right?

      Or is it now a bad thing that Billionaire Trump hasn't paid taxes for 20 years? Can you decide?

    5. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then why don't we have subsidies for tomatoes and carrots and spinach, you know, healthy foods. The corn subsidies are complete political payoffs to mid-western farmers -- the "rugged individual" rural folk who are over-represented in the Electoral college, Senate and House.

    6. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except I spent a great deal of the last year debunking fake news sites that friends in my feed fell for. They are an issue - because some people see them as 'satire' completely misunderstanding what satire is, and others just think they are true.

      Neither is right - it's just garbage writing.

    7. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Sartr · · Score: 1

      Not quite. The government is going to take my tax dollars and give it out as subsidies whether Elon Musk exists or not. If you want to get to the root of the problem, stop the government, not the smart person who takes advantage of their well-meaning but poorly executed plans.

    8. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Yes - whether or not you agree with the subsidies themselves, Elon would be an idiot not to take advantage of them.

    9. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no subsistence diets based on tomatoes.

    10. Re:Buuuuuullshit by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      He is against over regulation in his industry.

      Nope. The sole reason Musk's business exists is because of favourable government regulations.

    11. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is against over regulation in his industry.

      Nope. The sole reason Musk's business exists is because of favourable government regulations.

      I'll help you out, notice the word I bolded prior to regulation? This changes the overall meaning to being in support of regulation but having a limit for too much of it. It's called a sensible middle ground, we need some regulation to encourage fast strong growth in early industries while also regulating certain actions that would be a positive to the companies short and/or long term profits but a negative to citizens quality of life. Without regulations you get greed destroy profit, with too many regulations you destory your domestic industry.

    12. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Tomatoes, carrots, and spinach aren't staple crops. All three could die out completely and all would be fine. Corn not being produced at high rates would lead back to the old days of poor people around the globe, even here, starving to death.

      2. Low population states are over represented in the senate and house? Might want to take a civics lesson and learn how your country was made and is governed.

    13. Re:Buuuuuullshit by ubermiester · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nowhere do you talk about what is actually true. Which means you're not particularly interested in what's true. You're only interested in putting every "point-of-view" on equal footing. Because after all, who are you gonna believe? The "failing" NY Times? Why not take brietbart seriously? It's much more emotionally satisfying.

      Pointing out the fact that social media has become infected with weaponized viral click-bait is not a conspiracy of losers. It is exactly what all journalists do, which is to look into all the reasons why such a historic event took place. The fact that light is shined on such practices means journalism is still alive and well.

      The internet is undermining our ability as citizens to discern fact from fiction without resorting to specialized research most do not have time for using tools most do not have. And BTW, yes fascists and fake news outlets are the enemy. Go look up who calls themselves alt-right. Or maybe you only read brietbart?

    14. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      It'd already got to the point a few years ago where I made it a point to stop telling people I was a "writer"...

      "You mean you're one of those lowlifes who copies & pastes all those stupid fake stories--like where it turns out the woman was standing in front of a life-size model of a shark in a museum and they photoshopped the beach behind her--to 50 different places on the Internet?"

      Since then, I describe myself as an "author" or a "documentation engineer" instead.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    15. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I am a right winger.

      You're in denial. Go to see a doc.

    16. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WTF? There are countries all over the world where corn is a minor, neigh near non existent crop and it is NOT a staple. Corn has become an artificial staple in the US because of the subsidies that cause a glut of it to be produced.

    17. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baby's first subsidy.

    18. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a right winger. We like Elon Musk. He produces a quality product at a decent price.

      But he also produces the Tesla Model S and Model X, two cars that are exceptionally unreliable and poorly built even to American standards.

      He is against over regulation in his industry.

      His business is built entirely around industry regulation. Tesla makes its money by selling emissions credits and funds its operations with every subisdy it can get its hands on.

    19. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I voted Trump. Don't love the guy, but I did. I do however really admire Musk. Trump fucks with Musk, I'll dump money into a Model 3 and a solar roof to help out. Plain and simple.

    20. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Freischutz · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am a right winger. We like Elon Musk. He produces a quality product at a decent price. He is against over regulation in his industry. This fucking epidemic of stories about fake news this week is ridiculous. The Liberal media lost big, predicting a Hillary landslide, and they NEED a scapegoat to blame for their own idiocy. Trust in the media is at an all time low, and people aren't fooled by the MSM putting on a different hat and calling themselves "impartial fact-checkers" anymore. So the new plan is to declare any website we don't like as "fake news" and tie them into the other demonized group we made up, the "alt right". They are the enemy and they must be stopped.

      Ah yes, the liberal dominated 'Lügenpresse must be eliminated from the face of the Earth and replaced by what? Fox News? Breitbart? Both famous for being the only news organisations that always tell the truth without fail all of the time? Does the part of the media that does not agree with your world view and that your friends on the right wing call 'lügenpresse' have a liberal slant? Yes it does. Is that liberal slant any less than the right wing slant of Fox News and Breitbart? No it isn't. People are going to disagree with you. That's what freedom of speech means. I don't like either Fox News or Breitbart but I'd never dream of calling for them to be muzzled. Just because you don't agree with people does not mean that they are always lying all of the time and that their news organisations are an 'enemy' that must be 'stopped', by which you presumably mean muzzled like the opposition media in Russia? The methodology of the polls used in the recent US presidential elections tuned out to be flawed which was to be expected when one candidate in the US presidential election was flirting openly with xenophobia and racism so there was bound to be a massive Bradley effect around Trump. You can criticise MSM (by which you presumably mean MSN?) for trusting those polls just like everybody else did when there was a good chance of a Bradley effect being in play but don't try to make it out to have been some massive liberal conspiracy to try and muzzle the good god fearing people of the right wing and keep them down. Liberal news organisations deserve to be criticised for trusting those polls but conservative news outlets also deserve to be held accountable when they spread demonstrably false news. Upholding journalistic standard is a task that both right and left wing news outlets must shoulder.

    21. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Gussington · · Score: 1

      I am a right winger. We like Elon Musk.

      Who is this we? I'm considered centre-right by Political Compass, but most right wingers I come across hate electric cars, solar power, anything not oil or coal based.

      This fucking epidemic of stories about fake news this week is ridiculous.

      Why? Democracy depends on a relative educated and informed voting public. The News is how most adults get their information, so deliberately deceptive news is a huge threat to a strong democracy.

      The Liberal media lost big, predicting a Hillary landslide, and they NEED a scapegoat to blame for their own idiocy. Trust in the media is at an all time low, and people aren't fooled by the MSM putting on a different hat and calling themselves "impartial fact-checkers" anymore.

      Wait, what? You went off on a rant there. Even Fox News picked Hillary so lets' not pretend this was some "liberal Media" conspiracy. The fact is that all the polls got it wrong.

      So the new plan is to declare any website we don't like as "fake news" and tie them into the other demonized group we made up, the "alt right". They are the enemy and they must be stopped.

      Um no, we (all of us) declare any website that makes up stories without sources, citations, or independent ways to validate the claims, and then tries to pass them as fact as fake news. This applies to all parties.

    22. Re: Buuuuuullshit by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you look back a few years at Slashdot posts, a lot of conservatives criticised the government for investing in companies like Tesla. Many of them failed. The assumption was that because Musk needed that money, Tesla and Solar City must not be viable businesses and he should be condemned for building his businesses with forced investment by said conservatives.

      Since the government more than made its money back from Tesla, the narrative has shifted to attacking him for only making expensive cars that only rich people can afford. That makes him part of the elite, and part of the problem... Which is kinda odd considering Trump's tower has gold plated elevators, but these things are rarely very consistent.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      1. Tomatoes, carrots, and spinach aren't staple crops. All three could die out completely and all would be fine. Corn not being produced at high rates would lead back to the old days of poor people around the globe, even here, starving to death.

      Just because you consider corn an essential staple doesn't mean that the rest of the world does.

      2. Low population states are over represented in the senate and house? Might want to take a civics lesson and learn how your country was made and is governed.

      Why yes, they are. Maybe you should learn to do some simple maths.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    24. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And BTW, yes fascists and fake news outlets are the enemy.

      No one is arguing with you on that. The problem is you don't feel like the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, CNN, and Politico, among others, are the fake news outlets, which this election season demonstrated them to be ... repeatedly.

    25. Re:Buuuuuullshit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You might like Elon Musk, but there is no shortage of right-wingers who believe that Elon Musk is a thief because of EV credits and the like. It's ignorant at best, or more likely disingenuous, to say "I am a right winger. We like Elon Musk."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re: Buuuuuullshit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In my experience, the right wing folks have been very enthusiastic in holding him up as a triumph of capitalism, and as a literal John Galt brought out of the pages of fiction into our reality.

      In my experience, the right wing folks have been very enthusiastic about tearing him down as a thief, due to credits and subsidies that make his business possible. This has been true nowhere more than here on Slashdot, which tells me that you are being completely disingenuous.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re: Buuuuuullshit by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So you're okay with every business of his being based on taxpayer subsidies?

      Yes. Otherwise the subsidy itself has failed. The point of a subsidy is to be used as much as the subsidy provides. Subsidies are a way for the government to drive a direction of an otherwise capitalistic market in line with the policies they are trying to achieve. To not use subsidies is to ignore the government's desired direction and by idealised extension the will of the population.

      I hope he keeps using subsidies. I hope more companies come in and also get these subsidies. I hope coal mining and oil companies lose their subsidies but that is not a complaint with the companies, that's a complaint about the government.

      You don't want people to be subsidised? Vote for a government that doesn't subsidise them.

    28. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which means you're not particularly interested in what's true.

      This is true, completely true. After being called racist about 500 times for supporting Trump, I no longer care about your side's opinion. You obviously don't have a valid one and your side just reverts to calling people names instead. So you are correct, I don't care about your side anymore. When you grow up and debate topics, like what to do about illegals killing US citizens, we can talk. When your debate point is "you are a racist" I gave up listening and so did everyone else.

    29. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one's gone... nothing left to see here

    30. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Striek · · Score: 1

      Regardless of how you feel about tax subsidies for businesses, you can't fault Musk for taking them. I think corn subsidies in the US are stupid, but if I were a corn farmer, I guarantee I would take them, otherwise I would be at an unfair advantage.

      A bit off-topic, but in that case, regardless of how you feel about tax writeoffs for carry-over losses from previous years, you can't fault Trump for taking them, either. I too think the idea is stupid, but were I an international business magnate, I too would take them, or I would be at an unfair disadvantage.

      And I'm no Trump supporter.

      --
      "Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
    31. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can criticise MSM (by which you presumably mean MSN?)

      You know the word Lügenpresse but you don't know that MSM means Main-Stream Media? Really?

    32. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot if you think the alt-right was made up. Why does the alt-right being a thing make you uncomfortable?

      Or are you trying to say that all conservatives are as insane as the alt-right? I would buy that.

    33. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over-represented in the House? How is that even possible?

    34. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still anecdotal, but as a right winger also, I've basically never seen a rant online about Elon Musk in the past year.

    35. Re: Buuuuuullshit by tbannist · · Score: 1

      You might be both right, in that conservatives that think Musk is conservative want to hold him up as shining beacon, and conservatives who think Musk is liberal want to tear him down as a thief.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    36. Re:Buuuuuullshit by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Except the only people they call "fake news" are those that go against the main stream media. What about CNN and their fake news?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    37. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk made an interesting claim at the last Tesla shareholders meeting.

      He stated that if incentives were eliminated today, Tesla would be in a stronger position against their competitors, simply because Tesla is already bumping up against the 200k unit phaseout of the purchase incentive, that many of the people buying export Teslas don't qualify for incentives in their home country due to the cost of the vehicle.

      His person opinion was that incentives were still a good thing, because he wants to accelerate the changeover to renewable energy, which means getting all the other manufacturers over the hump.

      Also, if we're on the topic of subsidies and incentives, given that we exported all of our manufacturing and manufacturing related jobs overseas over the last 20 years, incentivizing companies to restart production plants here in the USA seems like a good investment.

    38. Re:Buuuuuullshit by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Still anecdotal, but as a right winger also, I've basically never seen a rant online about Elon Musk in the past year.

      You must be new here. There have been several long ones just in discussions here on slashdot in the past year alone.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Over-represented in the House? How is that even possible?

      Gerrymandering of state voting districts where left-leaning regions are carefully split up into chunks small enough to be grouped with right-leaning regions (usually rural) that just slightly outnumber them in terms of likely voters. A huge swath of suburban America has been effectively disenfranchised this way, unable to elect a House representative that actually represents their views. Only city centers are densely left-leaning enough to preclude such shenanigans. It's gotten so bad that voting districts in some states are actually discontiguous in order to overwhelm the left-leaning vote.

    40. Re:Buuuuuullshit by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      You know the word Lügenpresse but you don't know that MSM means Main-Stream Media? Really?

      He was referring to MSNBC in a back-handed way.

    41. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we just elected a guy on the premise that grifting makes him "smart," people really need to make up their minds. sheesh

    42. Re: Buuuuuullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says a guy with no background and no understanding of agribusiness, nice mindless opinion. food security has nothing to do with US farm aid. They are pork assembled by agri-business for agri-business.

      The best part about our democracy is that idiots everyone have baseless and useless, yet influential, opinions

    43. Re:Buuuuuullshit by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Hey, I got modded a troll for saying that earlier, watch it :P

  16. What about left wing fake news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a lot of left wing fake news, including:
    * Michael Brown shot in cold blood by a cop (Michael Brown attempted to steal the cop's gun and charged at him)
    * Trump campaign might not accept the election outcome (Trump's campaign considered legal challenges just like Gore did in 2000)
    * Hackers caused Trump to win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (No evidence of hacking, but demographics can easily explain the outcome)
    * 2016 is the hottest year on record (The warming can actually be explained by adjustments to the data, thanks to some scientists having transparency)
    * Trump's economic plans to protect American workers were racist (Trump's economic plans were virtually identical to those of Bernie Sanders, who wasn't accused of racism in nearly the same way)

    When will we call out the left for their fake news? Why do we always blame the right? The left is far, far worse than the right.

  17. It's sad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There seems to be two principal motivations for fake news, and they are the usual ones: Money and Power. If people click on it and they get ad revenue, well that's enough motivation. Obviously if they help take over a country that is another motivation.

    The only path forward I can see are our international agreements. Just as we cut off those who fund terrorism, we must also cut of those who fund fake news, as best as we are able. By fake I mean those are provably false, either because they impersonate or because they push provably false information.

    The threshold is high. You would have to prove in a court of law that the information is false and not just misleading, and the other side should have the opportunity to state their case as well as appeal, but being convicted of a concerted effort to publish fake news that pretends to be real news should result in said person being forced to stop for at least a time. You could also instead force inclusion of a banner such as this person has been convicted of the publishing of fake news stories.

    I don't entirely like that such things seem necessary, but there must be some legal path available to protect objective truth. If your convicted of publishing fake news and can no longer make money on ad revenue, well that seems reasonable to me. Note that sites such as the Onion would be except, though might have to add a disclaimer somewhere obvious about it being satire.

  18. Don't lie about Musk by Jzanu · · Score: 2

    Musk has flaws and his businesses have flaws, but they should be faced and corrected. There is no use for a smear campaign, or for ass-kissing on the other end.

    1. Re:Don't lie about Musk by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Funny

      Says you. Also, I heard he killed Vince Foster.

    2. Re:Don't lie about Musk by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      And *I* heard that he gra---nahhhhh, it'd be funny only until some moron tries to quote me as proof that he did it.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  19. Kicking Elon in the Koch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Makes you wonder who is funding all this. (yeah, not too hard to guess)

  20. MSM is the fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Troll

    The mainstream media like CNN, NBC and The New York Times are the fake news. Seriously, their coverage of Donald Trump's campaign was so disgustingly biased, dishonest and untrustworthy. And the fake polls showing Hillary with a huge lead when they polled more democrats than republicans?! This election was the final nail in the coffin of the mainstream media for me. Sites HATED by the mainstream media, like Breitbart, are real truth based media to me. I'm very glad that Trump won the election even though I'm not an American and don't live in the USA. The true intolerant, hateful, race bating, and violent people are the left wing democrats. You wouldn't know by following the main stream media, but when you go to real news sites like Breitbart you find out about violent liberals beating the shit out of Republicans for voting for Trump, or trying to making things up pretending to be a victim of Trump supporters only to be exposed as a liar. They're mad that the woman funded by Saudia Arabia, the most misogynistic and homophobic country in the world, didn't win the election after she STOLE the nomination from Bernie. Bernie wins a state, Hillary gets the delegates.

  21. Re:Good by mspohr · · Score: 1

    Yes! ... but we're not talking about Trump here.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  22. Fake news propaganda... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's next? The Russians again? The KKK-Russians? Everyone hide under your desk! Fake NEWS IS COMING!!!

  23. The Godfather of Fake News by nsaspook · · Score: 0

    https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016...

    As a liberal, do you have any regrets?

    I don't. Again, this is something that I've been crying about for a while. But outside of that, there are many factors as to why Trump won that don't involve fake news, right? As much as I like Hillary, she was a poor candidate. She brought in a lot of baggage.

    You don't feel responsible.

    I do not.

    --
    In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
    1. Re:The Godfather of Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what makes you so confident that these statements by him are unquestionably true - unlike everything else he has been publishing for the last 3 or 4 years?

  24. Mainstream media is scared by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have to realize just how much the recent election shocked the shit out of the media. Wow, there is a whole world out there and they have NO IDEA what is going on. They have been living in a bubble and that bubble was burst, badly, on election night. They are deep hurting and this isn't any kind of fake crocodile tears hurt. It's for real and they are going to engage in the kind of defense mechanisms that humans engage in when they are hurt this badly.

    So, what should their reaction be to the fact that the world doesn't conform to how they think? Take a long, hard look at themselves and change? Or double down, adopt a fortress mentality, and deny that there's anything wrong? Label these dissenting voices "fake news" and strive mightily the MSM's chief weapon, credibility, to discredit them.

    If you just laughed at the idea that the mainstream media is credible after the shit they pulled in the election, then you know what I'm talking about. They were 100% backing Hillary and the whole world saw it. They had themselves convinced that she had a 93% chance of winning and they believed it. After a shock like that, who can blame them for reacting this way? They have a lot to lose. Not just their million dollar salaries, but their entire way of life and worldview is being threatened. Why not attack the truth-tellers? It has a chance of working, and anything's better than actually facing the cold hard truth. Facing the truth is last resort after everything else has failed and the MSM is a long way from that. They have powerful resources and are not about to give up.

    Better to get your news on controversial topics from news sources like Infowars or Breitbart. These sites have a huuuuuge audience, larger than the mainstream media, and they report stories that the MSM refuses to cover. Think about it: when powerful people tell you to ignore news sources, what should you do? (A) Obey and be a good little drone. Or (B) take it as proof positive that these news sources are broadcasting very inconvenient narratives that they really don't want you to know. Hell, I used to think Alex Jones was a crazy man, but damn if they're trying to suppress him then he MUST be saying something important, otherwise he'd just be ignored! Read for yourself, evaluate for yourself, if you think they're full of shit that's your decision. But read them yourself, don't let the MSM tell you what's credible and what's not, because their credibility is bullshit! Make up your own mind!

    One side says, "don't pay attention to those others, they're fake!" and the other side says, "consider us, we'll tell you things the other side is hiding, just make up your own mind." What do thinking people do in this situation?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Nemyst · · Score: 5, Funny

      You say "don't believe the mainstream media!" and recommend going to Breitbart for news? That's so wrong and laughable that I can't even come up with a car analogy for it.

    2. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      +1 Despite what the smug self satisfied lefties say about Infowars.com and Breitbart.com, they are my #1 and #2 sources of truth. I've watched how they cover the same events as mainstream media sources as they happen, and find them to have far deeper and better analysis. Plus like you said, they cover stuff that the left wing biased MSM would never touch.

    3. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just one example is the recent Project Veritas videos exposing Planned Parenthood. The mainstream media says the videos are edited to make them Planned Parenthood look bad, it's debunked and that James O'Keef is a criminal! You can't trust him! He has a criminal record for going undercover exposing the truth to the public. He deserves a medal. Watch the unedited videos and decide for yourself which narrative is the truth. Another -1 for the MSM in my books.

    4. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever look at the election? I'm more convinced than ever before that Breitbart has more credibility than all of them combined.

    5. Re:Mainstream media is scared by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You didn't get it, did you? You're making my point for me. You shouldn't believe the mainstream media because they're not credible. You saw, I saw, the entire world saw them totally back Hillary Clinton in a shameful abandonment of the last shreds of them being truth-tellers. Moreover on an entirely journalistic standpoint, they entirely missed the real story of the election. Like, it didn't even enter their consciousness.

      When powerful people tell you to ignore news, what should you do? Obey, or disobey purely on principle and go and see what they want to hide? Did you know a lot of this "fake news" is being created by leftists themselves as false flag operations to try to discredit these new media? If you didn't, then you're probably getting fake news. These false flag operators are also making five figures a month from ad sales, which is hypocritical seeing how anti-capitalist they all are.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Analysis and understanding requires context. That means education, not sound bites. Go to university and you'll see how shallow your current "truth" sources are.

    7. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infowars? Sandy-Hook-was-a-bunch-of-child-actors Infowars?

    8. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the guy who doesn't spend any time listening to the context described in detail by Infowars.

    9. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      That's not context, that's called conspiracy theory.

    10. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better to get your news on controversial topics from news sources like Infowars or Breitbart These sites have a huuuuuge audience, larger than the mainstream media, and they report stories that the MSM refuses to cover.

      Thanks again for demonstrating your utter stupidity. One can't trust the MSM so follow Infowars and Breitbart which ARE the MSM because they have a larger audience than "the mainstream media". In fact, your statement is inherently paradoxical. Any belief that is wildly held must be wrong because it is wildly held. Hence, believe what YOU say we should believe--which is believed by the most people--and hence should not be believed. Hence, clearly we should not trust Trump or his supporters. We should not support Republicans, who now will control two branches of government and likely three. In short, the NYT must now be the underdog and your most trusted source.

      And if you can't tell, I say all the above tongue-in-cheek because your obviously a duplicitous asshole who doesn't care the least about facts. Hell, if you were so concerned about following in line with the "lies" of the "MSM", how can you begin to use "mainstream" grammar or "mainstream" spellings? You should be bending over backwards to use "correct" English, which must be antithetical to the words used today. Perhaps you could adopt Newspeak. You clearly have the core ideas of it down. Bullshit is your message. Bullshit will continue to be your message.

      Oh, and as much as I know it doesn't matter to point this out, obviously the NYT and other MSM do their own bullshit reporting as well. The major difference is that there's a lot less--not none, but still a lot less--of intentional manipulations and a lot more of the general blindness of reality that precludes reporting on things or understating things that are more relevant than believed--there's a very blue echo chamber on the east and west coasts and they hold, by virtue of democracy and their large population, a good deal of the politial power in the US. It's not outright lies--baring the few times when it's been found and reported by you guess it, the MSM. It's not rejecting the obviously provable reality--though the arguments of "consensus" or otherwise trying to persuade the right obviously fall short in ways that go beyond simply the fact that even with good arguments plenty on the right choose to ignore the truth. Yes, it comes with a lot of searching for the truth that strikes out in various ways to find, hopefully with research, what is the cause of things--which is why we get lots of speculation stories which often never reach a satisfactory conclusion, like these various "fake news" reports. "Fake news" is definitely a small part of why Trump won the election; it's just not a particularly new thing, a right-only thing, or necessarily a larger than usual influence in this election cycle. Certainly, though, there's a lot of self-delusion going around. Certainly, I see a lot more of it from the right than the left. But, then, the left is so right-wing in American it's all pretty messed up.

      Anyways, please carry on with your bullshit on all these stories. Clearly you're well written enough to get upvoted, and clearly I'm wiling to keep replying to your posts. So, no real loss on this pointless game.

    11. Re: Mainstream media is scared by Vermonter · · Score: 0

      Well sure, when you don't bother reading news with a critical eye, the easiest thing to do is not read a news source because you are afraid it might be inaccurate (or worse, not conform to your desired narrative), and you would be unable to discern the difference.

    12. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you've heard of Wolfgang Halbig - former Florida State Trooper, former school principal and nationally recognized school safety expert? If the government would just answer his questions, they could shut us all up.

    13. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alex Jones' coverage of the US election was far more accurate than the MSM. Nobody who follows Infowars was surprised about Trump's victory. Dismissing everything on Infowars as conspiracy theories for uneducated fools is ignorant. They proved themselves this election cycle.

    14. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You knew about North Korea's plan to kill as many schoolkids as possible, and how they're using Sandy Hook as a template? They need to keep the authorities distracted, so they've got guys like Halbig out there asking any questions they can come up with, so no one will find out their real plan.

      They screwed up a bit with Halbig, though - his name doesn't show up on the Florida State Trooper Association roster (google it). He could have just not made that claim on his resume, but for some reason keeps using it (but changing the years). He's a pretty obvious plant.

    15. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Halbig's questions are very straightforward and don't take a lot of time to answer. They've had years to answer, but instead they've been stonewalling and threatening him.

    16. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tell us not to believe mainstream media, yet recommend two mainstream media news sites (that is, after all, part of them having a huge audience). Just because you label them not mainstream doesn't make it so, and instead makes it obvious that you are just redefining the word to suit your self-rationalizing about why your favorite sites aren't as bad.

    17. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's been claiming that they've been threatening him. For some reason, he never seems to have a working camera with him (there are a couple videos out there, but they are obviously dubbed).

      Like I said, his goal is distraction, otherwise, he could answer some of his questions on his own. For instance, see his claims about autism and physical strength - that's not a law enforcement issue, and he could get real answers from just about anywhere. Yet he keeps directing it at officials, particularly in Connecticut, so that they don't notice the North Korean infiltration.

    18. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Breitbart was more widely *read*. Readership has no bearing on credibility. That's exactly the problem. You cannot derive whether they are a trustworthy site simply from the fact that many people trust them. Trustworthiness comes from having your statements vetted by other people -- you claim that X is true... can I independently demonstrate that X is true? If I cannot, your trustworthiness should decrease. The problem we are facing is that it instead sometimes *increases* because of the partisanship. Rather than say "Site Y claims X but no one else can validate X so Y must be wrong", we get people who say "Site Y claims X, no one else can validate X, so everyone else must be engaged in a coverup conspiracy" or some variation on that theme.

    19. Re:Mainstream media is scared by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      You have to realize just how much the recent election shocked the shit out of the media. Wow, there is a whole world out there and they have NO IDEA what is going on. They have been living in a bubble and that bubble was burst, badly, on election night. They are deep hurting and this isn't any kind of fake crocodile tears hurt. It's for real and they are going to engage in the kind of defense mechanisms that humans engage in when they are hurt this badly.

      So, what should their reaction be to the fact that the world doesn't conform to how they think? Take a long, hard look at themselves and change? Or double down, adopt a fortress mentality, and deny that there's anything wrong? Label these dissenting voices "fake news" and strive mightily the MSM's chief weapon, credibility, to discredit them.

      Well, that was what they did with "gamergate" - they doubled down on the shaming language until the gamers metaphorically spanked them. It wasn't until the advertisers pulled the advertising dollars that they backed down.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    20. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're making your own point for us. Laughing at you is indeed the correct response.

    21. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Well, that was what they did with "gamergate" - they doubled down on the shaming language until the gamers metaphorically spanked them. It wasn't until the advertisers pulled the advertising dollars that they backed down.

      The far-left social justice type press hasn't stopped, but considering their declining eyeball count, it's likely the only thing that keeps their tiny demographic still coming in.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    22. Re:Mainstream media is scared by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the site that has a special section for "Black Crime" is soooooo credible.

    23. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Label these dissenting voices "fake news" and strive mightily the MSM's chief weapon, credibility, to discredit them.

      There's a difference between dissenting voices and deliberately making stuff up. If you don't believe people are creating fake news to sway opinion then you are beyond help.
      This has nothing to do with left or right, there is an actual demonstrated process for producing reliable information that all news outlets should adhere to. If your chosen source can't provide citations, sources, reference, independently verifiable claims, then what do you call that?

    24. Re:Mainstream media is scared by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The only reason they're more widely read is because they cover news that the mainstream media deliberately ignores as part of their biased, partisan coverage. The MSM has only themselves to blame for its rise. And if you're going to blame Breitbart for being biased and give the MSM a free pass for the same, then Breitbart is going to just get stronger. How many MSM outlets peddled the "Hands up don't shoot" lie? How many uncritically accepted Mattress Girl or the Rolling Stone non-rape story or any of the other hoaxes they perpetrated?

      And most damning of all, the MSM is trying to use its power to get people to stop reading alternative media. This means that they're effective and truthful, because if the enemy is lying then they're no threat. To say nothing of the tyrannical, 1984 themes of doing such an abhorrent act.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    25. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honest question - why is that wrong and laughable? What have they published that's untrue? I trust them as much as I trust the MSM, which is to say I trust them to be selective and biased in their coverage, but not to deliberately incorrect, although of course it may happen inadvertently on occasion.

    26. Re:Mainstream media is scared by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The relationship between readership and credibility is almost inversely proportional now. The more a site is read, the more likely it is to be clickbaity fake news.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Another -1 for the MSM in my books"
      Your books?! C'mon, who are you trying to kid? You have a single copy of a book, written by Ayn Rand, and the pages are all stuck together.

    28. Re:Mainstream media is scared by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Except Bretibart was right about the election, and the mainstream media was wrong.

      I think a good tactic is to read news from various different perspectives so you can see who is lying or wrong about what and why. But anyone who tells you they're objective is lying to you

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    29. Re:Mainstream media is scared by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You say "don't believe the mainstream media!" and recommend going to Breitbart for news? That's so wrong and laughable that I can't even come up with a car analogy for it.

      It truly illustrates the problem. Breitbart and his ilk helped drive the easily led to Trump. Now, here they are underscoring the problem.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re:Mainstream media is scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some ways, alternative media is a lot like alternative medicine: if there were any verifiable truth behind it, it would just be called 'media' or 'medicine'; and when presented with contradictory evidence, their proponents have a strong tendency to double down on the derp.

  25. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes! ... but we're not talking about Trump here.

    Musk has already killed 2 people with his piece of shit products with a shitton of near misses.

    President electric Trump, zero fatalities.

  26. Fake news = CNN, Big 3, FOX by HBI · · Score: 0

    The fake news shit is just that, shit. If you want no one to ever believe media again, keep it up with the fake news crap.

    Ethics are required. If you can't get there, then no one is going to believe your shit again, ever.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  27. Riiiight.... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1

    Musk and his scientific/engineering teams landed a rocket vertically- more than once. Something that NASA engineers said could not be done and was impractical. They were wrong.

    Show me something like that from the right wing guys. Anything? What have they accomplished? Anything? Bueller?

    Might be Tucker all over again. But every single thing Tucker designed ended up in modern automobiles. Every single thing NASA has designed has resulted in a new products. And every single thing Musk develops will also end up part of a product.

    So right wing guys? What do you have to show besides rhetoric? Have you designed anything? Built it? Passed a science class and applied the information?

    If the alt-right wants to start a war against science- good luck. We make better weapons.

    --
    Another consultant who stuck it out.

    "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    1. Re:Riiiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great. When does it start benefiting the country instead of just Elon? Everything Elon does is for Elon.

    2. Re:Riiiight.... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1

      Depends on whether you destroy him like you did with Tucker.

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    3. Re:Riiiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's a bit much to assume that none of the scientists and engineers are conservative. That's like "all blacks ____", "all Muslims ___", etc.

    4. Re:Riiiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Musk and his scientific/engineering teams landed a rocket vertically- more than once. Something that NASA engineers said could not be done and was impractical.

      WRONG

      Nobody from NASA said anything such thing. NASA has landed rockets vertically on the Moon and Mars over 4 decades ago. What NASA really said is that there is no rational reason to do so since you can never use it again. The stress of launch and landing makes the air frame unusable again especially on a cut rate craft that space ex built. Space ex has proven NASA right. They have never reused a recovered rocket and they never will. There is too much damage to their already flimsy rocket that can't even be fueled without exploding.

    5. Re:Riiiight.... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Musk and his scientific/engineering teams landed a rocket vertically- more than once. Something that NASA engineers said could not be done and was impractical.

      Why do people think NASA engineers are the Gold Standard for engineers? Plenty of equally, if not not better, qualified people work elsewhere (probably for higher pay too). Not trying to dis NASA, just sayin'.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:Riiiight.... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1

      Go ahead and have your moment. That's all it is.

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    7. Re:Riiiight.... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the kind of crazy that comes from existing in an echo chamber where everything good is left-wing and the right are scary enemies. It's self-reinforcing and is quite ignorant as well.

      The entire space program was thoroughly right-wing and patriotic from the beginning. It was a giant dick-waving competition with the Soviet Union over who was better, communism or capitalism. The few leftists in the space program were engaged in trying to steal the tech and deliver it to the Soviets. Wehrner von Braun, the father of the Saturn V rocket, was a Nazi and you can't get more right-wing than that. Science and STEM occupations in general are regularly attacked by the left for being exclusionary, unwelcoming to women, and all of the other crimes that we know so well. Now suddenly the right can't do calculus?

      The really crazy part is the sudden left-wing identification with weapons. The left has long been hoplophobic and now they suddenly overnight lost their fear of guns? These are people who won't even be in the same room if an unloaded pistol is lying on a table. They'll leave the building, it freaks them out.

      You also notice in this post there is no difference made between the right wing (most people in America) and the alt.right (a few thousand people). They are put together in the same bucket so that the odious beliefs of the alt.right may contaminate the entire right. The principle is: add a thimble of wine to a gallon of sewage and you've got a gallon of sewage, but add a thimble of sewage to a gallon of wine and you've got a gallon of sewage. This is just plain ignorant, but it's the new philosophy of the ctrl.left and sadly it has a good chance of working.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re: Riiiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wehrner von Braun, the father of the Saturn V rocket, was a Nazi and you can't get more right-wing than that.

      Oh great, just because he was a German, you're convinced he was a fire-breathing Nazi. Of course, you have the problem that the government insisted to us that Von Braun was only a Nazi and SS member out of necessity. Now you're forced to claim they're lying, huh?

      These are people who won't even be in the same room if an unloaded pistol is lying on a table.

      Good for them. Nobody should. You're describing an unsecured firearm. That's bad. If you refused to address it, I'd leave the building too. Can't be far enough from idiots.

    9. Re:Riiiight.... by beheaderaswp · · Score: 1

      Operation Paperclip was started under Truman. The drive to the moon was started by Kennedy: "We go to the moon, and do the other things, not because it is easy- but because it is hard...."

      Of course Nixon approved the space shuttle, and Eisenhower approved Mercury.

      But the point is- I'm not crazy- I'm educated. Not like you... you know... aggregating Slashdot's content because in a million years you could not put a site together with original content?

      As far as I'm concerned- you're just a scab. You've created nothing- and simply attacked the messenger.

      Good job Opie... you've got a beautiful future.

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    10. Re:Riiiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And most of those engineers NOW WORK for SpaceX, not NASA.If you're an aerospace engineering rockstar, SpaceX is PRECISELY where you want to be working. Today's NASA is a pale shadow of its former self.

    11. Re:Riiiight.... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The left has long been hoplophobic

      Well, why not use a made-up word for a made-up fact? Do we both agree Karl Marx is on the left? He said:

      "Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution."

      In fact, come to think of it the far left is full or talk about revolution. Hardly a fear of weapons, I'd say.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:Riiiight.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Wehrner von Braun, the father of the Saturn V rocket, was a Nazi and you can't get more right-wing than that.

      Wehrner von Braun, the father of the Saturn V rocket, was apolitical. That doesn't make him a good person, but he was willing to make rockets for anyone who would help him build a rocket that would go into space.

      The really crazy part is the sudden left-wing identification with weapons. The left has long been hoplophobic and now they suddenly overnight lost their fear of guns? These are people who won't even be in the same room if an unloaded pistol is lying on a table. They'll leave the building, it freaks them out.

      Lots of us liberals have been gun owners since forever. Gun ownership is a liberal value. A lot of fake-ass liberals who are actually neocons have been trying to convince us otherwise for decades, hypocrites like Barbara Feinstein who carried a purse gun (and probably still does, but in any case she is guarded by criminals with guns) while simultaneously claiming that no private citizen should own a gun at all.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Riiiight.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's great. When does it start benefiting the country instead of just Elon? Everything Elon does is for Elon.

      I take it that you don't think reducing pollution or making launches cheaper benefits anyone but Elon. Upon what do you base these ideas?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Riiiight.... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Watch out, this one's apparently figured out that CapsLock thing.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    15. Re:Riiiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wehrner von Braun, the father of the Saturn V rocket, was a Nazi and you can't get more right-wing than that.

      Well, that is a good example of why "right" and "left" are meaningless ever-shifting labels.

      Nazis were "national socialists"

      This requires roman civil law.

      They are "right" for definition of "the government is god"

      Actual "right wingers" place individuals first, not "the state" and they have "natural rights" and common law (or something else bottom up).

      Nazis were top-down...many would say they were "leftists"

      About the only thing "Right" about them is the "nationalism" but even that is debatable...some were "internationalists" some just wanted to "Defend the homeland" ... of course, once you start invading, because "if we don't occupy your town, the communists will get it! (sounds just like the CIA, amiright?)" ...then the distinction between "nationalist" and "internationalist" gets blurred.

      "Nationalists" who invade, are not "nationalists" at all.

    16. Re:Riiiight.... by tdailey · · Score: 1

      was a Nazi and you can't get more right-wing than that.

      I want to know why history thinks that Nazi Germany was "right wing." Totalitarian control, nationalization of industry, subordination of personal interests to the state, xenophobia, starting wars; the National Socialist German Workers' Party of the '30s and '40s was anti-freedom, anti-individual, anti-capitalism and as distant from right-wing values as I can imagine.

    17. Re:Riiiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be educated, but you still didn't make any valid points. His claim was, do you really think no conservatives were involved in putting a man on the moon. Just because a Democrat president (who by the way didn't have the authority to supply the budget for it) said it was something that should be done doesn't mean it was done by nothing but Democrats. I'm an electrical engineer. When I graduated, the electrical engineering college had a very large right wing bias. When I got in to work, you could correctly guess if somebody was Democrat or Republican simply by asking if their degree was in electrical engineering or computer science. The EEs were probably about 90% conservative while the CS folk were about 90% liberal.

      Your inability to acknowledge that conservatives are in fact mostly the same as liberal just shows you to be a small minded individual who must demonize those who are different.

    18. Re: Riiiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to know why history thinks that Nazi Germany was "right wing."

      History doesn't think. People do. You'd do better to reject the false paradigm of the left-right axis.

      Totalitarian control, nationalization of industry, subordination of personal interests to the state, xenophobia, starting wars; the National Socialist German Workers' Party of the '30s and '40s was anti-freedom, anti-individual, anti-capitalism and as distant from right-wing values as I can imagine.

      On the other hand, they were anti-communist, pro-family, homophobic, anti-immigrant, beholden to a cult of personality, fervent in their mysticism, portrayed their wars as instigated by outside enemies, convinced that they knew best, self-deceptive and all sorts of other things you can easily identify within the self-professed right-wing of today.

      You know, if you weren't caught in the habit of compartmentalizing things into right-wing=good, left-wing=bad, as you seem wont to do.

      But even if you don't, it is still a conceptual picture that is deceptive, even the 2-axis versions are little better. I suggest willfully rejecting it in the future.

      That will let you focus on what is truly meaningful.

    19. Re:Riiiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the same reason history thinks that Democrats were anti-slavery, anti-Jim Crow, etc. when in fact it was Republicans holding those positions. Progressives have had a stranglehold on education and near total control of entertainment and the news media. Like Orwell said - "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."

    20. Re:Riiiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that generally what businesses do under a capitalism?

      Have right-wingers gone so insane that they're now arguing for a centrally planned economy?

    21. Re:Riiiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " ....communism or capitalism" .....regardless of how it was framed, the whole thing was pretty much a state run enterprise/initiative. That for me puts it firmly on the socialist side of the political spectrum.

    22. Re:Riiiight.... by werepants · · Score: 1

      You also notice in this post there is no difference made between the right wing (most people in America) and the alt.right (a few thousand people). They are put together in the same bucket so that the odious beliefs of the alt.right may contaminate the entire right. The principle is: add a thimble of wine to a gallon of sewage and you've got a gallon of sewage, but add a thimble of sewage to a gallon of wine and you've got a gallon of sewage. This is just plain ignorant, but it's the new philosophy of the ctrl.left and sadly it has a good chance of working.

      Not sure if your metaphor lands - I don't care if that wine is only 1% sewage, I'm still not drinking it. Same thing with a political movement that is aligned with Neo-nazis. Even dabbling in white supremacy compromises the entire party.

    23. Re:Riiiight.... by catprog · · Score: 1

      Of course by 1964 with the civil rights bill the parties had flipped.

      House:

      7% Democrats vs 0% Republicans for the southern states
      94% vs 85% for the Northern states.

      Senate
      5% vs 0%
      98% vs 84%

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    24. Re:Riiiight.... by soc_cost_priv_gains · · Score: 1

      These ideas are based on the paycheck he gets from the Kochs.

    25. Re:Riiiight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your idiotic generalizations about people, and your childish use of "left" and "right" just show how far the USA has sunk. Your false equivalencies, and deceptive implications defy any historical accuracy. You, Sir, are a lying propagandizing piece of shit. In all honesty, I hope that you die in a well deserved fire.

    26. Re:Riiiight.... by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      You also notice in this post there is no difference made between the right wing (most people in America) and the alt.right (a few thousand people). They are put together in the same bucket so that the odious beliefs of the alt.right may contaminate the entire right.

      It is kind of hard to separate the two groups when the newly elected leader that the right wing chose, has himself appointed the self-proclaimed voice of the alt-right as his senior advisor. It is also pretty hard to separate the two groups, because the supposedly larger one (right wing) isn't calling out and condemning the alt-right's racists members.

      I don't think I saw even one Trump rally where the audience booed or put down people saying or doing racist/homophobic things. In fact, quite the opposite. The crowd seemed to encourage it sometimes.

      Before joining Trump's campaign as its CEO in August, Bannon served as executive chairman of Breitbart News, identifying his outlet this summer as “the platform for the alt-right,”

      http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/stephen-bannon-breitbart-backlash-231371

  28. Re:Good by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    So far. Maybe.

  29. Re:And the show goes on by Jzanu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fascists are still worse. And, there is no evidence of any "leftist" conspiracy outside of your padded room.

  30. FUCK YOU! by ichthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fake news galvanized US president-elect Donald Trump's supporters

    Surely, it couldn't have been all of the FACTUAL information obtained from Hillary's email server, and the DNC's and Podesta's hacked accounts that "galvanized" the Trump supporters. And, of course, it couldn't have been Hillary's march toward globalization and the further degrading of US sovereignty. No, it was the FAKE NEWS boogeyman. OOoohhhh!

    Here's a clue: Trump won the presidency because of the continued efforts of the leftist media to muddy the waters with lies, and play interference for Hillary. Welp, we don't like being lied to, and it was apparent where the lies were coming from and who they were meant to benefit. So, on election day, we said "FUCK YOU!" to the liars. We said "Fuck you" to the perpetually scandalous Hillary, and we said "FUCK OFF" to the infantile, shrill, triggered little assholes that continue to plague the streets in protest of the process they claim to support.

    And now, as we repeatedly hear the drums of "fake news" and "hate speech" beat to the rhythm of the same lying lefty news orgs, we see it for what it is: an attempt to silence the voice of opposition. Racism, hate, white supremacy... it's so sad that these words have lost all meaning. These words call out ugly ideals and behavior, but the klaxon blowhards of the left have been crying wolf for too long. Now, it's time to eat crow, motherfuckers.

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re:FUCK YOU! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep sucking on that right-wing propaganda teat, buck-o.

    2. Re:FUCK YOU! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a clue: Trump won the presidency because of the continued efforts of the leftist media to muddy the waters with lies, and play interference for Hillary. Welp, we don't like being lied to, and it was apparent where the lies were coming from and who they were meant to benefit. So, on election day, we said "FUCK YOU!" to the liars. We said "Fuck you" to the perpetually scandalous Hillary, and we said "FUCK OFF" to the infantile, shrill, triggered little assholes that continue to plague the streets in protest of the process they claim to support.

      Can you please point to some of the lies you're talking about? Every claim I've looked into about Clinton lying has resolved into mist (or outright lies) when I've tried to look into them. Those scandals you talk about from Clinton never had any reality behind them. They were made up by people trying to bring her down. Benghazi, seriously? Emails, seriously? Was she perfect, no, but her record is far better than par for the job.

    3. Re:FUCK YOU! by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Haha, somebody sounds triggered!

    4. Re:FUCK YOU! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, on election day, we said "FUCK YOU!" to the liars.

      Then how did Trump win?

  31. Re:Good by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    In the Tesla crash in Indianapolis a few weeks ago, one of the riders in the car was trapped in the battery fire and died, slowly, in the heat. What a hell of a way to go.

    I haven't seen that much national coverage of the accident. But geez. Trapped in a metal can with 10,000 Galaxy Note 7's...

  32. Not spacex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SpaceX is in the cheap, unreliable, rocket business, which is quite small. I guess its competitors are Ukraine, India, and Iran/North Korea. The US military drives the govt space market, and the US military is a finicky, customer with very expensive payloads. It's a tough, but rich, customer.

    Tesla's competitors are Toyota, Honda, GM, and Ford. All giant, ruthlessly efficient companies. For the luxury market, the instant, low speed torque of electric cars can't be beat by internal combustion. Also, bigger batteries provide both more power, and range. These advantages matter less to the consumer, mass market automobile. Frankly, I am doubtful of mass market electric cars. I think smaller hybrid cars, and rental of bigger vehicles, is the easier solution to high gas prices. I also think that GM and Nissan will be able to ramp up production. The GM Volt is effectively a public beta test. GM also played around with the EV-1 in the 90s. So, if the govt demanded GM get big into the low end BEV market, they could do a decent job.

    Reportedly, Tesla would be losing money, if it were not for tax credits from the California government for electric cars. And manufacturing lithium battery packs at ~$150/kwh is something I don't exactly believe. And making money on the Model 3... Good luck Elon.

    But, yeah. SpaceX has a big buyer in the US Govt. Tesla got subsidized loans from US govt. Tesla got tax credits from Cal. govt. And, solar panel purchases were, (are?) subsidized.

    1. Re:Not spacex by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      GM got subsidized loans from US govt too. And Tesla paid back its loans early.

      Credits for electric cars are turning into a disadvantage for Tesla, since the market for credits is oversaturated so they only get 50 cents on the dollar, and they are only valid for a limited number of cars which Tesla is rapidly approaching.

      SpaceX is getting lucrative contracts from the US Govt, indeed. But if SpaceX didn't take them, some other company (or country!) would. SpaceX just gets the contracts because they are the cheapest. Free market at work, there.

      Meanwhile the oil industry keeps getting subsidies that are orders of magnitude larger than those for renewable energy. Even more so if you count the price of pollution.

    2. Re:Not spacex by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      The thing that kills me about Tesla is that I see a bunch of rich folks driving them around, subsidized by the tax dollars of the masses.

      If you really like the idea of electric vehicles, you'd be working on little tiny craptastic bikes that could be affordable commuter options for folks making minimum wage (price them cheaper than the bus, and give credits only based on income).

    3. Re:Not spacex by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The thing that kills me about Tesla is that I see a bunch of rich folks driving them around, subsidized by the tax dollars of the masses.

      Those rich folks were already subsidized by the rest of us. They were polluting more than necessary with their gas guzzlers.

      If you really like the idea of electric vehicles, you'd be working on little tiny craptastic bikes that could be affordable commuter options for folks making minimum wage

      Affordable? Sure. Realistic? No. Not in most of the USA.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  33. Silly liberals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time and time again they utilize the same tactics. They find the .001% who subscribe to or promote ridiculous beliefs, then relay the news as if 99% of the group were involved in it.

  34. Bizarro World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so funny that in the new Amerikkka the Conservatives/Republicans are pro-Kremlin (Senator McCarthy rolling, no, spinning in his grave) and the Democrats are anti-Kremlin/Russia. Bizarro world indeed.

    1. Re:Bizarro World by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      I miss hearing about Reagan, he made sense even though he had only been a movie star previously. Trump will be a poor quality photocopy if he even tries the job.

    2. Re:Bizarro World by zaft · · Score: 1

      Reagan was governor of California. Compared to Trump, he was uber-qualified.

    3. Re:Bizarro World by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Reagan was an actor. Compared to Trump, he was über-qualified.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:Bizarro World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a warped view of the world. One side uses fear of foreign bogeyman to sway people, and the other side uses fear of foreign bogeyman to sway people.

  35. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't get me wrong Trump will get people killed. All I'm saying is that

    Elon == Trump

  36. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No troll Elon Musk didn't kill two people. People were killed when idiots thought it would be a good idea to drive a car without their hands on the wheel at high speed

    Musk: Some dies because they did something the car was telling them not to and were stupid

    Trump: Because of Trump's directives and policies a construction worker dies and three other construction workers were taken to a hospital, two with serious injuries, one with minor injuries all in the name of stealing more money from the government

  37. Re:And the show goes on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look for media and news.

    Worth getting out of the bubble now and then. You will see how much larger the world is on the outside.

  38. well let's think for a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can name 3 large automotive manufacturers that would live to run Tesla out if business. And there are also a handful of aerospace companies that would like to do the same to SpaceX.

    If it weren't for Elon Musk and Tesla, we would still be asking "Who killed the electric car?"

    1. Re:well let's think for a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Stonecutters, duh.

    2. Re:well let's think for a second... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      If it weren't for Elon Musk and Tesla, we would still be asking "Who killed the electric car?"

      That question was effectively answered a decade ago in this documentary.

      The answer? The auto industry, the oil industry, and the George W. Bush administration.

      Tesla, Nissan (Leaf), Chevrolet (Bolt) and no doubt others to come will show that the plan did not succeed.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  39. seems a bit daffed by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

    Guy that rich can afford *real* assassins.

  40. Re:And the show goes on by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    That isn't from ***outside*** of the padded room of the root post; original research by amateur journalist conspiracy theorists is self-reinforcing not validated.

  41. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People were killed when idiots thought it would be a good idea to drive a car without their hands on the wheel at high speed

    Which Musk told them it was okay trough his tweets and his death trap's lack of coming to a stop when the driver takes their hands off the wheel too long. Other car companies that take safety seriously do things like warnings and disable self driving modes when that happens so drivers understand how primarily these driver aids are.

  42. Fake Red Herring by jonjavajones · · Score: 0

    Elon Musk has infact received / wasted millions from the US government. Solar city looses 6$ for every 1$ it makes. Telsa has never made a profit, yet Mr. Musk is worth 11.3 billion. What's the fake news? I think this broader fake news concern is nonsensical.

  43. Re:And the show goes on by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    Can you find something legitimate?

  44. Re:And the show goes on by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Informative

    Damn, the denial is strong with you. You just tried to discredit original research. Do you even realize how denialist that is? If doing your own research isn't good enough, then damn what is?

    Did you even read the article? Please do, it's important. The subject admits he's a leftist and confirms he's running a false flag operation. Read the whole thing from top to bottom, it is well worth five minutes of your (and everyone else's) time. Especially read the byline.

    By Laura Sydell
    NPR

    Laura Sydell fell in love with the intimate storytelling qualities of radio, which combined her passion for theatre and writing with her addiction to news. Over her career she has covered politics, arts, media, religion, and entrepreneurship. Currently Sydell is the Digital Culture Correspondent for NPR's All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition, and NPR.org.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  45. A precedent has been set... by Aryeh+Goretsky · · Score: 1

    Hello,

    News sites (fake or otherwise) should be extremely cautious of running salacious news stories about Elon Musk, given that fellow tech mogul Peter Thiel helped sue a media outlet into oblivion. Presumably, Elon Musk has the same capability.

    Regards,

    Aryeh Goretsky

    --
    Dexter is a good dog.
  46. Re:Good by mspohr · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should get a job writing fake news.
    The real news reports attribute the deaths to hitting a tree at a high rate of speed. The car didn't catch fire.
    Hard to fix stupid.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  47. Re:Good by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    You're wrong, the Tesla did catch on fire and the remaining parts of the battery exploded violently.

  48. Re: And the show goes on by Vermonter · · Score: 2

    The fact that you seem to see the world as "everything good comes from the left, and everything bad comes from the right" is proof that you've already been trained to think what you're told to think and never question it. If you truly think the world is so cut and dry, you are a fool.

  49. Re:And the show goes on by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    It's two step program: 1. publish a fake story that the alt-right will pick up and amplify. 2. Denounce the alt-right for believing the story. The problem is that step 2 appears to be missing.

    The interesting thing about that story is that the only source of information that it is a leftist plot comes from the man who publishes lies for a living.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  50. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He may not have killed anyone on record, but he sure has raped a bunch!

    But you go ahead and try to grab musk by the pussy, he won't say anything!

  51. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I frequent those forums and I've literally never heard anything about Elon on them.

    1. Re:Really? by kybred · · Score: 1

      I frequent those forums and I've literally never heard anything about Elon on them.

      You don't see? This is fake news about fake news!

    2. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should read the Bloomberg article. There's none so blind as those who won't see.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-22/elon-musk-vs-the-trolls

    3. Re:Really? by Layzej · · Score: 1

      I frequent those forums

      You frequent fake news forums? But why?

    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fake news all the way down! The thing about turtles is fake news!

  52. These days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...its probably a computer.

  53. Re:And the show goes on by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    There is this thing called "reading comprehension" -- you REALLY need some practice at it. Look at where those claims came from, check out who stated them.

  54. Re:Good by mspohr · · Score: 1

    You really are a candidate for fake news writer.
    Try reading the article slowly and move your lips as you read... sometimes it helps.
    The car did not catch fire.
    Some of the batteries were separated from the car and caught fire:
    The crash left the Tesla in pieces strewn over 150 yards, requiring firefighters to douse multiple fires caused by small batteries and magnesium, Reith said in a news release.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  55. Re:Good by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    Read it slower, you missed the part where responders were prevented from working due to the exploding pieces.

  56. Re:Good by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this is clearer for your to understand.

  57. Re:Good by mspohr · · Score: 1

    So, where does it say that the car caught fire?
    (Hint: It doesn't. You're making that part up.)

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  58. Re: And the show goes on by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    The fact that you characterize a person not based on their decisions but on your impressions of them shows that you have no awareness of your personal bias. Your training to not think needs to be undone. I recommend education.

  59. Re:Good by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    It was obvious. Read this.

  60. Re:Good by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    Also since you demand explicit statements, read this, linked from the other article and using even more explicit statements about the fire in the car and from the battery pieces as distinct, and preventing responders action.

  61. Re:And the show goes on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soo... the journalist is interviewing someone who claims to invent and distribute false news and misinformation - yet she (and you) are taking everything he says entirely at face value, with no checking whatsoever.

    You really don't see the problem there?

  62. Re:Good by mspohr · · Score: 1

    Still... just part of batteries caught fire. The car didn't catch fire. Look at the pictures. The car is not burned.
    You're still making stuff up.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  63. Re:Good by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    So now after 3 articles, 2 of which explicitly state that there was a unique and larger fire in the car, you refuse to acknowledge it? Fuck off!

  64. Re:Good by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    Right. Because bringing a car with a driver who falls asleep while using Autopilot to a complete stop in the middle of a rural interstate at 3am so someone else can rear-end them at 80mph is obviously safer than keeping the car moving along at the speed of typical traffic and staying in its lane.

    A stopped car on a mostly-empty limited-access highway is just about the deadliest road hazard imaginable.

    The accident in Florida happened because the driver didn't understand that something that's reasonably safe to do on an interstate isn't necessarily safe to do on a country road with cross traffic.

  65. You'd love to believe that, i'm sure by HBI · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The truth is that the vast mass of the public is stupid and taken in by false narratives. The mainstream media has been benefiting from this for decades. The fact that someone else cracked the code and found an alternative delivery system is the "problem" here, not the existence of dishonest media.

    Jayson Blair. Dan Rather's "fake but true" documents. Brian Williams in general...the list goes on and on and on. Hell, Walter Cronkite was often giving out palpable untruths in regards Vietnam on the evening news when I was a kid. The problem then was that we didn't find out the stuff was actually untrue until 25 years later with the research tools available via the Internet.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:You'd love to believe that, i'm sure by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Rather did not own nor produce the "Fake but true" documents
      Neither did he bring them into the Corporation
      Trump lost the Democrats and Independents by 2 million votes and counting
      Trump won the red States and three Purple states with appeals to white supremacy as in "Black Lives Matter is racist"
      So who is being dishonest here?

    2. Re:You'd love to believe that, i'm sure by HBI · · Score: 1

      Black Lives Matter IS racist. Under any definition.

      Preventing illegal immigration isn't. Nativist? Sure. Racist? No. Conflate the two and you're just dishonest.

      Rather claimed the fake Bush documents were authentic. Then claimed they were "fake but true". To this day he claims there was something to them.

      The Electoral College is the arbiter of who becomes President under the Constitution. If that fact were different, the election campaign would have been conducted differently. I'm not at all certain the result would have been different, though. Driving Republican turnout in CA and NY is not a vital interest of Republican campaigns under the current system, but if it were done, you'd see the popular vote close up easily. Exactly how much GOTV effort was expended in CA or NY on the Republican side? Zero. For that matter, little GOTV effort was expended in Texas or Illinois or the Deep South or the Mountain West (excepting battlegrounds like NV and CO) ...you get the picture.

      The Democrats played this election _all wrong_ and failed across the board.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    3. Re:You'd love to believe that, i'm sure by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. The electoral college is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal rights, privileges and immunities.
      being an AMENDMENT, that is, a change to the document, the 14th supercedes.
      Hopefully we will get a gridlocked senate until Chelsea Clinton can appoint an actual lawyer to the Supreme Court for review.

    4. Re:You'd love to believe that, i'm sure by HBI · · Score: 1

      You could send some of what you're smoking my way, please.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  66. The new hand-wave smear of 2016: "Fake News" by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Who needs facts when you can just say "Fake News" and "alt-right"?

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:The new hand-wave smear of 2016: "Fake News" by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Since Trump IS the fountainhead of fake "news", it follows that dismissing your group from the realm of the real is merely defense against Criminals

    2. Re:The new hand-wave smear of 2016: "Fake News" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Who needs facts when you can just say "Fake News" and "alt-right"?

      Well, the alt-right was a term invented by um, the alt-right to describe themselves. And guess where by far the most prolific sources of fake news come from. The thing is bias doesn't mean saying different things about different sides. Not every story has to perfectly equal sides. If one side is generating more fake facts than the other, the reporting them equally is not in fact unbiased.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  67. Not necessarily by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    fake it till you make it. There was a time not too long ago that their hate-based fantasies were reality. Many of them look back to a time when they had higher social status and several economic advantages. When people talk about white privilege that is what they mean.

    Trump proves the clock can be turned back. It doesn't even take that much. All it took to put Trump and a whole bunch of alt-right into power was apathy on the part of Blacks and Latinos who couldn't get excited over Clinton like they did for Obama...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Not necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump proves the clock can be turned back. It doesn't even take that much. All it took to put Trump and a whole bunch of alt-right into power was apathy on the part of Blacks and Latinos who couldn't get excited over Clinton like they did for Obama...

      Did you get excited over Hillary Clinton? Seriously? She is only marginally (if at all) better than Trump. You could not be more wrong about the cause of Trump's election. Democrat leadership is 100% to blame. They should not have pushed Clinton.

    2. Re:Not necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really want a Gub'mnt framed by neolith-Bantu, narco.MEX and Muzzi-wogs ? Throw in a few snowflakes, bleeding hearts and EDEPS to get the pot boiling. You want those dumb-as-stump or power agenda-infested bitches running our country ? Very well - - American Yeoman will see you the street Trotsky-ite .... and when-ever or where-ever ... they will be behind you!

      Trust me. The slaughter will be worse than the Brown-shirt patriotic suppression of Trotskys minions in 1920 German. Feel the Burn, palsy.

    3. Re:Not necessarily by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, talk about dog-whistle-laden post.

  68. Putin won the election. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, stop blaming the Russians - Hillary made her vile bed and now she's got to lie in it.

    Hilary's bed was no where near as vile as the Russians have managed to persuade you it is (presuming you're a useful idiot rather than a Kremlin troll). Well done Mr Putin, USA neutralized.

    1. Re:Putin won the election. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Hillarys bed is always full with women.
      Even Bill talked about that, and that is a weird thing to say about your own wife ...

    2. Re:Putin won the election. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is a weird thing to say about your own wife ...

      Well it's better than being cucked for BBC. But USA is Putin's cuck now.

  69. We'll just start a war by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    and extract Tribute like we did from Iraq. The people that starve won't be the folks that put Trump in power...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:We'll just start a war by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The people that starve won't be the folks that put Trump in power...

      The people that will likely suffer the most under Trump are the working class people that voted for him. He plans to cut taxes on the wealthy, cut business taxes, and generally make taxes more regressive. If he starts a trade war, it will likely destroy more jobs than are created, and good paying jobs in high end manufacturing and technology, will be replaced by low wage jobs making the plastic junk that Walmart currently imports from China.

    2. Re:We'll just start a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Welcome to Corporate America. In Argentina we have elected a guy who convinced everyone he wasn't going to pass the crisis down to the lower classes, and amid his first government actions he cut the export taxes to mining down to Zero, penalized the unions by pushing a tax reform which makes you pay more if you negotiate a raise above their projecred inflación numbers (which are obviously rigged downwards), and criminalizes social protest. Whatever USA gets in terms of asymetrical social growth, It has been tester in Latin America previously.

    3. Re: We'll just start a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was that guy or keep going on the way to Venezuela. Comparing current president Macri to Trump is ridiculous, Trump is a populist, like the previus argentinian goverment.

    4. Re: We'll just start a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making the market more free stimulates growth and will be good for middle class.

    5. Re: We'll just start a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know what he will do. His plans change every day. Forget all about what he has said he will do.

    6. Re:We'll just start a war by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The people that will likely suffer the most under Trump are the working class people that voted for him.

      But they didn't, that's a myth. The median income of Trump voters was $10,000 higher than Clinton voters. Only a very loud, very ignorant, yet minuscule minority of working class people voted for Trump, especially given the low overall turnout. The majority of working class people didn't bother to vote. They didn't see any point to it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re: We'll just start a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Taxes can be cut safley if goverment spending is also cut. Problem solved

    8. Re: We'll just start a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those polices don't drive a free-market, they drive a protected isolated one that cultivates monopolies and oligarchy in place of democracy.

    9. Re: We'll just start a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What tribute are you talking about? I remember spending 10 months there making relationships with people and trying to rebuild anbar with public works and small programs. I also remember providing election security for free.and.fair elections for them. I don't remember stealing from the local populace. Were you there and saw something different than I did? Additionally our news rarely reported anything accurately that was going on.. Public works doesn't sell as well as drama and strife.

    10. Re: We'll just start a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was plenty of coverage of the massive but badly planned and largely I'll conceived civic action work. Fantastic rake off for the US dominated foreign staffed contractors too.. That, unfortunately, wasn't so well covered. My fellow investors thank you, gullible citizen.

    11. Re: We'll just start a war by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      True. In some way they will be held to account by reality for their ignorance in allowing either Clinton or Trump to be nominees. Too many good people doing nothing...... And Clinton / Trump is the price they pay for it.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    12. Re: We'll just start a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude! There is no such thing as "regressive tax". "Progressive tax" refers to the idea of paying a progressively greater percentage of your income in tax the more you earn.

      The alternative is a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage. Examples of this include sales taxes (VAT or GST) and tithes (in the true sense of the word where it is literally one tenth).

      If all loop holes were removed and everyone paid a flat tax once they passed a minimum threshold of earnings you may find there would be more money in the treasury, including from the rich who would be unable to hide earnings legally as they do now.

      While we are at it, company tax is nonsense. If you tax a company more, the company either takes the money from its workers, or from its clients (the public) to pay for it. The only difference is to multinationals where it allows a government to reach into the pockets of people who aren't even citizens of that government.
      Instead of company tax, companies pay 0 tax directly, and increase the GST to make up for it. It's a more honest way to tax the people. If the companies don't drop their prices people will start avoiding their products until they are forced to - the only exception to this is where a monopoly exists on a necessity.

      In these cases, if there is no government restriction on who can do that work (and there shouldn't be) then other people, on seeing the huge profits will be enticed to go into that market, creating competition.

      Again, this works in all circumstances except when there is a government enforced monopoly on a product through a copyright or patent. This leads to a need to reduce copyright duration to a short but exploitable length (say, 14 years with a one time extension), and to reject patents that are too broad or derivative patents that are too similar to their source.

      I've got to say, the outcome of going down this route looks pretty attractive - especially to the citizens of governments that do this.

    13. Re: We'll just start a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      asphinctersayswhat?

  70. What about the Left Wing Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about left wing fake news like CNN, NY Times, and *NBC?

    I never cared much for mainstream news sources, but now I hate them.

    1. Re:What about the Left Wing Fake News by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 2

      Care to demonstrate any FAKE news from NY Times?
      They have made mistakes (Judith Miller and WMD for example) and issued retractions and apologies
      Not Fox
      Not newsmax
      Not Freerepublic
      Not Infowars
      Not Limbaugh
      Not Beck
      That is what separates the real from the illusion
      A total lack of accountability

    2. Re:What about the Left Wing Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chelsea Clinton owns TheBlaze whom Glen Beck front-lines for. Your grasp on reality is that much weaker now that I've separated the illusion from what you perceive to be real.

    3. Re:What about the Left Wing Fake News by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      NYT executive editor Dean Baquet recently released a letter to its readers on the subject of rededicating itself to truth, and you can't rededicate yourself to something you are already dedicated to, and I quote:

      "As we reflect on this week's momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you." - Dean Baquet, Executive Editor, New York Times.

      NYT is a bunch of biased fucks, but they've pathetically admitted it and promised not to do it any more. They did this because subscriptions started to plummet when its readers found out how big of a circle-jerk fantasy their reporting was about the election. Its damage control, and an empty promise. They've rededicated themselves to pretending they are honest for a moment.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:What about the Left Wing Fake News by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You prefer sources that tell you that they're never wrong. Smaaaaart.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:What about the Left Wing Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the Times, I'd say their entire coverage of the election. I mean, wasn't that what their apology letter was about? A failure to be objective and fair. If you aren't being fair and objective, isn't everything you're publishing fundamentally fake then? It may be made up of bits of truth, but the narrative is fiction.

    6. Re:What about the Left Wing Fake News by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Chelsea Clinton owns TheBlaze whom Glen Beck front-lines for./p>

      ROTFL. No, Chelsea Clinton does not own TheBlaze. It is owned by Mercury Radio Arts, aka Glenn Beck.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    7. Re:What about the Left Wing Fake News by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I'm hardly a fan of Glenn Beck, but I must point out that he has been sounding more contrite since he left Fox.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com...
      http://www.vox.com/policy-and-...
      http://www.salon.com/2016/11/0...

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:What about the Left Wing Fake News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, what revisionist history. You dislike the NYT politics so you say their reporting is biased?

      Remember: Nobody had any plausible data that Trump would win the electoral college. Nobody. Not exit polls, nothing. At the same time, every editorial staff in every 'real' paper in the US declared Trump 'unfit for office'.

      I personally had my doubts about our relatively weak candidate on the liberal side, as well as an understanding of trends in US elections. I knew it was going to be close, but I had no data that would tell me that, just a gut check. But if I'm the NYT, I can't report a gut check, I have to report facts and polling, no?

      You should re-examine your thinking. What article, with evidence, would you have written in the NYT to support your own biased thinking? (You need two CREDIBLE sources for your 'facts', you can't just make them up.)

  71. Re:And the show goes on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you are ignoring two key take-aways from this whole story:
    1) the right easily takes the bait provided by fake-news websites; and
    2) the left does not.

  72. Rage news by buss_error · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've noticed over the last 15 years that news reporting appears to deliberately incite rage in it's consumers. I conclude the reason is because happy news doesn't cause interaction that can be measured, while outrage causes people to post comments, link, and send to friends. These actions can be tracked, and if it can be tracked, it can be monetized. An example is Info Wars site. Most of their news is extremely slanted and almost seems to jerk the froth out of their average reader's mouth, while simultaneously reporting things dishonestly. When one bothers to fact check and independently confirm their stories, it is my opinion that they are almost without exception false to fact or put in the worst light possible. Nor is it confined to such fringe lunatic sites, this is found in Fox, Breitbart, Drudge, and to a lessor extent in CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR.

    TL;DR: News is worthless. They all have an agenda and they all push it.

    --
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    1. Re:Rage news by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      News without a profit motive is generally much better. Or listener supported independent media.

  73. WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE BILLIONAIRES? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor defenseless Elon. :(

    He can't afford to buy *nearly* enough major media outlets to counteract this massive propaganda campaign of a few barely-noticed online blog posts.

  74. Fake news and freedom cannot coexist. by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    When lying in order to win control of policy results in a majority being overruled by a minority, for the express purpose of removing the liberties of the more powerless of citizens, creating an alternative 'reality' of fake facts, nothing can be accomplished
    Even the need for simple self-correction is gone thanks to people like Faux's Roger Ailes, creator of such lies as "Benghazi" and "WMD found in Syria but no one can locate it now"

  75. fuck off by whodunit · · Score: 1

    "Fake news galvanized US president-elect Donald Trump's supporters, and sullied his enemies"

    And the last pretense of objectivity flies right out the fucking window. It's "news for nerds" not "politically motivated lies."

    1. Re:fuck off by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Just because it makes one political side look worse doesn't make it biased. Not all stories have two perfectly equal sides. If one side comes up with a lie, objective reporting will note that. If one side consistently comes up with more lies than the other, then objective reporting is going to make that one side look worse.

      For heaven's sake, man, Trump himself stoked the Birther movement. That whole thing is an outright, fact-free fabrication.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:fuck off by whodunit · · Score: 1

      The fact that you can use the phrase "objective journalism" with a straight fucking face after an election where CNN political reporters were openly shitposting against Trump on their twitter feeds - twitter feeds with their actual names and faces and jobs listed right in the profile - speaks volumes. Sad, depressing, volumes. A talk show on MSNBC mentioned the "end zone dances on Twitter" and the "back-slapping" that political beat reporters were doing, and you're going to sit here and fucking tell me about objective journalism?

      I've got a Journalism degree from Eastern Michigan. I know what objective journalism is. And this election fucking buried it six feet deep.

  76. This is what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what happens when you let Nazis on the Internet.

  77. Re: And the show goes on by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

    You can objectively come to this conclusion by deviating from their idea of normal. The left will tolerate you. The right will punish you.

    No one is normal, the only difference between us is our willingness to conform to an ideological standard.

    But perhaps in a world devoid of intrinsic relativism, in a righteous world I suppose, that scenario would paint the deviant as an objectively bad person in need of reform and training. No doubt, there are many righteous people online spreading the word for their faith, warning us of the coming cultural apocalypse.

  78. Re: And the show goes on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a useful fool

  79. Fake News is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in threesome with space aliens form Mars and Venus.

    What we have now is propaganda

  80. Re: Good by mspohr · · Score: 1

    "In the Tesla crash in Indianapolis a few weeks ago, one of the riders in the car was trapped in the battery fire and died, slowly, in the heat. What a hell of a way to go."
    This did not happen.
    You can make up things if you want but that's called fake news

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  81. look who's talking by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    With equal justification, you could write:

    Fake news galvanized Hillary Clinton supporters, and sullied her enemies.

    Right now, they are subjecting us to an endless stream of baseless accusations of "white nationalism" and "anti-Semitism" against their political enemies. I'm not even going to bother listing the never ending stream of fake stories coming out of left-leaning media, including Quartz, a publication pushing advertising at rich lefties (the target audience for Teslas, hence no surprise why they are defending him).

    As for Musk, of course, he is a major crony capitalist; his business wouldn't exist without massive government support. If you think you are justified being pissed off at Wall Street or Exxon, you are just as justified being pissed off at Musk's businesses.

    1. Re:look who's talking by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you think you are justified being pissed off at Wall Street or Exxon, you are just as justified being pissed off at Musk's businesses.

      ...or Trump's, since he runs a visa mill and uses foreign sweatshop labor.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:look who's talking by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      As for Musk, of course, he is a major crony capitalist; his business wouldn't exist without massive government support.

      You seem to think that any business which takes advantage of government incentives involves cronyism. You are wrong. Elon Musk is the exact opposite of a crony capitalist. Elon Musk wasn't supposed to happen at all. He grew up in South Africa, and wasn't even a US Citizen until 2002. He had no US cronies whatsoever because he didn't live here, and he had no South African cronies because he was severely bullied as a child, to the point of being thrown down stairs and beaten unconscious. He was beaten by a bully and his cronies, which doesn't happen to people who have cronies of their own.

      Elon Musk is an upstart immigrant entrepreneur who succeeded despite the best efforts of the crony capitalists to prevent it. Those automotive incentives Tesla Motors has taken advantage of were meant for GM and Ford, purely as window-dressing. GM and Ford were trying to greenwash themselves, and firmly believed that in their capital-intensive industry no brand new company could possible grow big enough to compete with them and actually qualify for those subsidies. The NTSHA safety testing regime was meant to be too difficult and too expensive for any tiny little startup to afford, let alone pass, let alone pass with a better rating than anything GM or Ford had on the road.

      The people who run GM and Ford got together with their friends from prep school (their cronies) who had been elected to government to do a little harmless PR so they could fend off the environmentalist lobby a few more years. They knew no one was going to actually use those incentives because they knew they were the only ones big enough to be able to use them and they had already agreed not to actually use them at all. But it's illegal in the US to pass laws to benefit or harm specifically named entities, be they natural or artificial persons, so the law had to be written nominally generically, as these things always are, but with attempts at specificity that should have excluded anyone but the intended recipients. That's how actual crony capitalism works. Elon Musk was never supposed to be able to use that money, and especially not to use that money to prove that GM and Ford are liars when they had spent the previous three decades claiming it's impossible to make an electric car people would want to buy.

      It's even worse with SpaceX. Before the creation of SpaceX, the United Launch Alliance was an illegal monopoly launch provider who had managed to push the price of a single rocket launch up to nearly half a billion dollars, so far in excess of actual expenses as to be ludicrous, and effectively affordable only by the US government. When SpaceX got permission to launch their first Falcon 1 rocket from Vandenberg, ULA intentionally delayed the launch of a Titan IV they had on a nearby pad for more than a year, trying to starve SpaceX out. Elon Musk figured it out, took down his rocket, stuffed it into an airplane, and flew it to the Kwajalein Atoll in the South Pacific to use the launch range there, which was too small for Titans and mostly ignored by ULA, and so safe from their machinations. To that point, Elon Musk had spent $90 million of his own money and $0 of any government money to develop the rocket.

      The first Falcon launches were paid for by DARPA under a program to test new entrants into the market, but they paid only for the launches, not for the development of the rocket. And again, that program was never supposed to be used. ULA didn't qualify for it and knew that no one was going to challenge them in an extremely tightly regulated and capital intensive market. They let that program be created so they would have something to point to when people like me accused them of being an illegal monopoly. No one was ever supposed to use that money. Their cronies in government had assured them that no one could.

    3. Re:look who's talking by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      ...or Trump's, since he runs a visa mill and uses foreign sweatshop labor.

      Oh, Trump's crony capitlalism goes much deeper than that: as someone in the restaurant and gambling business, he's needed good political connections and favorable regulation. In that regard, he's pretty much the same as Musk. All I was saying that it is perfectly legitimate to call Musk a crony capitalist and to call into question the value and contributions of his business empire to society.

      Having said that, there is one big difference: Trump has pretty much said "I had to get into bed with government to run my business, I think that's wrong, and I want to change it". I have yet to hear Musk say anything like that.

    4. Re:look who's talking by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Having said that, there is one big difference: Trump has pretty much said "I had to get into bed with government to run my business, I think that's wrong, and I want to change it". I have yet to hear Musk say anything like that.

      I have yet to see Trump's actions match his words, aside from locker room conversations. I'm not holding my breath.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:look who's talking by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that any business which takes advantage of government incentives involves cronyism.

      No, not at all. What crony capitalism requires is mutual support of businesses that depend on government handouts and the politicians that are inclined to provide such handouts, like the relationship between Musk and Clinton, and the benefits he would have reaped from Clinton's policies. In his space business, he was running into other established players, but muscling his way into that market doesn't really make him a champion of free markets either.

      I think it is legitimate to call Musk a crony capitalist and criticize him for it. If he wants to shed that image, he needs to change his politics and the way he deals with politicians.

  82. What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are already liable and slander laws to deal with this sort of thing - I'm sure Tesla has some good lawyers under their wing so can't they just sue them into oblivion?

    That money could help pay for legal costs and also fund a counter-PR campaign!

  83. Re:And the show goes on by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    Fascists are still worse

    True: while progressives and fascists are politically and historically closely related, fascists are clearly worse than progressives.

    And, there is no evidence of any "leftist" conspiracy outside of your padded room.

    Correct, there is no "leftist conspiracy", any more than there is a conspiracy of bankers, oil companies, or GMO producers. Rather, it is everybody acting out of self-interest. It just happens to be the case that the self-interest of journalists and media doesn't coincide with the truth or the interests of the public at large.

  84. Re: And the show goes on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can objectively come to this conclusion by deviating from their idea of normal. The left will tolerate you.

    LOL. No. They will call you a fascist, Nazi, homophobe and other -phobes, and try to get you locked up in prison. In countries where free speech is protected well-enough that they can't do that, they will try to pressure your employer, using threats of boycots, into sacking you, and will otherwise attempt to ruin your livelihood.

  85. Re: And the show goes on by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    You can objectively come to this conclusion by deviating from their idea of normal. The left will tolerate you. The right will punish you.

    When I tell people that, as a gay immigrant, I didn't support Clinton and have left the Democratic party, I am frequently subjected to abuse and insults by leftists, being called anything from a shill to a self-hating faggot. Question left-wing dogma on gun control, affirmative action, abortion, or climate change, and the abuse gets even worse.

    I have experienced nothing comparable from US conservatives, libertarians, Christians, or independents, even as an openly gay, vegetarian atheist; their attitude is generally "not quite what we believe, but how nice for you"; the worst they'll do is hand you a Bible.

  86. NPR identifies major source of fake news by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Informative

    In case you missed it, NPR tracked down a major source of fake news

    Coler is a soft-spoken 40-year-old with a wife and two kids. He says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right. “The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction,” Coler says.

    That is, a left-wing agitator produces large amounts of right wing bullshit online and then left-wing media use that to support their view that there is a massive problem with fake news and "alt-right" views.

    This is similar to to the fake post-election hate-crime-wave that we are supposedly experiencing, and to the death threats people fake on Twitter. The left wing outrage machinery is largely fed by self-created fake stories.

    1. Re:NPR identifies major source of fake news by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is similar to to the fake post-election hate-crime-wave that we are supposedly experiencing, and to the death threats people fake on Twitter.

      It's not fake. It's well-documented by the victims themselves, who are posting evidence of the crimes on social media. You are a liar, please go away.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:NPR identifies major source of fake news by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It's well-documented by the victims themselves, who are posting evidence of the crimes on social media.

      And it's well documented that a lot of those "crimes" are, in fact, fake: they are either fabricated, self-inflicted, or perpetrated by anti-Trump protesters.

      Clearly, there were hate crimes before Trump's election, and there are hate crimes after Trump's election. Nobody knows whether there is a "post-election hate-crime-wave" due to Trump supporters.

      You are a liar, please go away

      You are being dishonest by equating increased news reports of vandalism with an actual hate crime wave.

    3. Re:NPR identifies major source of fake news by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Interesting...

    4. Re:NPR identifies major source of fake news by Layzej · · Score: 1

      a left-wing agitator

      He tried selling the same BS to the left but they weren't buying. "Coler says they've tried to write fake news for liberals, but they never take the bait." He went where the money was and ended up earning tens of thousands of dollars a month. He's not so much an agitator as an opportunist.

    5. Re:NPR identifies major source of fake news by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Yes -- this story and interview is quite similar to a Washington Post story from last week, when they interviewed a much more prominent creator of fake news, who also is a liberal and apparently followed the same "script."

      The left wing outrage machinery is largely fed by self-created fake stories.

      "Largely"? I don't think so. Partly, sure. I think there were more right-wing propagandists creating fake news than there were liberals floating hoaxes to later bash them. More importantly, I think the opportunists who realized creating sensationalist news was a money-maker outnumbered all of them. I don't think these opportunists skew left-wing or right-wing or toward Balkan teenagers or whatever... they're just a bunch of random people making money off of crap.

    6. Re:NPR identifies major source of fake news by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      He tried selling the same BS to the left but they weren't buying

      Simple supply and demand: when you have the NYT, the WP, Quartz, and HuffPo, to name just a few, then the market for left wing fake news is obviously already saturated.

    7. Re:NPR identifies major source of fake news by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The left wing outrage machinery is largely fed by self-created fake stories.

      Largely"? I don't think so. Partly, sure.

      I, however, do think so: a lot of the stories on CNN, NYT, WP, HuffPo, etc. are fake news created to drive outrage on the left.

      (Just look at the recent bullshit accusing Bannon of being antisemitic and a white supremacist.)

    8. Re:NPR identifies major source of fake news by Layzej · · Score: 1

      It is laughable to compare mainstream media reporting from angles you'd rather ignore with fake news sites making up stories out of whole cloth.

    9. Re:NPR identifies major source of fake news by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It is laughable to compare mainstream media reporting from angles you'd rather ignore with fake news sites making up stories out of whole cloth.

      If you don't recognize that a large percentage of stories on the NYT, CNN, WP, Quartz, or HuffPo meet all the criteria of being fake, and that they are pushing this "fake news" meme out of simple self interest, you really are out of touch with reality. Heck, the "fake news list" that has been at the center of the discussion was created by a feminist professor and includes several mainstream conservative news outlets.

      Of course, even his claim of "he tried selling the same BS to the left but they weren't buying" is something you uncritically accept; in fact, if he had written stories about "I'm a feminist and I'm getting death threats" or "I'm transgender and Trump supporters are drawing Swastikas on my car", those stories do get eaten up.

    10. Re:NPR identifies major source of fake news by Layzej · · Score: 1

      "The people wanted to hear this. So all it took was to write that story. Everything about it was fictional. The town, the people, the sheriff, the FBI guy. Then, we had our social media guys kind of go out and do a little dropping it throughout Trump groups and Trump forums and boy it spread like wildfire."

      Sorry. That is not even remotely comparable to the main stream media, regardless of the fact that they have a diversity of opinions or that some of them may be (gasp) feminists.

    11. Re:NPR identifies major source of fake news by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Sorry. That is not even remotely comparable to the main stream media, regardless of the fact that they have a diversity of opinions or that some of them may be (gasp) feminists.

      BuzzFeed started this "fake news" meme. They are defining "fake news" as "false or misleading news", then identify a whole bunch of conservative news sites as "fake" by that definition and create a scare about it. So, by their own definition, much of the news published by mainstream media is "fake", not necessarily because it is completely false, but because it is misleading. (To be sure, a significant fraction of even mainstream media stories are entirely false; it's simply that journalists don't make them up themselves, they just uncritically repeat other people's fictional stories if they fit their own political agenda.)

      My point is not that there are other sources you should read, my point is that the "mainstream media" have deteriorated to the point where they are no more trustworthy than a random blog off the Internet. If you want to know what's going on, feel free to read the NYT and NPR, but also read Breitbart and NRO, and then do a little background research yourself to determine which of those gets the story right. Anybody who was surprised that Trump got elected shouldn't blame other people's ignorance, they should blame their own ignorance; if you had strayed outside the "mainstream media", it would have become clear that Trump was, in fact, quite "mainstream".

    12. Re:NPR identifies major source of fake news by Layzej · · Score: 1

      BuzzFeed started this "fake news" meme. They are defining "fake news" as "false or misleading news"

      Jansen created a fake news empire quite apart from BuzzFeed and well before it was named by BuzzFeed or any other mainstream media source. He says (and I quote) "Everything about it was fictional. The town, the people, the sheriff, the FBI guy." That's not misleading. That's fake.

      There is some basis to your assertion that this is primarily consumed by the right wing. Jansen says "this isn't just a Trump-supporter problem. This is a right-wing issue. Sarah Palin's famous blasting of the lamestream media is kind of record and testament to the rise of these kinds of people. The post-fact era is what I would refer to it as. This isn't something that started with Trump. This is something that's been in the works for a while. His whole campaign was this thing of discrediting mainstream media sources, which is one of those dog whistles to his supporters. When we were coming up with headlines it's always kind of about the red meat. Trump really got into the red meat. He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat." And it appears they devoured it greedily.

      He also says "We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out."

      You can try to make this about something else, even try to dismiss it by calling it a meme, but the fact of the matter is that fake news was generated out of whole cloth and the right wing consumers ate it up.

  87. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who said the comments were related? One was about the crash and fires, the other was your quote.

  88. NPR Tracked One Down by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    NPR tracked down one of the fake news sources. It was basically some guy who figured out how to use the traffic to make $10,000 to $30,000 a month.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  89. BoooHooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1% semi-scam artist ("AI will take over") has shit flying into his face. A nuisance.

    All the MSM threw loads of shit so that Iraq and Syria could be raped, pillaged and destroyed. Millions killed.

    Now my dear readers, who are the "victims of hate" ? And who are the perps ?

    Clinton, Bush, Battenbergs, Blair - THEY are the big time purveyors of HATE.

  90. BINGO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I estimate that 70% of allegedly "right wing, alien, nutcase, conspiracy theory, chemtrail" memes have been created by Agents Provocateurs. The objective is to discredit all non-Marxists.

    Let's call it OPERATION BRAINFUCK.

  91. one of the biggest fake news sites uncovered by Gunstick · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should push this as separate story out on slashdot
    https://slashdot.org/submissio...

    --
    Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
  92. COUNTERMEASURES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    White man, the Marxist-globalist witches have declared war on you. They lost a big battle recently, but they haven't raised the white flag yet.

    Here are the countermeasures:

    + RT.COM
    + DEUTSCH.RT.COM
    + USENET
    + Discussion Forum on TOR Darknet

    Yeah, you read correctly. Our Russian-Viking brothers help us against the Marxist witches. They do so with a little interruption since the days of the czar.

    1. Re:COUNTERMEASURES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Our Russian-Viking brothers help us against the Marxist witches.

      I was thinking those look exactly like Soviet tactics (and Chinese, too):

      1) Create public distaste about someone.
      2) Propose lynching, which the public loves.
      3) Get rid of the target which is threatening the status quo.
      4) Either keep doing things the old, wrong way or, alternatively, embrace the new methods usurping the innovator's role.
      5) Profit.

      These guys probably think the American public is composed of idiots.

  93. Yeah Marxist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You lost again against our General Franco. Your idealist tyranny did not realize itself. You openly declared war on the White Man. You know what ? We fought back against you Sand N1gger-N4zis and Spartans.

    Message: Filter error: Lameness filter encountered

  94. "Fake News" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a Mohammedist or a Marxist Fake News is only a problem, "if not issued while aiding our nice ideology".

    So, a Marxist-Banksterist lie is not a problem. It's a "fact". E.g. "Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq"

    A counter-Marxist-Banksterist lie is a HUUUGE problem and it will be thrown in the same bag as all true reports. Then it will be called "bag of non-facts".

    The Marxists invented Information Warfare ("Agitation and Propaganda"), but the White Man turned this weapon against their inventors. Now they cry foul. Too bad. Suck it up. General Franco won AGAIN. And no, he is just a patriot, that's all.

  95. Etymology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Patriot comes from latin "Papa", Germanic "Vater"/"Father". Compare French "Patrie" - Germanc "Land of the fathers" or "Vaterland".

    The Marxists declared war on the fathers, on the patriots. We fought back. Wir haben gewonnen.

    Hurra !

  96. Tea-Party, Alt-Right, Hard-Right... ...Neo-Right!? by Flytrap · · Score: 1

    Far-Right, New-Right, Tea-Party, Alt-Right, Hard-Right... What's Next: Neo-Right!?

    Bloomberg reports that hard-right groups are lining up to back misleading websites and fake journalists who attack Musk's business empire.

    Throughout history, the English world has referred to political or social groups that espouse populist ultraconservative and extreme nationalist ideologies as far-right groups or parties. But, recently I have observed an explosion of new terminology being invented to try to distinguish the multitude of far-right groups - all of which share the same ultraconservative, ultranationalist rejection of modern egalitarianism. It is almost as if far-right groups are jostling for position to see who can pronounce themselves to be at the furthest right of the left-right socio-political ideological spectrum.

    It may be that if one splits hairs, one may identify unique characteristics that distinguish the different groups' neoreactionary philosophies - and many people will point these out to confused detractors like myself. Far-right groups have as much right to exist and espouse their ideological views as any other socio-political group... but, for the sake of clarity, lets stop inventing completely new terminology to describe how much further to the right one group may be than the ones that came before it.

    Never since the formalisation of the struggles for independence, self determination and emancipation by the long suffering subjects of British, French and Portuguese colonies have we seen the emergence of so many political and social "movements" as we have seen in recent far-right politics of America. Calling one's social, political or pressure group a movement, no matter how well funded it is, does not automatically bestow upon it a mark of legitimacy if it is not borne out of the organisation of legitimate grass-root and civil societal formations that will sustain it as a movement long after the big cheques stop flowing because the socio-economic issues that are the fuel of real movements very rarely follow the ebb and flow of the electoral cycle. So, enough already with the "it's a movement" when referring to the shiny new vehicle a particular group may be using to rally its supporters behind its latest socio-political ideological project.

    Okay... I'll get off my soapbox now and shut up.

  97. Sure Marxist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You run out of rational arguments and start shouting. Give us more of that :-)

  98. And it begins... by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    Now that "fake news" has become a well-known term, it is already being used by people in an attempt to discredit opinions they disagree with.

    Here's one of the articles criticizing Musk, Tesla and Solar City. Where it quotes facts, the facts are true. However, it also includes a great deal of opinion, mainly that the government subsidies Musk's companies receive are excessive, and a prime example of cronyism.

    The facts are quite clear: Tesla and Solar City only exist because of the massive subsidies they have received. Are those subsidies justified? Should they continue? Some people apparently do not want to have this discussion.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:And it begins... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The facts are quite clear: Tesla and Solar City only exist because of the massive subsidies they have received. Are those subsidies justified? Should they continue? Some people apparently do not want to have this discussion.

      These same subsidies are available to others, yet no others are doing what Musk is doing. Why not? If this is just free money, as is often claimed, why aren't others lining up for it?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:And it begins... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      The people you speak of are only interested in discussing one kind of subsidy. The hundreds of subsidies (a tax break is also a subsidy, by the way), hidden and overt, that go to the fossil fuel sector, are supposed to pass without comment, even though they dwarf subsidies and tax breaks to all other energy sectors. Even the notoriously tax-greedy nuclear generation sector doesn't come close.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  99. NOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people of Afghanistan need personal guns out of fear of invaders of all shades. They always cut the invader asses and eject their bones afterward. See why guns are highly necessary ?

  100. Re:And the show goes on by Gussington · · Score: 1

    Correct, there is no "leftist conspiracy", any more than there is a conspiracy of bankers, oil companies, or GMO producers.

    OPEC means nothing to you?
    Sure everyone acts in their own interests, but people in power have the means to execute their interests a lot more than the noisy rabble.

  101. Killary Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killed Millions: Iraq, Syria.

    Any more arguments, communist ?

  102. Money Makes Marxism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America has tons of money. Russia had it too in the early 1900s. Now you can kindly suffer the same shit as Russia from 1917 to 1991, albeit in a watered-down form. That's Karma for fucking with the peace of Iraq and Syria.

  103. Sure Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We owe your globalist money overlords a bow-down. NOT.

  104. Re: And the show goes on by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    I don't understand what your issue is. You can be a gay vegetarian immigrant atheist and still be right wing.

    As a right winger you don't agree with left wing policies, pretty obviously.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  105. Re: And the show goes on by Gussington · · Score: 1

    their attitude is generally "not quite what we believe, but how nice for you"; the worst they'll do is hand you a Bible.

    So every single Conservative is happy, friendly and welcoming, while all Liberals are hateful, spiteful and evil?
    Here's a tip for you, there's loonies on all sides of the fence. Your chosen team doesn't have a monopoly on virtue. And the fact that you think it does says more about you than them.

  106. Kremlin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is now full of PATRIOTS. White men who help other white men against the Marxists who tortured our Russian brothers too long.

    But unlike you former COMINTERN PUPPETS, we do not need a centralized command.

    1. Re: Kremlin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL You need your head checked.

      Russian are Slavs. Same word for slaves. We should massurder those asiatic monkeys.

  107. Fake news is the new black! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Barrel bombs are so passé... I have noticed that since late last week every single media outlet all of a sudden is "fake news, fake news, fake news!"

    Any bets on which fearmongering buzzwords will be hot next quarter?

  108. How is this fake news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this fake news?

    (1) Musk takes subsidies.
    (2) "Fraud" is a term with both technical (legal) and nontechnical (colloquial) meaning. In either case, you'd point to some set of facts and those facts would either support your accusation of fraud or they wouldn't. This might be subjective.
    3. Ditto comparison to a felon. Depends on the specific details of the comparison made.
    4. "Fake" people write stuff all the time. "Mark Twain" was a fake person yet we don't throw away all the stuff he wrote.

  109. Elon "Bottomless Pit" Musk you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cut off his subsidies and watch all his ponzi schemes fail within months. All his outfits generate huge losses. Without taxpayer money he's gonna fail big time. What he's good at is extorting money from naive investors and setting states on one another to offer him the biggest tax cuts when he promises to build his factories in them.His capitalistic empire is built on human suffering and deceit. Slashdot is the HQ of Musk's brownnosers, no wonder all you see in this thread is desperate justification for him and his evil schemes.

  110. Re:And the show goes on by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Do you actually understand what those words mean? She is a writer, sometimes of fiction and sometimes as a journalist. That does not imply that everything she writes is fiction. She admits nothing, says nothing about false flag operations.

    Are you just really bad at reading comprehension or is this some kind of delusion?

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  111. What I don't get by DrXym · · Score: 1

    Is why the the right wing would want to attack Musk. He's an entrepreneur, he's creating a LOT of jobs and intellectual property and he has a distinctly libertarian streak. Why are they attacking the guy?

    1. Re:What I don't get by hyades1 · · Score: 2

      Why are they attacking him? Because he is an agent of change. And the only change they want is to return to a past that never was.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:What I don't get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is an agent of grabbing corporate welfare. Cut off his subsidies and his outfits (every one of which generates huge losses) will go down in a matter of months. He couldn't "change" a light bulb to save his life. He's only talented at separating naive investors from the contents of their wallets. His "changes" will bring us closer to a world where corporations not only live off taxpayer money but they also produce goods which are entirely controlled by them and rented out to the public. Say goodbye to the concept of ownership. Tesla says how you can use their cars and if you disagree you can't purchase them.

    3. Re:What I don't get by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Is why the the right wing would want to attack Musk. He's an entrepreneur, he's creating a LOT of jobs and intellectual property and he has a distinctly libertarian streak. Why are they attacking the guy?

      Because he's doing new things and hiring people while they're doing old things and laying people off. They lack the drive, vision, or indeed ability to do what he is doing, and they don't want their asses kicked, so they are doing their best to keep him down not through competition since they are not competitive, but through skullduggery.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:What I don't get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he's just a new cult of personality figure to replace Jobs. Got it. Does nothing except grabbing taxpayer money and selling overpriced gadgets, is praised as a "visionary" in useless tabloids and by mouthbreathing "geeks".

    5. Re:What I don't get by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Because he's doing new things and hiring people while they're doing old things and laying people off. They lack the drive, vision, or indeed ability to do what he is doing, and they don't want their asses kicked, so they are doing their best to keep him down not through competition since they are not competitive, but through skullduggery.

      So he's just a new cult of personality figure to replace Jobs. Got it.

      You don't get to say "got it" when you clearly don't get it.

      Does nothing except grabbing taxpayer money and selling overpriced gadgets, is praised as a "visionary" in useless tabloids and by mouthbreathing "geeks".

      He's not grabbing taxpayer money, it's being given to him because he's making changes which we find desirable. Those 'overpriced gadgets' are selling as fast as he can produce them, which proves that they are not overpriced. And he's substantially reduced the cost-to-orbit, which benefits everyone, even you.

      I can see why you didn't log in. I'd be afraid to associate your ridiculous ideas with an identity, as well. If you did that, you'd be laughed out of the room every time you posted.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:What I don't get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you find them desirable, feel free to donate your own money. I don't and I don't want a cent of my tax money to be given to this useless idiot. What a world where producing luxury cars only the wealthiest can afford is seen as "desirable". You Godless heathens really need your own secular idols. The human need to worship cannot be suppressed, when you lose faith in God you look towards con artists like Musk as a substitute.

      BTW. I didn't log in because I don't have an account here, never had one. It's really a sad gesture when you become protective of a fake identity you create on some internet forum. Nobody recognizes you here and nobody ever will. I don't think anyone really looks at the nicknames anymore.

    7. Re:What I don't get by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you find them desirable, feel free to donate your own money. I don't and I don't want a cent of my tax money to be given to this useless idiot. What a world where producing luxury cars only the wealthiest can afford is seen as "desirable".

      If it reduces their fossil fuel consumption, which it does, it is desirable, and therefore it is.

      It's really a sad gesture when you become protective of a fake identity you create on some internet forum.

      No. I am protective of the forum, which is deprecated by having a lot of bullshit comments which are encouraged by permitting people to leave them anonymously.

      Nobody recognizes you here and nobody ever will.

      Well, that is patently false. While my slashdot recognition and $5 will buy me a latte at Starfucks, I do experience an ongoing dialogue and even some camaraderie here on Slashdot, related to identity. Just because nobody cares who you are doesn't mean nobody can recognize anyone else.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:What I don't get by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Your last sentence reveals exactly what kind of a clueless moron you are. If you don't know why, you can easily find out with The Google.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    9. Re:What I don't get by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Contrary to the moron's allegation, I actually recognize your name. I also respect your opinion, though I don't always agree with it.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    10. Re:What I don't get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moon is made of cheese, if you don't know why you can easily find out using google.

    11. Re:What I don't get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, that's desirable for you, and you're free to give him as much of your own money as you want. I don't want _any_ of my money to be donated to random private corporations, can you get this through your thick skull? The person who knows best how to spend my money is me - I don't want it forcibly taken from me and given to that fraud Musk.

      You're some nobody on some niche internet forum, it's pathetic that you're trying to build your identity on this. You just spout stock, run of the mill liberal opinions. Let me guess, you believe in global warming, you support homosexual marriage, you think GMO foods are great for everyone, and you think vaccines should be forcibly administered to children and infants. See, I don't even have to read any of your posts to know what you think. There's a whole army of walking tape recorders like you on this website. You guys are like clones. I can also guess that you probably wear oxford shirts and have male pattern baldness, you think red meat is harmful and fluoride in water can't ever be poisonous, you also really love "science". Let me know if I was mistaken on even one point, I can bet $100 I'm not.

    12. Re:What I don't get by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Explain how it's "grabbing taxpayer money" please.

    13. Re:What I don't get by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Wow that's some ad hominem you hammered out there.

    14. Re:What I don't get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? Doesn't make the guy any less predictable. You don't know what "ad hominem" means or what conditions are needed for it to be applicable, you just think it's a "smart" term for insults.

    15. Re:What I don't get by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You're some nobody on some niche internet forum, it's pathetic that you're trying to build your identity on this.

      You're less than nobody on some niche internet forum. But I'm not trying to "build an identity" on Slashdot. What I'm trying to accomplish with having an identity here and with paying less attention to people without them is that I can have meaningful ongoing conversations, and make reasonable evaluations of whether I want to read whole comments or not.

      Let me guess, you believe in global warming,

      Yes, I am in favor of science.

      you support homosexual marriage,

      I am opposed to the whole concept of government involvement in social unions.

      you think GMO foods are great for everyone,

      I am ambivalent about GMO foods. I am pro-labeling.

      and you think vaccines should be forcibly administered to children and infants.

      If you want to mix them with other people's children, yes. But I have grave concerns about the merits of the Big Pharma-controlled process which is dominated by malfeasance.

      I can also guess that you probably wear oxford shirts and have male pattern baldness,

      I mostly wear tee shirts, but I also like Hawaiians. My male pattern baldness seems to have halted in a fairly presentable state, not even requiring a comb-over. It is a bit thin on top, though, if you must know.

      you think red meat is harmful and fluoride in water can't ever be poisonous,

      What? I have been one of this site's most ardent supporters of low-carb diets up to and including the full Atkins, and I am against municipal water fluoridation on the principles that a) it hasn't been shown to be amazingly effective and b) there are some potential side effects which I find concerning.

      you also really love "science".

      Oh my shit, I fucking adore science, I really do. It makes most of my favorite things possible. (Sex was here before science, to be fair.)

      Let me know if I was mistaken on even one point, I can bet $100 I'm not.

      If you have any integrity, you know where to paypal me — address above.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:What I don't get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, how beautifully defensive you get once you get called out on your bullshit. And of course you're just another run of the mill liberal with stock opinions copied from TV. It's like you guys are grown in pods like orcs in "Lord of the Rings" and released into the wild in batches.

    17. Re:What I don't get by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Actually I do know what "ad hominem" means. Thanks for playing.

    18. Re:What I don't get by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      He is an agent of grabbing corporate welfare.

      He is light-years behind the automotive industry as a whole or on average, or behind Big Oil, let alone both of them together — and he's competing with both of them. So, what's your standard? If you correct for the actions of his competition as normal, he's really not getting anything.

      Say goodbye to the concept of ownership. Tesla says how you can use their cars and if you disagree you can't purchase them.

      You can purchase them. You can't have them serviced, though. That is a real problem, and one which will have to be addressed, but it's not what you claim it is.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:What I don't get by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Haha, how beautifully defensive you get once you get called out on your bullshit.

      Pay up or shut up, son.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:What I don't get by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      It's like you guys are grown in pods like orcs in "Lord of the Rings" and released into the wild in batches.

      What a weirdly specific analogy. That analogy looks hand-crafted for use against Slashdot users, who might actually recognize it, as opposed to most of the rest of the world, who wouldn't get it.

      You're trying too hard, Coward.

  112. Re: And the show goes on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can objectively come to this conclusion by deviating from their idea of normal. The left will tolerate you. The right will punish you.

    When I tell people that, as a gay immigrant, I didn't support Clinton and have left the Democratic party, I am frequently subjected to abuse and insults by leftists, being called anything from a shill to a self-hating faggot. Question left-wing dogma on gun control, affirmative action, abortion, or climate change, and the abuse gets even worse.

    I have experienced nothing comparable from US conservatives, libertarians, Christians, or independents, even as an openly gay, vegetarian atheist; their attitude is generally "not quite what we believe, but how nice for you"; the worst they'll do is hand you a Bible.

    I suggest you look up the liberal areas in your state, tell them you're a gay immigrant, and see what they say. Now go to the conservative areas, tell them you're a gay immigrant, and see what they say. Report back with results, please.

  113. Why did no one here mention the actual culprit? by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For the life of me, I can't figure out why people are in denial about Russia's involvement in attacking our electoral process.

    Sure, you can find Macedonian teenagers, and idiots in California who claim that "only conservatives fall for fake news" and that it "doesn't work with liberals" (...) but that's a side show.

    Start here, and read it until you grasp what is going on:

    Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say

    The flood of "fake news" this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.

    Russia's increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human "trolls," and networks of websites and social-media accounts echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.

    Two teams of independent researchers found that the Russians exploited American-made technology platforms to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House. The sophistication of the Russian tactics may complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on "fake news," as they have vowed to do after widespread complaints about the problem.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    Then continue here:

    A collection of articles on Russia influence operations in the United States:

    The threat from Russia
    22 Oct 2016

    How to contain Vladimir Putins deadly, dysfunctional empire

    FOUR years ago Mitt Romney, then a Republican candidate, said that Russia was Americas number-one geopolitical foe. Barack Obama, among others, mocked this hilarious gaffe: The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the cold wars been over for 20 years, scoffed the president. How times change. With Russia hacking the American election, presiding over mass slaughter in Syria, annexing Crimea and talking casually about using nuclear weapons, Mr Romneys view has become conventional wisdom. Almost the only American to dissent from it is todays Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

    http://www.economist.com/news/...

    ---

    Belching smoke through the Channel, Russian aircraft carrier so unreliable it sails with its own breakdown tug
    22 Oct 2016

    The ageing Russian aircraft carrier that sailed through the English Channel escorted by the Royal Navy has been plagued by years of technical problems and is accompanied everywhere by a tug in case it breaks down.

    The plumbing is so bad on the 55,000 ton Admiral Kuznetsov that many of its toilets cannot be used, while it has had repeated problems with its power and a string of accidents, naval experts said.

    The Soviet-era warship is leading a flotilla of eight naval vessels to the eastern Mediterranean, where its aircraft are expected to join a renewed assault on the rebel-held city of Aleppo.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

    ---

    Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking
    21 Oct 2016

    Donald Trump

    1. Re:Why did no one here mention the actual culprit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get over it cry baby Trump won!

    2. Re:Why did no one here mention the actual culprit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nearly identical list of news outlets and stories can be generated about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. We all know how that turned out.

      Why fall for warmongering a second time?

    3. Re:Why did no one here mention the actual culprit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be a TL;DR mod.

    4. Re:Why did no one here mention the actual culprit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that the evidence for Russian involvement is overwhelming. But I think it's not difficult to understand the denial: (1) It is of course in Trump's interest to deny it. (2) It is therefore in Trump's supporters' psychological interest to deny it.

    5. Re:Why did no one here mention the actual culprit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dave, that is literally the longest post I have ever seen in a decade of SD. Hats off to you sir.
      ps: I did read the whole thing.

    6. Re:Why did no one here mention the actual culprit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >...Iraq having weapons of mass destruction....

      Yes, well there definitely was a lie that caused all the problems. But not the lie that 'there were weapons of mass destruction', it was actually the lie that the US didn't give them to Iraq and that they were home-grown or purchased from Russia. That was the lie. As there were poison gases there. No really. Read on...
          (long but educational I promise).

      You may be too young to remember: In the 80's the US sold a hell'uva lot of military equipment to Saddam & co to fight Iran with, especially poison chemical warheads. I have even seen them over there myself as a US soldier. Now push forward to the 90's & 2000's when Saddam is the enemy and imagine the embarrassment of knowing our poison weapons are in his hands- but US being unwilling or unable to say where they came from. So having to invent evidence, rather than just fess up & say it's US's old stuff. The invented evidence is really thin, that's why it comes across like a lie. Because that evidence was, but not the WMD's existence. Honestly just admitting the truth of it's US's old stuff would have been so much better! But no, some conversation like this rabble was considered 'better' by some higher ups.

      US: Iraq has poison weapons! They know no shame! We're going in...
          World: Really? Where, and how?
      Well of course! In fact we remember selling... umm, I mean we have learned through intelligence reports that Iraq has them.
          Really? Proof please?
      Well, there's this guy who knows Saddam and, heheh, he used to work for him in a lab, and umm we have spy pictures of warehouses.
          Well that's pretty weak, all that could amount to little or nothing. Got anything better?
      Oh yes! The twin towers! Saddam celebrated the moment they fell so it must've been him!
          Umm, Saddam actually hated terrorists and crushed them within his boarders remember?
      Well, he does not like us in general.
          OK that's still not pretense for war.
      Well, after GulfWar1 he claimed victory when we beat him, so he's a lying scoundrel!
          Yeah, that's just his political victory dance because the capital Bagdad was still standing. And by old school rules it should have been properly razed flat for him to acknowledge any defeat. So you did win, but your western sensibilities were unappreciated by his uncouth regime. Now you were saying he hates you and that's why he has WMDs? That's it? That plus some paid informants guaranteed citizenship if they snitch on him, and some generic satellite photos? C'mon just tell us you sold him WMDs in the 80's! That's the real evidence we need and we won't hold it against you we promise!
      US: Nope, not our stuff he made it himself. We're headed in... Besides the war will pay for itself in captured oil revenue.
      World: Oh man...

      _

      TL;DR there were WMD's but the evidence to show it was flakey. More flakey that just admitting where they came from & produce receipts of sale.

    7. Re:Why did no one here mention the actual culprit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so you know these people personally? What's their favorite movie and when did they last take a dump? All the names you mention have obvious motives and have been caught in lies. That does not make me able to conclude that what you write is a lie.

      You seem to be more than willing to share strangers conclusions, but not any evidence so that people can make an independent conclusion or decide that the evidence is in-conclusive.

      This whole fake news thing isn't getting us anywhere if it's going to be used as an attack on the opposing opinion so that your opinion seem less fake.

    8. Re:Why did no one here mention the actual culprit? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Sure, you can find Macedonian teenagers, and idiots in California who claim that "only conservatives fall for fake news" and that it "doesn't work with liberals" (...) but that's a side show.

      Start here, and read it until you grasp what is going on:

      Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say

      Does anyone have a real good sense of the ratio of people just out to make money vs Russia's more organized campaign? I haven't come across a break down of the fake news site owners yet.

  114. Wasting Taxpayer Dollars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, because Musk is the government of the US and its only representative in all branches. These writers obviously want Musk to write his Dictatus Muskae as the next constitution of the country. Trump wouldn't be their Hitler, so they are looking for other candidates.

  115. Libel / Slander? by hattig · · Score: 1

    Sounds like libel or slander to me. And as this is not political speed, it isn't protected, there's far less to hide behind.

    I don't know what is wrong with the far right that they want to shut down ... oh wait, it's the petrochemical industry isn't it. Solar power and electric cars aren't their favourite things.

  116. Reset the baseline by The+Cornishman · · Score: 2

    Maybe, just maybe, it would be useful to reconsider these incidents with the point of view that it's *never* right for a police officer to kill a person. That can't be correct - I understand. But it's a good starting point. Then in each case ask whether the police used lethal force to prevent further lethal violence, which is just about the only reason I see to authorize it.
    Out.

    1. Re:Reset the baseline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that any different from "guilty until proven innocent"?

    2. Re:Reset the baseline by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Maybe, just maybe, it would be useful to reconsider these incidents with the point of view that it's *never* right for a police officer to kill a person.

      I guess it depends on what we mean by 'right.' I don't think it's something that should be 'celebrated,' because I don't celebrate the ending of a life, but it is often justified. The police are neither indentured servants nor are they slaves, and they are people who have just as much of a right to life and to self-defense as anyone else does. That often goes missing in these various BLM-related discussions.

  117. Lulwut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Alt-right _loves_ Elon Musk. I think someone is distorting the facts with an agenda here.

  118. Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bloomberg - a very far left newspaper with more hit piece opinion articles that facts is calling right wing news fake after wikileaks showed that the Clinton campaign worked hand in glove with the New York Times, CNN and Associated Press to push news articles that would help her hurt Trump. After Wikileaks showed that Podesta/Hillary worked with many news stations to falsely show poll results to try to swing the vote. This is such a pile of disengenuous bullshit.

  119. BLM is George Soros funded/backed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: He's Hillary's owner & has literally said he is a GOD, he wants to break the USA (it's in globalist's way) & he led his own Jew people into Hitler's clutches (what makes anyone think he wouldn't do the same to them or worse?) & he breaks nations (investments in thai currency & dumping it to break nations + he is credited as the man who "broke the bank of England") - specifically WANTING to break ours (USA).

    * Think about that...

    (To me, it looks like he wants to start a blacks vs. whites race war or a 'country vs. city' one)

    APK

    P.S.=> The ONLY reasons I favored Trump (who isn't taking pay for being president OR his 1st 100 days off as traditionally happens w/ new presidents)? He's not on a puppetstring of silver (so-to-speak) he owes parties like SOROS above for (megalomaniac) & the business of America is in trouble (results of a lawyer running things & corrupted politicians in the house + senate imo) - we don't need another lawyer ruining it more (Hillary) & we DO need a businessman to fix up the business of the USA (create & get back offshored jobs)... apk

  120. LOL! Trump didn't sell Putin our uranium. by BECoole · · Score: 1

    LOL! Trump didn't sell Putin our uranium.

    1. Re:LOL! Trump didn't sell Putin our uranium. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. You're not only a useful idiot.

  121. Re: That didn't take long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their whole existence is based on claims like Mike Brown being shot by an abusive cop, despite evidence that proves otherwise.

    You think it's based on one incident? Tell us more about what fake news is responsible for.

  122. Schrodinger's post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you missed the point of this whole "fake news" controversy. These twenty-something goofballs start a fake news site to make money off the alt-right, and alt-right news sites who don't do any fact checking immediately pick up the stories.

    In the past few days, there have been several interesting interviews with some of the people who run fake news sites. The reason th doing it. Alsoey say that fake news doesn't work on the Left will blow your mind.

    I heard about this story yesterday on NPR, about an alt-right fake-news writer living in Los Angeles.

    TL/DR: Jestin Coler (the fake-news writer) claimed that he does it to show how easily hoodwinked people are by fake news, but when pressed, he admitted he could make lots of money doing this. A few interesting quotes from his interview:

    The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly false or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction.
    [...]
    We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.

    A presumably liberal minded poster quotes a source they are specifically noting as a self admitted liar and pusher of false news, to demonstrate that interestingly enough liberals don't bite on false news because it gets debunked in the first two comments.

    This presumably is meant to show that liberals are more honest and/or less gullible. Of course, in debunking this with my own post perhaps I've proven it right?

    I'm confused now.

  123. There is a third possible motivation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Controlled opposition" or "false flag operation".

    The purpose could be to build the "fake news" narrative, to boost Elon Musk's credibility, or both. Elon Musk is popular. The attacks are transparently dishonest and unconvincing, and will be rejected immediately as outrageous by anyone who is favorably inclined toward him to begin with. Furthermore, by their prima facie unreasonableness, they're likely to defuse justified and reasonable criticism of his business activities: anyone who believes it's a conspiracy against (rather than for) Elon Musk will start to react with suspicion to anyone pointing out real issues with Tesla and SpaceX.

    Note that Elon Musk linked the attacks with Donald Trump in his Twitter account, even though the claimed link is extremely tenuous. The purpose could be to make it it politically difficult for the new administration to cut the subsidies and sweetheart contracts that Elon Musk's businesses depend on.

  124. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a properly designed car the driver wouldn't be allowed to fall asleep in the first place moron.

  125. "Liberal" as ad hominem? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    All I can grasp from that quote is that, somehow, working for NPR.org is in and of itself a damnable act.

    "See?! SEE?!!! She is a Digital Culture Correspondent for NPR's All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition, and NPR.org!!! Don't you sheeple understand what that means!??!?!?
    SHE'S A LIBRUL!!! ONE OF THEM FOLK WHO HANG IN LIBRRR-EYES AND USIN SECRET WORDAGE TO CONFUSE YOU AN MEK YU THINK YU STOOPIDBRAN!!!"

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  126. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When your autopilot is incapable of operating the vehicle without human interaction, as Tesla claims about their autopilot system, then yes, I would say stopping it is the correct action. Bonus points if you sound some alarm to wake them up.

  127. Right wing fake news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why are you repeating yourself?

  128. There's another way to stop the cop violence by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    besides union busting and arming a whole bunch of people with little or no training (buddy of mine is a gun nut and has taken a few classes, you'd be surprised and terrified by how many people think it's both legal and OK to shoot somebody because they made off with your TV).

    1. End the war on Drugs. Of course the cops are violent. They're not cops, they're soldiers.

    2. Put a stop to wealth inequality. There's no fine for a fix it ticket. It's used to keep poor people out of wealthy peoples neighborhoods and prevent them from using the services paid for by property taxes. It, like our drug laws, are how we keep poor people cordoned off in their own miserable little world.

    And you're right about why gun laws started passing. But you're also ignoring why they weren't passed sooner. Wages went up and the cost of guns went down. Blacks could _afford_ guns. Until then money was our gun control. It's money. It's always about money.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:There's another way to stop the cop violence by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Totally agree about #1 (http://www.vice.com/video/radley-balko-on-the-militarization-of-americas-police-force), but I'll respectfully disagree with the phrasing of #2. Income inequality doesn't matter, it's actual standard of living. Nobody cares if 3 people own 99% of all the wealth of the world, if the remaining 1% of wealth gives you a first world lifestyle with a house, car, food, and luxuries. Everybody will shit a brick if wealth is equally distributed amongst every man, woman, and child, but the quality of life is a grass hut with no electricity and starvation rations.

  129. Re:Tea-Party, Alt-Right, Hard-Right... ...Neo-Righ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wasn't neo-conservative the buzzword during Bush Jr era?

  130. Re:And the show goes on by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    Nah, it's just you failing to exercise a bit of intellectual curiosity/honesty and actually read the last article she wrote, which, amazingly enough, just so happens to be about the subject at hand. One of several relevant excerpts:

    Tell me a little about why you started Disinfomedia?

    Late 2012, early 2013 I was spending a lot of time researching what is now being referred to as the alt-right. I identified a problem with the news that they were spreading and created Disinfomedia as a response to that. The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly false or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction.

  131. Re: And the show goes on by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    So every single Conservative is happy, friendly and welcoming, while all Liberals are hateful, spiteful and evil?

    Do you have trouble with terms like "generally" and "frequently"?

    Here's a tip for you, there's loonies on all sides of the fence. Your chosen team doesn't have a monopoly on virtue.

    (1) I'm on neither political team.

    (2) The fact that both parties have large numbers of deplorables doesn't mean that they are interchangeable in every respect.

    (3) Howitzer86 claimed that "The left will tolerate you. The right will punish you." I'm pointing out that my experience is the opposite: I have found the left to be much more frequently to be nasty, bigoted, and intolerant of people who they disagree with than the right.

  132. Re:And the show goes on by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    What exactly about that makes you think that the author of the article is running a false flag operation? Sure, the guy running the fake news site is, but the author of the article is just reporting on her interview with him. It's not even clear what flag you think she is flying.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  133. Bizarre story by khallow · · Score: 1

    âoeThereâ(TM)s a very obvious precedentâ for this, says Sam Jaffe, managing director of Cairn Energy Research Advisors. âoeThatâ(TM)s Hillary Clinton.â

    Jaffe says that whoever is behind the attacks is aiming at Musk personally because they fear he could go into politics. He cited the allegations of fraud (emails) and negligence (Benghazi) levied at Clinton during the presidential campaign, charges that cemented the publicâ(TM)s perception of her as shady. âoeItâ(TM)s the exact same thing as Musk. Thereâ(TM)s a portion of the political spectrum that is scared to death of Musk as politician. They see him as a threat. Theyâ(TM)re starting that process.â

    That's absurd. Sure, like many other famous people, Musk might be considering some political role in the future. But if these attacks exist, they're targeting him for a near future reason not some nebulous political agenda. I'd look at his business interests instead.

    I notice that one of the alleged "fake news" stories is a singular attack on SolarCity and specifically mentions an election for the Arizona Corporation Commission. Apparently, there has been a split between the members of the commission with one member, Robert "Bob" Burns demanding to know how much money was donated to fellow Republicans from an Arizona utility. It apparently escalated to the point, that three Republicans ran for office as a bloc in 2016, apparently to block Burns from getting reelected (and failed). SolarCity supported Burns's campaign by running ads.

    The incumbents are former House Speaker Andy Tobin, appointed in January by Gov. Doug Ducey, and Bob Burns, a former state Senate president who has been on the commission since 2013. The two show little affection, and have battled over Burnsâ(TM) effort to force the stateâ(TM)s largest utility to disclose whether it spent $3.2 million in the 2014 commission election. Arizona Public Service has neither confirmed nor denied it spent the money to back Republicans Tom Forese and Doug Little, who won.

    Gray, Melvin and Tobin are running as a team, meaning they can boost their spending power by airing combined ads. Dunn, Burns and Tobin are privately financing their campaigns, while Melvin and Gray are using public money through the Arizona Clean Elections Commission. Democrats Bill Mundell and Tom Chabin also are using public funds.

    All four candidates said Burns should drop his effort to force APS to reveal whether it spent in the election, which would constitute a major change in practice from decades of hands-off approaches of the election of commissioners who regulate monopoly utilities.

    âoeThis is not about the Corporation Commission â" this is about Bob Burns now trying to get media attention and you guys are giving it to him,â Tobin said in an interview. âoeBut at the end of the day, heâ(TM)s the only guy getting any money at all.â

    Tobin was pointing to advertising benefiting Burns that is paid for by an outside group funded by nonregulated company SolarCity. The company has been battling utilitiesâ(TM) efforts to change how rooftop solar customers are paid for electricity they sell back to the utility.

  134. Re: And the show goes on by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    I don't understand what your issue is

    My issue is with the statement "The left will tolerate you. The right will punish you." I'm saying that my experience is the opposite: people on the left are much more frequently bigoted and intolerant towards people who "deviate from their idea of normal" than people on the right.

    That is, Democrats and Hillary supporters in my experience frequently become defensive, abusive and insulting when I tell them that I don't like their candidate, whereas Republicans and Trump/Cruz/Bush supporters generally just say "I understand your view, even if I disagree with it" when I tell them that I don't like their candidate.

    You can be a gay vegetarian immigrant atheist and still be right wing.

    Well, I'm neither. I'm a classical liberal, which means I'm socially liberal and in favor of free markets and small government. That view used to be tolerated in the Democratic party, but not anymore.

  135. Re:And the show goes on by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    OPEC means nothing to you?

    A "conspiracy" involves a secret plan. Is there anything secret about OPEC? No. OPEC is a legal, transnational cartel that pursues policies that enrich their authoritarian governments at the cost of everybody else. So, thanks for illustrating my point: you don't understand what a conspiracy actually is. That's why you mischaracterize criticism of the left as if people were charging that there is a "leftist conspiracy".

    People aren't charging US media with a "conspiracy" when they accuse them of political bias and corruption, they are charging US media with bias and dishonesty based on naked economic self-interest. You know, kind of like OPEC.

  136. You mistake their motives by barc0001 · · Score: 1

    It's not about emotion, it's about $$$. The people doing these fake stories are doing it because they are getting paid to do it. The ones paying them to do it see an angle to either make more money by throwing dirt at Musk's ventures or are doing it to protect an existing revenue stream.

    With humans it's always about power, sex or money. Frequently all three.

  137. no corn subsidies and the third world starves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they made just enough corn each year and had to make profit on their own then in bad crop years there'd be no excess food to ship to poor countries who depend on us to feed their starving people for free with all the excess food we ship and prices in the market would shoot sky high for average Americans and the poor here would be hurt very badly too.

    So corn subsidies are a form of socialism and safety net.

  138. UBI by Humbubba · · Score: 1

    I don't think he's being attacked online just because Elon Musk is at odds with right-wing hate based fantasies. And I don't think it's because they're scared he might run for political office, as the article suggests. This seems to be a very skillful, well orchestrated campaign. It almost has to be because he's talking about UBI, a Universal Basic Income - and that goes against the right wing's current thinking.

  139. Re:And the show goes on by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    Dude, I have no idea what word fragment in this thread you're clinging to in order to try to pretend you're confused, but I suspect in your better moments you like to present yourself as slightly more intelligent than this. It's crystal clear which of the two people is running a false flag operation, and which of the two is reporting on it.

    Stop it with the distractions and engage the subject matter if you dare: What are your thoughts about a lefty running a fake alt-right news site with the stated goal of then "debunking" its very own fake stories after they spread?

  140. Re:Enemy of my enemy of my enemy is my friend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://eureferendum2.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/do-we-know-what-it-is-we-do-not-know.html

  141. no more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is becoming exactly like the liberal media. Anti-trump this, anti-trump that. So much for non biased. Slashdot bookmark deleted. Won't read this left wing hate anymore.

  142. Because the left already has fake news:cnn nbc nyt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their fake news sources are much much better at making shit up and they coordinate their lies with Hillary and the DNC so it seems real.

  143. Re:And the show goes on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read through that article when it was linked above. While it's an interesting read, I'm glad this crossed somebody else's mind too. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't, but the article doesn't offer any other evidence I can find. I mean, I'll take their word for it since it doesn't sound completely crazy. Mostly I'm wondering if fake news is really that lucrative and if I might find the same success doing it myself. My family is deep in the conservative echo chamber so I'm pretty familiar with how to appeal to RWNJs.

    I agree with the sentiment that fake news is not responsible for how the election went. Conservatives come to the table already believing absolutely crazy things.

    The major thing I had a problem with in that article is that as others have pointed out, "step 2" where you let everybody know that the article they accepted uncritically was complete bunkum seems to be either missing or completely ineffective. Of course, knowing my family, completely ineffective may well be the case.

  144. Re: And the show goes on by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The fact that you seem to see the world as "everything good comes from the left, and everything bad comes from the right" is proof that you've already been trained to think what you're told to think and never question it.

    If you hold liberal values, then that's true. It doesn't mean that everything that comes from the left is good, though; that's where the logic fails. Another place you can fail is thinking that the Democrats are leftist when they are centrist.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  145. Re:And the show goes on by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    Dude, I have no idea what word fragment in this thread you're clinging to in order to try to pretend you're confused, but I suspect in your better moments you like to present yourself as slightly more intelligent than this. It's crystal clear which of the two people is running a false flag operation, and which of the two is reporting on it.

    It's crystal clear who is reporting.

    However, whether or not it's a false flag operation, or merely a fake news network is not at all clear. You have to believe the person who publishes lies for a living that it's not just fake news, but instead it's a false flag operation. Occam's razor suggests that the person just publishes fake news as a way of making a living and there is no false flag element to it.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  146. Re: And the show goes on by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

    Has anyone been locked up for being an opinionated conservative? What is it that you do (or wish to do) that carries a risk of that?

    As for boycotts and name-calling, that's freedom baby.

  147. Re: And the show goes on by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying it isn't possible to have a pleasant debate experience with conservatives, I work in an industry dominated by them and I've had my own - but I pick my battles and I speak in their political language - it might help that I'm not economically progressive, so right away we agree on a lot of things.

    In any case, I don't rub my beliefs in people's faces to try to look cool or smart. I wait for them to talk to me about it and then we can have a useful conversation, and I never ever call anyone racist.

    But in those conversations, while they're smiling at you and "handing you a bible", remember that their leadership is forever plotting to take away your right to openly be yourself, and using your existence to bolster their "gay agenda" narrative in order to scare their party faithful and divide the public.

    People say the liberals "won the culture war", but I think that war is still ongoing. Conservatives won what matters - political hegemony. The rest is sure to follow.

    To understand where I'm coming from, start by ignoring Trump, Milo, and even Bannon. Ignore the weirdos that are there just to look appealing to free wheeling Millennials. Look at the people Trump hires or surrounds himself with. People like Pence, Giuliani, Priebus, and formerly Christie... these are the ones with real political power and they have a track record of doing things that hurt the very people they're expected now to work for under the veil of Trumpism.

    I am forced to admit, however, that when it comes to division for the sake of securing political power, both parties are guilty. I am very unhappy with the Democrats and the MSM right now, and I've never really been that pleased with them and their willingness to lie in order to super-charge the truth. But I still believe the liberals have it right. If you talk to a liberal and they freak out and call you a self-hating racist, that's because the MSM is forever on over-drive trying to get them more worked up about Trump than they should be.... there's a lot to be concerned about, but it's not about Trump being a dictator, or Trump being a fascist, or Trump being the second coming of Adolf Hitler. The truth is more insidious than that. I think when your publication turns yellow like that it risks de-legitimizing your entire message. When the entire MSM is doing it, people like us are left to come to our own conclusions.

  148. Re: And the show goes on by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

    I respect your viewpoint and understand where you come from, and I expand on this in my first reply. The source of my suspicion of Republican motivation has nothing to do with Trump, and more to do with history and the people Trump currently surrounds himself with.

    I also make an attempt to explain your experience talking to liberals. I've seen it too. It isn't great, but I think it's due to the media's current hysteria surrounding Trump and the alt-right.

  149. SpaceX competitors by Guppy · · Score: 1

    Make no mistake this is serious and these people are paid.

    The question is, paid by who? He's not just threatening the energy and automotive industries, as SpaceX also happens to be a major problem for competing launch entities, such as the ULA, Russian, and the PRC.

  150. Re: And the show goes on by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    To understand where I'm coming from, start by ignoring Trump, Milo, and even Bannon. Ignore the weirdos that are there just to look appealing to free wheeling Millennials. Look at the people Trump hires or surrounds himself with. People like Pence, Giuliani, Priebus, and formerly Christie... these are the ones with real political power and they have a track record of doing things that hurt the very people they're expected now to work for under the veil of Trumpism.

    We're talking the statement: "You can objectively come to this conclusion by deviating from their idea of normal. The left will tolerate you. The right will punish you." That statement has nothing to do with whether Pence, Giuliani, or Priebus advocate policies that are useful or harmful to this or that group; it has to do with whether ordinary progressives, social democrats, libertarians, or conservatives will "tolerate" or "punish" you in response to being different, like whether they'll scream at you or disinvite you for Christmas or unfriend you on Facebook.

  151. Re: And the show goes on by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    People like Pence, Giuliani, Priebus, and formerly Christie... these are the ones with real political power and they have a track record of doing things that hurt the very people they're expected now to work for under the veil of Trumpism.

    That's the Democratic and progressive party line, and if you disagree with it, progressives will treat you as a pariah and insult you. But there is actually little reason that the positions these people take on gay rights, abortion, religion, etc. matter much, and to the limited degree that they do, progressives arguably get it wrong.

    I am forced to admit, however, that when it comes to division for the sake of securing political power, both parties are guilty.

    I disagree. Progressives and democrats have been particularly guilty of hijacking the political discussion with issues most people simply don't care much about: income inequality, government funding of abortions, gay marriage, gay wedding cakes, climate change, financial regulation, gender pay gap, etc. What people actually care about hasn't changed much: economic growth and national security.

  152. Slashdot Deceived by coteriescavenger · · Score: 1

    Evidence of "fake news" sites have been trending since before the election, but not this "right-wing bad guy" rubbish, it was CNN, MSM, etc. airing blatantly misleading information in place of important news that was surfacing about Hillary literally on a daily basis at the end of the election. The extent they went to suppress what was in her emails was orwellian. Slashdot hasn't been safe from the propaganda either. A lot of people here still think Trump is the biggest news of today. I hate to be the one to say this, but you're literally programmed to think he's your enemy. Wake up and remember Snowden. You're being herded like sheep by propagandists.

  153. *Sigh* by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    During the election Slashdot was one of the few level headed places about Trump, not outright trusting him but at least not becoming deranged with wild apocalyptic theories or fawning praise like everywhere else. Now he's won and all of a sudden he's the author of all evil despite haven't really done anything except doing half of what he said he was going to do and walk back on some of the things people here hated him the most on. It feels we're backsliding into the bad old days when the crowd that eventually moved to Digg and Reddit was still here and every Republican candidate took their turn being the Great Satan who was going to end the world. And lets not forget that evil 'alt-right' and 'fake news' that didn't exist until the election and now is behind every tree and under every rock. ..

  154. Reasons to want to discredit Musk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla is taking market share from the established car makers (in the US they currently sell more large luxury cars than any other manufacturer i.e. Mercedes etc).
    Old school car manufacturers hate Musk.
    Electric vehicles use no petrochemical fuel to power them, Tesla has shown that electric vehicles can be more than a novelty.
    The fossil fuel sector hates Musk.
    Solar City (now part of Tesla) enable customers to go off grid or at least reduce the power they buy from the grid.
    The electric utilities hate Musk (they shouldn't really since electric cars will enable them to sell power in the middle of the night when no one else wants it).
    The existing rocket companies now have competition, before it was a very lucrative monopoly. SpaceX is cheaper, more capable and don't employ forty year old Russian rocket engines.
    Boeing and Lockheed Martin hate Musk.
    The car dealers hate the fact Tesla won't sell through them but sells direct. They fear if Tesla gets away with this the other manufacturers will follow suite.
    The car dealers hate Musk.
    The US air force was sued by Musk to be allowed to tender for military satellite launches, he exposed the corrupt practices that let procurement officers get re-employed by their suppliers after retirement from the military.
    The military top brass hate Musk.
    SpaceX is seeking permission to launch large number of low orbit (to reduce latency) satellites to provide a cheap internet connection for the citizen of the world.
    The existing internet providers hate Musk.

    So many long established highly profitable enterprises have all of a sudden found the need to become competitive, they prefer the way things were.

  155. Would the satellite Internet be is working on have by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet connection everywhere, via satellite, maybe even the cellphones will be voip and then how would they shut all communication down like they did on 9/11

  156. He probably has a plan by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    History shows us one thing with new technology. Other people will oppose it. They will lie, often do whatever it takes to stop it. I'm sure he has already anticipated an attack, perhaps just not this type of attack. If he's on the up and up, I hope he comes back. OTOH, if he's sucking us dry for all we're worth, burn 'em. Stop the Fraud.

  157. Hmmm by stolidobserver · · Score: 1

    Do I go with "The left is crazy with their fake renewable scams burning up taxpayer money and their bogus global warming" or do I go with "The right is crazy with their big oil conspiracy to swindle the public for billions and destroy the planet"? I just can't decide which crazy to go with these days. I guess I'll just keep getting my news from GodlikeProductions. They seem to have a handle on crazy.

  158. You haven't answered the question. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    And guess where by far the most prolific sources of fake news come from

    The left, the source of many (if not all) false flags for the last year.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  159. Whose fault is it you're a gimp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I create a tool folks like & use - you don't. All you do is talk behind my back (fake name online punk = you).

    * I loved how antiperimetaparalogo put you in your place regarding me https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7492919&cid=49820553/ calling me a GREAT MAN (something YOU will never be - & you KNOW it, loser).

    APK

    P.S.=> Your "ne'er-do-well" mere CHATTERING FOOL life explains that about you completely, lol... apk