Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Bans Daily Mail As 'Unreliable' Source (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group "generally unreliable." The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organization Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors. The editors described the arguments for a ban as "centered on the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication." The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia but does not control its editing processes, said in a statement that volunteer editors on English Wikipedia had discussed the reliability of the Mail since at least early 2015. It said: "Based on the requests for comments section [on the reliable sources noticeboard], volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is 'generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. This means that the Daily Mail will generally not be referenced as a 'reliable source' on English Wikipedia, and volunteer editors are encouraged to change existing citations to the Daily Mail to another source deemed reliable by the community. This is consistent with how Wikipedia editors evaluate and use media outlets in general -- with common sense and caution."
NBC also has a bias problem.
Table-ized A.I.
The Daily Mail has always been an absolute dreadful comic, calling it a newspaper is just wrong as it is nothing more than sensationalized fiction.
The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN? Perhaps we should tag submissions from Anonymous Cowards, and ' BeauHD' as equally unreliable and biased ...
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
It is not censorship. How can it be censorship? It's about as much censorship as Nordstrom is directly attacking the US Executive. An encyclopaedia has decided that a particular source is too poor quality to use. You are free to read the Daily Mail if you want to.
...that we should ban Trump's statements since they are typically at least as fabricated as the Daily Mail? #noalternativefacts
I would agree with you if wikipedia held other news outlets to the same standard.
Wait... it has been used as a source EVER?! This is shocking news to me.
CNN are just as bad as Fox News, each of them just have their own selective version of the truth.
...which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organization Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.
Can one tell me where Russia Today has been wrong? I mean categorically wrong? I watch and listen to them regularly. They have been on the point in as far as I am concerned. I'd like to see some examples.
Depends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And Wikipedia is a reliable source?
Only when compared against the Daily Mail.
FD:I just posted a link to the Daily Mail in the last /. article.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
http://thefederalist.com/2017/...
Nicely documented and sourced. Somehow I doubt wikipedia will even bother to correct the bad dentires.
But what outlets and what standards?
Take RT for instance, even in the fucking summary they slid in "kremlin backed" to throw shade and I hear a lot about supposed propaganda RT engages in. Yet whenever I read one of their stories it seems pretty fucking decent, especially compared to anything "mainstream" be it CNN, NPR, Fox or what have you.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
They're like all media outlets in that they pander to their viewers' prejudices. Everybody loves the news when it confirms their already strongly held opinions. Wikipedia's editors are no different it seems. If they were genuinely impartial they would hold all outlets to the same standard.
Wikipedia doesn't claim to be a reliable source for these purposes; you can't use Wikipedia pages as references on other Wikipedia pages.
Here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I don't recognise the website, but I leave you to investigate
http://www.stopfake.org/en/rus...
Not RT accused directly but
http://www.businessinsider.com...
A reminder about the lies at the time of the invasion of the Crimea
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga...
And finally
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10...
Oh come on. Have you even looked at the Daily Mail? It's frequently sensationalistic in its coverage to the point where some of its headlines and stories more resemble The National Enquirer than a serious newspaper. Often times I don't think it even takes itself that seriously. The headlines are often extremely hyperbolic.
Quite frankly, I can't imagine anyone taking the Mail that seriously. PApers like the Guardian and Telegraph have their flaws, and their obvious ideological leanings that at times leak on to the front page, but the Daily mail is just one big absurd mess, a sort of TMZ with news stories.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There's a delightful exchange from Yes Minister that, while reflecting the major British papers as they were in the late 70s and early 80s, is still relatively true today:
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And fake news BBC, is listing all the articles on all the terror attacks Trump says they didn't report. Now I could read those links and see with my own eyes, but I voted Republican, and now I have to convince myself that the President I voted for is a Republican, or even a grown up, so instead I'll just stick my fingers in my ears and go la la la la la.
Did he defend Putin again by attacking America? Nope, fake news, la la la la.
Did he block a cyber security bill? Nope la la la la la la, hear no evil.
Did he remove the military from the National Security Council? No, we're still safe, Generals are not needed on a military council, la la la la, fake fake.
Did he attack our allies, and NATO? No, he's a tough president , it must be fake news fake fake fake
Did he leak the names of US spies to Putin, who had them arrested? Fook off, la la la la, I don't want to read any of the details, la la la.
Yes. David Rose's recent piece about NOAA evidence fabrication before the Paris climate summit is almost certainly the "trigger" for this.
Just finished all seasons a month ago. That series is still incredibly relevant today.
I'm sorry, anyone who thinks the Mail is somehow in the same league is the NYT or Washington Post doesn't strike me as someone actually interested in reliability. Journalism isn't perfect but the Mail doesn't even try.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"...still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organization Russia Today, and Fox News"
Ok, Russia Today makes sense, but Fox News? I never released they were backed by the Kremlin
[Wikipedia] has a proven track record of demonstrably false articles messed up by random people.
The Mail has a similar track record intentionally created by a handful of deliberately chosen people and it's on paper which means, for reasons I don't understand, makes it more credible for most people.
Guess which one I think is worse.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Throughout each Wikipedia article, you'll see references to sources, with the full information about each source listed at the bottom of the article. That's because Wikipedia isn't (supposed to be) the source of any information, it's supposed to be a list of sources, summarized.
As someone else pointed out, Wikipedia rules do not allow citing another Wikipedia article as a source, because encyclopedias are not considered a reliable source, no.
Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, ARE good first place to look to *find* sources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And you believe the NYT or WaPo even tries? I mean, they used to once, and the Mail never did, but these days? They were open and explicit in 2016 that winning the election was ore important than truth.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Story that most likely caused the ban. A top NOAA climate scientist, Dr. Bates, whistleblew how NOAA falsifed the data before the Paris accord in order to "alarm" governments to agree to it.
Yep, a whistleblower, giving out evidence of wrong doing and a news outlet prints it and suddenly becomes "unreliable".
Funny how the truth can no longer be printed but CNN can print all the fake news they want and everyone defends them.
Wikipedia has been a political turn war for a decade now and in of itself, not a reliable source for information. And the left wing Guardian is not much better. The real question is how to kick Wikipedia out of the top 10 search engine results all the time.
Pure trash.
The Daily Mail actually has some very competent, very tenacious, not to mention ruthless, investigative journalists. It's not uncommon for them to break stories of real consequence.
The editorial spin that gets put on them, that's another matter. And their choice of subject matter is often open to question. But the journalism itself is some of the best you'll find, and I find it a sad comment on the state of Wikipedia that its politburo doesn't recognise that.
Lol they lump Fox in with RT but leave out one of the worst MSM sources CNN. CNN has shown time and time again to leave out key facts or just report plain out wrong or unverified information. But yea Fox and RT are the ones of concern ;)
Other the years a lot of different UK publications had to face the system of D-notices.
Recall the D-notice affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and how hard UK publications had to work to get news out to the public?
The publication of stories about Real IRA phone intercepts, news like
German spies 'can't be trusted': Relations between the UK and Berlin intelligence chiefs hit after comments by London (16 December 2016)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
All the work the paper did on the UK MP's expenses scandal...
A lot of really good investigative work in the UK and Ireland should be kept. Different UK publications supported some of the best whistleblowers over the decades.
How many more decades of unique investigative reporting will be hidden from people globally?
The UK had something very unique and rare for decades. Reporters and staff who could interview people and then had some freedom to publish. Why ban that ability to look back over decades of quality investigative work?
A political leader was interviewed, public or private papers sorted, the wider public was informed and educated. More information over decades is always better.
Not every UK publication had the same funding or staffing levels and could cover every story as in depth or had staff around the UK.
What has changed about giving users links with quotes and comments from real people over decades...
What other UK media will now be banned next?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
You think the NYT checks sources? Have you ever heard of Jayson Blair? Or Walter Duranty? There were numerous similar "reporters" in between. At the time of the Jayson Blair scandal it was discovered that the National Enquirer checked their reporters sources more thoroughly than the NYT did.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Is that because they admit they're unreliable or because that would be circular and inherently flawed?
Also, I think people, especially people who I imagine populate wiki these days, forget that relative accuracy is important. There are zero information sources of any decent length which can be said to be absolutely true. Wiki was shown at one point to be as accurate as the alternative. It's all good to be skeptical of wiki, but let's not pretend God Himself edits Britannica print version.
I sometimes enjoy the sidebar of shame and I do like the Rugby sports pages. Other than that no, in general I can't stomach it. But really that's irrelevant to this debate. My point is only that if Wiki are going to start blackballing publications for unreliability, they'd better make sure they're applying the same standard across the board. It's completely obvious they're not in this case as if they were they'd have done the same to a number of other publications.
No, it was proposed and voted in January, before David Rose's nonsense was published.
I will continue to support my Children's schools choice that Wikipedia is not an acceptable reference source.
Sure, Schmidt includes the "adjusted" graph, moving the pea under the thimble as usual. Even worse is NOAA's shitty software, but that's another story you definitely won't be interested in reading about.
I don't see how graphing the data correctly with both sets using the same baseline is "adjusting" anything.
I'm not sure spinning is less powerful "lying" than outright invention (fabrication). In fact, spinning is arguably worse than outright invention because spun facts often have an element of truth to them, making them harder to debunk or dismiss. And you cannot outright dismiss the spinning source because they may not technically be lying.
Propaganda seems to last longer and goes further if it's based on partial truths.
For example, a common propaganda trick is to interview many members of the other side's group (such as at conventions or protests), edit out the normal interviews and play only the "stupid" interviews on TV. The cherry-picking makes the group members seem like idiots.
It's not outright made-up because they are real answers, but they have been filtered to present the entire group in a bad light: it's essentially a statistical trick of only showing the bad samples as if they are representative (random).
Compare that with hiring actors to act like the other side's group and say stupid things on camera. If the producers are caught, they are outright discredited for fabrication. The first approach involves no fabrication and the evidence can be deleted or hidden, such as deleting the "normal" interviews. If investigators cannot find the (excluded) normal interviews, they have no evidence of manipulation to present to the world.
The first approach (filtering) is almost just as powerful as outright fabrication, YET is not fabrication: it's all real, and the filtering trick can be buried.
Table-ized A.I.
The more reliable data set was "adjusted" to fit the less reliable data set, not the other way around. Why do you think they did that?
You do realize all it takes to be "up for" a Pulitzer is pay the $50 entry fee.
As with the Nobel's, which are a *little* harder to get nominated for, the only thing that matters is winning. Being considered says nothing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The Daily Mail is at the same level as BuzzFeed. Neither should be admissible as a source.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
You do realize all it takes to be "up for" a Pulitzer is pay the $50 entry fee.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This page had an ad for TMZ.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
You can't use a thing as a source for itself.
Source: Read my post again.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
The baseline is a constant offset, so nothing was "adjusted to fit" anything, just translated down. Look, animated gif. If you did it the other way around the lower graph would just move up. Here's more detail on the baselines, and more graphs.
Still, from the point of view of a fact-collecting encyclopedia, it can be counted on as a reliable source of facts. Just not neutrality.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The writing is better but the content is not. Don't confuse the two. Good language skills are just as helpful for convincing lies as they are for truth telling.
Der Guardian is on par with the Daily Mail in veracity.
CNN is just as bad as all the rest of the alphabet channels. All they care about is ratings, and the dollar that comes with ratings.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
oh, you mean like when the more accurate ARGO buoy data was adjusted upwards to match the ship engine intake readings, which were known to run hot?
It is obvious that enough Americans agreed with Trump or at least disagreed with Hillary. If that were not the case, he would not be in the White House today.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
There's a delightful exchange from Yes Minister that, while reflecting the major British papers as they were in the late 70s and early 80s, is still relatively true today:
I'm going through the Netflix DVD's of this right now.
I've watched it in it's entirety once before.
I've never seen more brilliantly written political satire!
He asked us, "What do you have to lose?" Well, he has provided an answer. He has attacked the following constitutionally protected groups:
1) The Press (all of them).
2) Judges (all of them. He just called them all political).
3) Lawmakers (Yah, it was pretty much everyone versus trump the last election. Had he stuck to truth I might have had some sympathy here.)
4) disabled/women/religions.
The only attacks I've seen are the Berkeley protestors beating people with clubs. What I've seen from Trump are mean tweets. And no one is immune to criticism just because they're a member of any of those groups. There are fuckups in all walks of life (especially politicians)
And did a lefty just tell me that it's bad to criticize a religion? Really? I'm not even Christian, but after watching 40 years of non-stop, relentless criticism of Christians, Christianity, Christian values, and anything remotely religious, by the left, the hypocrisy of that statement is amazing.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
yet they're not banned...
What does the concept of standards have to do with whether this is censorship?
One of these things is not like the others.
Upon further reflection, I realize that I was wrong and it is not in fact "censorship".
I've resolved to be less hysterical and to realize that words have meaning. I apologize to everyone here on Slashdot.
Now that you've calmed down, which word are you having trouble with? Censorship? Are you one of those pedants who can't even get the meaning right?
From wikipedia itself:
So, is it suppression of information for an encyclopedia to filter out poor sources? I think it isn't. Or, you have to put it that all false information is purposefully censored by wikipedia, as sort of its mission statement, which semantically makes sense but the connotations of the word censorship makes its use taste absurd on the tongue in this context.
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
Yes, precisely. The game here, and it was a game, was to come in with "hottest year ever since the formation of the planet", to hit the headlines before the Paris conference. This is so utterly transparent I'm quite surprised nobody has spotted it. Otherwise the temperature difference between 2016 and 1998 is miniscule - in fact well within the margin of error across the range being studied.
As with the Nobel's, which are a *little* harder to get nominated for, the only thing that matters is winning. Being considered says nothing.
In 1939, Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. He didn't win.
In a similar vein, the science journalist Peter Hadfield (aka Potholer54) has a hilarious quote about this: "I know a lot of editors at the Mail, and the nugget of science they understand is so small it could be drowned in their lunchtime gins & tonics."
The quote is from Hadfield's excellent video debunking myths about climate change. (This video is just one of a series on the subject, which is very much worth the time.)
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Have you looked at CNN,WashPost, NY Times or the Huffy Post? 10x worse than the DailyMail, at least the daily mail knows they tell some BS tabloid stories, where the MSM tells BS stories and actually believes their BS stories.
they should add the Daily Express to the list as well, its just as bad
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
maybe its a start.
I seldom read RT but the few 'articles' but sometimes I see RT listed as a source for articles in other media.
They are often well written and fairly consistent in themselves. They problem is that they are pushing an alternative narrative.
Take for example when Russia decided to go into Syria.
There were demonstrations outside the Russian embassy because the Syrians didn't want Russian military operations there.
The article presented by RT said that the Syrian people held a manifestation outside the Russian embassy to show their support. (Yep, how often does that happen?)
According to RT the grenades that were thrown to disperse the demonstration were from terrorists who didn't want Russian presence there.
RT articles are probably believable if you don't stop and think about them too much but they are in no way decent or reliable.
All media outlets have an agenda of some sort. A long time ago a few of them had the agenda to provide fair and balanced news.
Now most of them have shifted the agenda to push clickbait so that they can pay the bills. Typically they don't spend much time on fact checking so you can call that unreliable if you will.
Outlets like RT and Breitbart on the other hand isn't driven by money. They are driven with a political agenda so they won't let random news through.
It it fits their narrative they publish it. If it doesn't fit their narrative they either removes it or they misrepresents it until it does.
Other news sources will edit the headline to pull in your eyes. RT will edit the content to pull in your mind.
I think they try to get the story right if it doesn't challenge their biases. They can't credibly claim to be impartial purveyors of news after the last few election cycles, but there's still a large qualitative difference between them and the click-baity stuff you see in The Daily Mail. Though you have to read the international news with a large degree of skepticism - even the largest outlets rely on the AP for international news after closing their foreign desks.
I'd argue that RT is about as bad as the others but generally uses higher register language than the far right press. A big mistake may be to read all believing the truth lies somewhere in the aggregate, when frequently they are all just not true.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/maga...
And yes, I am aware of the irony of citing a news source.
The direction of the adjustment makes no difference to the trend (this has been tested by running it both ways) and the new NOAA series puts 7x more weight on the Argo buoy data where available. It's been further tested by constructing an unadjusted buoy-only record which shows the same trend (see https://skepticalscience.com/b...).
Gosh, I thought it was all about "the pause".
The Daily Mail is about as reliable as Wikipedia is these days.
To be fair you're not allowed to cite Wikipedia as a source in Wikipedia articles either. ;-)
A comment extracted from The Independent - some years back: The correlation between Daily Mail stories and the truth, meanwhile, fails to reach statistical significance.
Wikipedia references a hell of a lot of sources that are unreliable. I am really into geopolitical events happening that are really relevant at the moment to our lives. I read a lot on the background of things in wikipedia and it's not bad but I have found plenty of politicisating of science (on controversial biological subjects its extremely hard for wikipedia not to stay neutral), plenty of revisionist history, etc. A lot of the historical sources, potentially even all cannot be well verified. This isn't even one controversial area but everything. History is a really hard subject to have as something fully verified. Not everything is on wikipedia either. I've had to go on adventures to find things. On one major political issue on wikipedia I read a declassified intelligence report on that and it disputed a lot of what was on wikipedia on the matter which was citing a variety of sources largely newspapers and that kind of thing.
The Daily Mail is garbage - but so is The Guardian.
The difference is that Wikipedia has been taken over by the social justice loons who agree with The Guardian.
Wrap it up. Wikipedia really is done.
The Daily Mail is the exactly opposite of what you describe. A typical story starts with several paragraphs of reaction and outrage, before right at the end on page 7 mentioning the facts.
Here's a classic example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...
Note how even in the byline they manage to sneak a lie in (the straight banana law was debunked when it first surfaced in the 90s). If you can wade through all the ranting you will find a perfectly sensible, rational explanation for the ruling.
That's why the Daily Fail has been banned. It's not a serious source of news, it's a source of outrage and vitriol. Almost entirely fact free, virtually pure opinion (so long as it's the opinion of people who are angry, or who you should be angry about not being angry).
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Other media outlets make mistakes, and they are quickly found and covered by other outlets. The Daily Mail rarely prints anything that is accurate, because it's editorial goal is to mislead. The entire point of the thing is to make you angry, not to inform.
It's one thing to try and occasionally fail to deliver news, it's another to consciously try to distort news for profit and to influence the government.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Daily *Heil*, not *Fail*. "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" etc.
sag
An Unreliable Source Bans Daily Mail As 'Unreliable' Source
It's so easy to get Putin and Hitler mixed up these days.
The Daily Mail is the exactly opposite of what you describe. A typical story starts with several paragraphs of reaction and outrage, before right at the end on page 7 mentioning the facts.
I came here to post this. This is exactly my experience with Daily Mail. The articles (and I am using the word loosely) start with pure distilled lying shit, and IF you happen to read the end, there is (if they lied enough) their 'get out of jail' card where they briefly state what actually happened (quite contrary to what they wrote above), so they can't be sued.
It is what it is.
And Wikipedia is a reliable source?
The articles do tend to have external references, so it is relatively easy to check the facts. That is, in my view, the only way to even attempt to be realiable. The sad fact is that even if you have a brilliant understanding of things and every intention of reporting truthfully, you may still get it wrong; that is why all scientific articles are crammed with citations and references - they want their readers to take part in the responsibility by checking everything.
The difference is that RT reporting is often selective, biased, opinionated - painting facts in certain light, keeping silent about some facts and emphasizing others thus painting incomplete image and with misleading implications. The facts they present are just facts though, even if they may mislead you into drawing wrong conclusions through clever wording. If you're careful though, and use multiple sources, confronting them, you are able to extract objective truth; take what the article *says*, not what it *implies* and you're good. If RT says "Kremlin announced plans of X..." you're not getting information that X is or will be true, but you're getting an absolutely true, objective information that announcement of plans of X by Kremlin occurred - regardless of what opinion the article expresses about X.
Meanwhile, Daily Mail fabricates facts. "Russia begins X!" - Nope. It does not. The announcement doesn't make it a fact. The chance Kremlin follows up with actual actions is indeterminate, the time scale was not announced, and there's not even a trace of X in Russia as of now. The news is fake.
Biased reporting is still a valid source, even if you need to proceed with caution because the wording is not conductive to impartial conclusions. Fake reporting is not a valid source, period. The only actual fact we can draw from a link to such an article was that Daily Mail announced that Russia begins X.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
The awful thing is that people believe that stuff, and make irreversible, hugely important decisions based on it.
There was a woman on Question Time last week. For those not in the UK, Question Time is a BBC programme where the public can ask a panel of politicians and invited guests questions. She stated that she was going to vote remain, but the day before the vote was in the supermarket and saw some bananas, which reminded her of the straight bananas lie and caused her to change her mind.
We are all victims of these lies, of decades of deception by the Daily Mail and many other parts of our media. Our democracy has failed.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The Daily Mail is about as reliable as Wikipedia is these days.
Not quite, The Daily Fail is little more than a propaganda and gossip rag.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Articles are usually a combination of facts and narrative, some opinion or agenda.
As long as facts check out, that's okay for Wikipedia source. The narrative does get in the way, reducing value of the source, but doesn't invalidate the facts. The source confirms article author didn't make it up, but it's the wikipedia article that must present the facts impartially, stripping the narrative and opinions. If it manages to do it, all is well.
The problem begins when facts are fabricated. This is where Wikipedia must draw a line.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
The Daily Mail is about as reliable as Wikipedia is these days.
I'm guessing you are not familiar with The Daily Mail then. It has long history of running sensationalist, and frequently fabricated, material. The Daily Mail gets a whole chapter to itself in the excellent book Flat Earth News. Personally, I wouldn't trust the Mail (or the Daily Express) to tell me what day of the week it was.
A few years ago, on the BBC satirical show Mock the Week, Frankie Boyle commented that the quintessential Daily Mail headline would be "Immigrants Carry New Form of AIDS That Lowers House Prices"; completely untrue but guaranteed to push all the hot buttons of their target demographic in the UK.
Not surprising at all, the bar in England for fabrication is quite high. Whenever I go to England I can't watch local news or buy local newspapers, the level of bs is so high it's not even funny. An example: a couple of years ago when Cameron went to Brussels to negotiate the agreement so he would campaign for Remain, all british news reported him as having brought EC to it's knees... what they showed was David Cameron speech, fine, what they forgot to show (or rather had hidden from UK readers/viewers) was Cameron being scolded and schooled by the EC parliament president and several MEPs during their speeches, that wouldn't be good for the propaganda put through by british media.
British media prefers to fabricate their own reality in order to retain a little of the memories that they once were a great empire, but reality is right around the corner.
The Mail's perpetual campaign to declare things that cause or cure cancer (or both) is a long running joke demonstrating a willful disregard for accurate reporting. More seriously their campaigns against immigrants, Europe and other things designed to push buttons in their mitte England readers are simply malign.
And that's assuming there are any facts. e.g. the Mail loves stories about snipers killing evil ISIS members who are about to slaughter innocents.
They just quote unnamed "sources" and that make shit up. Wikipedia already bans citations from certain sources, and it's understandable if that extends to certain "news" sites.
Really, please point to one story of any consequence in the last decade that the Daily Mail has broken. Can't think of one myself. Stories about celebrities and their private lives don't count.
They were open and explicit in 2016 that winning the election was ore important than truth.
No, that was Donald Trump. He told lies about himself. About Hillary. About the state of the country. He even lied about how he won the election.
He's lied since then as well.
Maybe you need to get a hold of the truth.
Didn't you get the memo? Trump cannot lie. Everything that disagrees with him is 'Fake news' and anything supporting his narrative is 'alternate facts'. If he happens to actually tell the truth then that's just a happy accident.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
The Daily Mail is the exactly opposite of what you describe. A typical story starts with several paragraphs of reaction and outrage, before right at the end on page 7 mentioning the facts.
Here's a classic example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...
Note how even in the byline they manage to sneak a lie in (the straight banana law was debunked when it first surfaced in the 90s). If you can wade through all the ranting you will find a perfectly sensible, rational explanation for the ruling.
That's why the Daily Fail has been banned. It's not a serious source of news, it's a source of outrage and vitriol. Almost entirely fact free, virtually pure opinion (so long as it's the opinion of people who are angry, or who you should be angry about not being angry).
I find the worst part of the mail, at least on their website is all the way down the right side they have other stories, which is nothing in itself but it runs about 3 miles down the page (seriously, way, way, way past the content) and 9/10 are look at what this semi-famous person is wearing.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
And did a lefty just tell me that it's bad to criticize a religion? Really? I'm not even Christian, but after watching 40 years of non-stop, relentless criticism of Christians,
Apparently, Christianity is the only religion lefties can criticize. Try a blatant attack on Islam. You'll get much more trouble with western lefties, than with any islamist organizations/supporters.
How can you claim that's a fact when there is no evidence for it? Convenience of argument?
...and let's not forget the 'sidebar of shame' which is mostly about women in scant clothing and whatever scandal they can think of to make up some click bait. Hardly the way to incite confidence and trust in your journalism.
The legendary sidebar of shame.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They are, if you actually consider what the standard is: a consensus view among editors that the articles are unreliable and not representing accurate facts.
That doesn't happen lightly - the debate took weeks before the vote, and the vote requirement to actually ban a source is extremely high - you need over 80% of editors to agree. That's some ten-thousand people from around the world, with different biases, ideas, philosophies and beliefs - and you need to get 80% of them to agree before any publication can be banned. It requires a CONSENSUS view - not just a majority view.
The D.M. ban came after years and years of having article based on DM sources that had to be rewritten, replaced and even deleted entirely as they turned out to be pure fabrications. That's a crapload of extra work for editors - who are, remember, volunteers.
It is not censorship - they can't stop anybody reading the dailymail, but they ahve every right to decide that the frequency with which dailymail reports force them to have to do extra work due to blatantly false claims makes it not worth the effort of allowing as a source, since after all, the mission of the organisation is dependent on reliable sources.
There are different ideas on how an encyclopaedia should strive for accuracy. The traditional view is by hiring a host of experts, one on every topic you have an entry on, and have them write the topics for you. Then edit and prettify and have them fact-check the result. This is how things like Encyclopaedia Britanica for example is done.
That, however, is not viable for a crowd-sourced one... so how do you fact check ? They had to find a new way, that way is to demand reliable, outside, expert sources that agree with the statements of fact made on the pages. This reduces the workload from an unmangeable "find a verified expert on every topic and resolve disputes whenever a topic has two experts who don't agree" to a much more manageable "select which sources we trust". A process which, in another contradiction of typical encyclopaedic standards actually is based on "benefit of the doubt" - any published source starts out as "acceptable". Even your personal blog can be a source - though if you fail fact-checking (consistently) you will eventually cease to be one. If it can be backed up by multiple sources this is deemed even better. A scientists' blog about his current research is a fantastic thing to have as a source - it means wikipedia can have up to date information (far moreso than the competition), but having a link to the published paper when it comes out is even more important - because that will include the corrections made over the course of the research and not reflected in the earlier running-commentary posts.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>Literally. Because he couldn't have yet.
What you just said cannot possibly be true of anybody over the age of about 2. If you can speak, you can do something about peace. Not everybody DOES - but everybody CAN.
You don't need to be in a position of power to have achieved something remarkable just by the way you sought power.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Except that his government didn't nominate him. He was nominated by Swedish M.P. E.G.C. Brandt. and Brandt seriously did not want him to win. Brandt believed that the Nobel nomination process was way too open, allowing people to win who did not live up to Alfred Nobel's wishes for what the peace prize is meant to achieve. The science prizes make more sense. He nominated Hitler to showcase how ridiculous the system was - even the "most obviously worst possible person to consider giving it to" has to be considered if somebody who works for a government says so.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>The only attacks I've seen are the Berkeley protestors beating people with clubs.
So... somehow you saw THAT but not the Milo supporter SHOOTING at them five minutes earlier and critically injuring one ?
You know... when people are shooting at you, attacking them with clubs is probably a justified response. If anything, it shows remarkable restraint.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I don't know if those videos exist, but knowing Milo, any drama of any sort happening around him is just as likely to be a planned part of the show. Like Trump, Milo is simply reality TV on the political stage and most of the content is made up for shock value.
I think this explains the Mail very well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
The awful thing is that people believe that stuff, and make irreversible, hugely important decisions based on it.
There was a woman on Question Time last week. For those not in the UK, Question Time is a BBC programme where the public can ask a panel of politicians and invited guests questions. She stated that she was going to vote remain, but the day before the vote was in the supermarket and saw some bananas, which reminded her of the straight bananas lie and caused her to change her mind.
We are all victims of these lies, of decades of deception by the Daily Mail and many other parts of our media. Our democracy has failed.
What really gets me about the straight banana story (which I believe was one of the inventions of that legendary journalist Boris Johnson) is that even if it was true who really cares?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
They have been the most prominent #fakenews #alternativefacts sites in the past year.
Our news is often just as much biased and equally propaganda as RT. It's just that RT is promoting a different propaganda bent than our news. And that's to be expected.
I do believe President Obama has claim to being the Nobel Peace prize recipient who bombed and killed the most people.
Routinely print baseless articles. They never retract, even when proven wrong. (Oh, I am sure there is a webpage buried on their site where they list retractions and corrections. That DOESN'T count in my book.
It is censorship. But censorship is only forbidden on the part of our government. Private entities are within their rights to censor.
And you believe the NYT or WaPo even tries?
Yes.Yes, I do believe they try.
But *what* do they try? That is the question.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
They have that problem too.
The side by side comparison of President Obama's packed inauguration and President Trump's near empty inauguration. Except it is #fakenews #alternativefacts The Trump photo was NOT taken during the inauguration. In fact, President Trump's inauguration was packed all the way to the tents at the Lincoln Memorial. This is documented, confirmed, and readily
So EVERY article touting that comparison was #fakenews, yet I haven't seen a single retraction. Instead, I have watch my liberal friends on the right exclaim that a difference in time of capture doesn't make it fake. Essentially arguing well it's a picture, and it was the inauguration day, so it's real. Um, but presenting it as a photo of the inauguration crowd is a lie. Just one of many repeated lies by CNN and HuffPo.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive...
This is fake news. There was a completely unsubstantiated claim by an NY Times reporter, which seems like a bizarre false flag op:
That's not a bizarre false flag op, that's cognitive dissonance on your part.
So at best we have a rumour
No, an eyewitness account from a reporter that matches other violence at the event that's been caught on film, such as this flag pole attack, or this woman being pepper sprayed while giving an interview, or this college Republican being attacked wearing a suit and Trump hat the morning after.
based on a story that clearly makes no sense (why would an anti-hate, anti-discrimination protester identify as Syrian as a Nazi?)
Probably because the left has been throwing around the term "Nazi" like it was confetti, and he was wearing a suit, as the reporter mentioned, something you'd associate with the right, establishment, and conservatism at a lefty protest where hate-filled thugs are violently attacking people and property to shut down another person's free speech. Also, maybe he was wearing a Trump hat that was knocked off before the reporter saw the attack.
If anything it suggests that the protest was sabotaged by Milo supporters.
You truly have your head up your ass. And I suppose the 200+ people arrested and charged as part of a gang committing violence during Trump's inauguration were Trump supporters?
What you don't want to admit is that the left has become the party of violence, openly condoning it in many cases.
This somehow became a factual report when repeated on alt-right websites. And you either didn't bother to investigate it, or didn't want to, or are too incompetent to make a sensible judgement.
*snort* Yes, because you've done such a good job investigating it yourself with your baseless claims of false flag attacks and "fake news".
How many people has Putin killed?
Versus...how many people did President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama kill?
And a narcissist who doesn't understand that not everyone sees the world and believes the bullshit you do.
1. Published a comparison photo of President Obama and Trump's inaugurations that was completely fake and disproved by the gigapixel image that in fact showed that President Trump's inauguration was packed to the tents at the Washington Memorial.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive...
2. Claimed that President Trump said soldiers who commit suicide are weak. Never said that. Go to youtube and see the video of what he actually said.
3. Claimed reading Wikileaks was illegal, except for the media.
4. Gave the debate questions to Hillary's campaign.
Do you really want more?
Have you checked the more contentious wikipedia pages?
Nice attempt at spin. I don't condone any violence, but Trump thinks he's King and you should be worried. His communication isn't "mean tweets", it's a display of unimaginable ignorance, stupidity, and lack of decency. What, just yesterday he used the office of POTUS to slam Nordstrom because they dropped her daughter's clothing line or something. Ridiculous behaviour.
President Camacho was better suited for the office than Trump - at least he showed some respect.
The biggest irony is that all the people citing it as evidence that we are being dictated to by faceless EU bureaucrats don't realize that it's the other way around. They were our rules on bananas, already part of UK law, that the EU decided to adopt. Most countries had already adopted similar rules anyway, because they were sensible.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The Express is pure vitriolic shite from cover to cover but for some reason doesn't attract the same criticism as the Mail.
That's because it's much less popular, the Mail sells about four times as many copies as the Express.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
total horseshit. They identify that ERI's tend to be hot, so they adjust the buoy data up to match. That adds additional warming that doesn't actually exist to the record for the time period where the buoys are recording data. And because they're now weighting buoy data more heavily in the record, we have an adjustment from actual temperatures to a fake higher temperature carrying even more weight than they should. It's a shell game. Notice that they claim the adjustments are "effectively identical in trend"? They avoid saying the temperatures are the same! I don't care about the trend when they're making the claims of "hottest year ever" and "hottest decade ever". Trend doesn't matter in those cases, but the fake heat added from their adjustments definitely does! The purpose of new instrumentation is to get more accurate results. If the new instrumentation reveals previously unknown errors in older instrumentation, you DON'T adjust the data recorded with the new instrumentation! That is fraudulent! You increase your error bars for your data recorded with that older instrumentation. Do you know why they didn't adjust ERI data down? Because it would lower the calculated temperatures in the 1990's more than it would the 1930's, and suddenly the 1930's would stand out as being much hotter than the 1990's!!!
So... somehow you saw THAT but not the Milo supporter SHOOTING at them five minutes earlier and critically injuring one ?
What shooting at Berkeley? There was one at University of Washington, not at Berkeley, and it was claimed self-defense by an Asian guy who was being surrounded and assaulted before he pulled out his gun and shot one of the attackers.
What I've seen from Trump are mean tweets.
You mean apart from the Muslim ban, antagonizing our allies, ramping up tensions with Iran, and being best buds with Vladimir Putin?
My mother turned 90 this week, and she reads the Daily Mail, and the Mail on Sunday with fervour. I swear she is keeping the Post Office going in her village posting clippings from the Mail to me, highlighted in yellow marker around articles telling me why the NHS is in the state it is, how the Liverpool Care Pathway was invented by GPs colluding with unscrupulous relatives to knock pensioners off their mortal coils, how migrants from Eastern Europe are coming here to shoplift and have free dental care ..
She is 90 years old, and I can forgive her sucking all this garbage in and believing it, but it is really just as well the Wikipedia has implemented a spam filter.
Have you checked the more contentious wikipedia pages?
No, but the fail is on everypage. Go to wiki and it's mostly kinda legitish with some toxic spots. Did you ever see robocop? You know that vat that gets splashed all over that guy and he's all melty and shit? That was full of liquid daily mail.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
It's a right wing British supermarket tabloid. USans - how do you feel about using the National Enquirer, or (my own personal favorite), the Weekly World News as sources for wikipedia articles?
A TON of examples.
The Washington Post reported the Kremlin was hacking into voting machines. They later retracted the story and put it on page 3. In fact the FEC contacted voting machines in Georgia during hte 2016 election.
CNN also reported on completely debunked BuzzFeed claims about bizarre sex practices of Donald Trump. It's not that they didn't vet their sources either. Ben Smith, the editor at BuzzFeed claimed the fact that national intelligence agencies were asking about the truth of the source mean they were completely justified in reporting them as news.
In other words we are swimming in political hackery semi-disguised as news, but Daily Mail gets punished for not towing the ideological line.
Clearly you're not a fan of democracy if you want to surrender the sovereignty of Britain to the unelected few who rule the EU.
Anyhow, democracy was never based on the premise of an intelligent an informed electorate. Who could believe that rubbish premise? It's based on the idea that when things get so bad that no amount of lies by the government can fool them, they can overthrow that government without violence.
Democracy in the UK has very much worked. It's working less well in the US given the wave of political violence we've been having. I hope that's just a temporary temper-tantrum, as it leads to a very dark place if it continues. Just last week we had roving mobs breaking shop windows, starting fires, and beating people with clubs, all in a riot to prevent a gay Jew from speaking. We've seen how that sort of thing ends.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yes, there was definitely a Thatcherite anti-bureaucrat edge to Yes Minister/Prime Minister. At the same time Hacker is generally shown as a well-intentioned bungler, so it's not as if the politicians get off lightly. Ultimately the actual straight man in the show is Bernard Woolley, so if anyone gets it easy it's the Principle Private Secretary, whereas the civil service, in the form of Sir Humphrey are shown as shameless schemers and Parliament and Cabinet, in the form of Hacker, are shown as hopelessly outmatched. I'd say as much as it is Thatcherite, it also invokes long-standing caricatures of the Westminster system that date back to the Victorian Era. But there is still insightful commentary on how things work behind closed doors, and Sir Humphrey, even if out of pure self-interest, does on occasion rescue Hacker from catastrophe (like where he convinces Hacker's daughter not to take part in a nude protest). If anything about it is overtly Thatcherite, it's in showing Government has been a bungling, error-prone mess always on the edge of catastrophe.
Mind you, looking at politics in the US and Britain right now, I think maybe the writers had a point. It's hard to see how Trump and Brexit represent government as a sophisticated organ of precise decision making.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There was no shooting at Berkeley. There was a shooting, but it was clearly justified self-defense, and the cops didn't bring charges. There will be more and more of that sort of thing if the left can't get its temper-tantrums under control.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
My sig says it all. America was built as a system to limit the power of a ruler you don't like. Seems like we've weakened those constraints in the past century. Perhaps a smaller, less power central government would prevent this sort of thing from ever being an issue? That was, after all, the founding principle of this nation.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
People like Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres. I always say given I've done nothing for peace but some of the prize winners have done less than nothing I must have won it at least once since I deserve it more than them. Of course more than half the planet deserves it more so I'm figuring it'll take a long time to give them all out.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Why do you and certain other users always take one faulty assumption, and then compound the error with more stacked on top of it? A little caution would be advisable.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What you say is true of vox-pops. But then vox-pops are not news, nor are they suitable citations for Wikipedia, no matter what the source.
The guys I see wearing black, breaking shop windows, starting fires, and protesting Jewish speakers, are Antifa. When fascism comes again it will wear the guise of anti-fascism.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Oh right, like the teaparty protests didn't get violent at times ?
Hell the left boasts having quite recently held the largest protest in human history without a single arrest.
And now I'll really blow your mind - it's not because the women were well behaved. They behaved no differently than protestors of all stripes always do. It's because the cops don't like to pick fights with a bunch of white women - so they didn't go and find flimsy excuses to arrest protestors and thus provoke a clash. The same reason there weren't many arrests during the teaparty protests - because cops don't like to pick fights with a lot of white people. Only an idiot thinks the teaparty protestors were any better behaved than say BLM protestors.
Anyway, they ARE justified to use violence. This is the outbreak of the second civil war at the very least, world war 3 most likely. They are literally fighting for their lives, to protect themselves and their loved ones. They are as justified in their actions as the Jewish resistance fighter were in the German ghettos when they fought back against the NAZI's - with guns.
And the right doesn't get to complain. We've had 8 years of a moderate president being obstructed and protested against at every turn on the most ridiculous basis - flagrantly made up bullshit most of the time. Hell, how many people protested because they thought he was going to take their guns ? He never took anybody's guns and, in fact, gun laws are actually became MORE lax under Obama - but gun companies profited from telling people that, and politicians played along opportunistically and a bunch of rightwing nutjobs fell for the scam.
8 years of bullshit protests and obstruction over the most innocuous of things. The army does excercises in Texas like they've done every year since 2003- and suddenly the whole state is protesting and even sending the state guard to keep an eye on them out of some bizarre fear that this was "the start of martial law".
Even if the republicans had elected a sane and moderate president it would be fucking payback time. They didn't, they elected an autocratic demagogue who thinks he is a dictator, lies every time he opens his mouth, signs insane executive orders he has neither read nor attempted to understand, appointed an attorney general who was denied a judgeship by a republican senate for being insanely racist... it would be payback time even if it had been John Kasich... But for Trump.
This will NEVER stop. He will be facing constant protest right until his 4 years are up - and the only president in history who had LESS chance of re-election than Donald Trump was William Henry Harrison - and he died in his first month in office.That is, of course, assuming you get to have another election. Trump is actively looking for his Reichstag fire. He's already claimed that the next terrorist attack will be fault of the courts. He can't wait for one to happen - it will be the excuse he wants.
You were so afraid that Obama would declare martial law - with no reason to ever think he might. Then you elected a president who is determined to do so at the first excuse no matter how flimsy.
Hell he tried to justify his ban by referring to the people who died in the attack on the Louvre... too bad the Louvre was never attacked, a soldier in a shopping mall was attacked (the Mall does have Louvre in it's name somewhere but it's not the museum), and the attacker was instantly arrested - nobody died. Oh, and he is from Egypt - NOT one of the countries Trump tried to ban.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Do you understand what an "anomaly product" is? If you apply a consistent adjustment across the whole series, the mean temperature changes to match across the whole series so the anomaly from the mean, and the trend of that anomaly, is the same regardless of the direction of the adjustment. So your claim that this biases the anomaly higher is false, which is confirmed by the HadSST3 test run and the buoy-only series I linked to earlier.
Oh right, like the teaparty protests didn't get violent at times ?
Never heard of any such thing. If so, that was totally unacceptable, as is all political violence.
And now I'll really blow your mind
You're a college sophomore, aren't you?
Anyway, they ARE justified to use violence. This is the outbreak of the second civil war at the very least, world war 3 most likely. They are literally fighting for their lives, to protect themselves and their loved ones
Wow, any more bullshit you want to make up between bong hits?
And the right doesn't get to complain.
As you've no doubt said your whole life. Well guess what, the pendulum is swinging the other way. The self-appointed elite have been rejected at the poles, in the US and the UK. Working-class people are having their turn in the sun.
Everyone has the right to complain. No one has the right to engage in political violence These two ideas are the foundation of a free society.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That's what's known as "logical reasoning from basic truths". Scary and foreign to you, I know. Maybe read the posts while wearing sunglasses to lessen the impact.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
But... but... (head explodes)
see many batboy magazines as sources at wiki?
cause thats the level the daily mail is at.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
"but the journalism itself is some of the best you'll find"
thats why they regularly publish total bullshit, especially when it comes to science, especially when it comes to global warming?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Its funny because /. hasnt been watching the great man made global cooling culling happening on english wikipedia for the last 10 years by Professor William Connelly, a owner of Freemantle Media's realclimate website, endowed with his myriad of wikipedia sub-editor accounts. I suspect Will would have been one of the people who asked for the ban in the first place!!
Some history:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
Nobody was protesting working class people. It's NAZIs being protested.
And the ONLY place for NAZIs in the political arena is at the end of a fist.
No, it does NOT get to be tolerated. Karl Poppler proved that extending tolerance to intolerant beliefs is a logical fallacy. Tolerance only goes to those that return the favour.
Oh, and I'm a 37 year old professional programmer. I also happen to be a bit of a history geek - and more importantly - to pay attention to what historians are saying right now... and that;'s why I'm saying this is the start of a second civil war and possibly a world war. The president has managed to provoke insane international diplomatic incidents with no less than 3 American allies and he's only been on the job a couple of weeks ! Oh and Steve Bannon would agree with me. He has been saying, publicly, that he believes world war 3 is imminent and will be center around a China/America conflict. He is one of those morons who believes in cyclic history. I am merely saying "don't repeat patterns that have always led to war" - HE is saying "It is the time when war must happen, so I will actually try to help it along so I can steer HOW it starts to benefit myself". This guy now chairs the national security commission. Bannon calls it "The fourth turning". The first turning was the civil war. Each world war was another - and he believes it's time for a fourth. You know all that S.F. about should we go back and kill Hitler ? There's all sorts of paradoxes there - but... should we kill somebody who wants to BE Hitler and now has the power to act on it ? Damn right we should.
Meanwhile I've read dozens of extremely respected historians who are saying Trump is indistinguishable from the worst fascists of the 20th century, in policy, in temperament and in likelihood of causing wars. People who make it their lives work to know how those people came to power, and turned great nations into warring hellholes - are saying "Look at Trump THAT is how they did it".
> Well guess what, the pendulum is swinging the other way
Yeah - now it's liberal's turn to make the presidents life hell and make sure he achieves none of his agenda. But we'll be better than you were. We'll only resist the crazy parts, we'll only resist the bad ideas. There are some things in Trump's platform that were also in Bernie Sander's platform. If he does those - and he does them right 'tax breaks for construction companies' doesn't count - then we'll support him.
We won't oppose him when he's implementing OUR ideas - like the GOP did to Obama.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
http://efp.org.uk/wp-content/u...
sag
Ha, nice! Is that actually real? I know that sort of belief was popular in the early 30s in the UK and the US.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Nobody was protesting working class people. It's NAZIs being protested.
And the ONLY place for NAZIs in the political arena is at the end of a fist.
I'm 100% sure the gay jewish guy is not the Nazi in this picture. You can call anyone you want a Nazi, because of any made-up bullshit. It does not justify violence.
In the 30s, as now, you can spot the fascists by their actions: they're the ones breaking shop windows because of invented BS about people they've decided to hate.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
yup. If you trust wikipedia's sources... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
sag
>I'm 100% sure the gay jewish guy is not the Nazi in this picture
And the SMART people in the room know that whether you are a NAZI is defined by what you say and do, not by who you are. Hell, I would argue that Israel has become a NAZI state ! And this too, is not unusual - history is full of oppressed people turning around to commit those exact same atrocities against somebody else. My own ancestors were the first people ever to experience concentration camps and the victims of the 20th century's very first genocide (and one of the only white-on-white genocides). 50 years later they invented apartheid.
And in your little fantasy version of history Fash-Bashing was never a thing ?
Throughout the history of the world for every fascist breaking shop windows... there were anti-fascists punching the fascists.
https://mic.com/articles/16020...
The REAL question is - is it worth it ? The standard answer is "no" because it never stopped any NAZI or other fascist movements. In fact they tended to take getting punched as an excuse for greater atrocities.
But I think that answer doesn't apply - because this is a unique situation. These fascists have not yet secured their positions of power. The checks and balances are still in place. They haven't had their Reichstag moment yet, their hold on society is not yet absolute. We can still PREVENT them getting there. Fash-bashing has never ended their reigns of terror - but perhaps it can prevent it. I hope so - because it's the only chance America (and the world) has. Perhaps this unending, unyielding resistance from day one - can keep Fuhrer Trump in check... or at least, in check enough for us to survive the next 4 years.
No other time in history has somebody like him failed to become a dictator, authoritarians NEVER have ENOUGH power, they will always try to grab more. The only reason we have to hope it won't happen this time... is all those people out in the streets, and the fact that they were there right from the start. For once, the anti-fascist resistance may not come too little too late. Either that or, for the first time in their history, America will actually show up on time for a world war.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
e. Hell, I would argue that Israel has become a NAZI state
Putting this together with your last post, I can see you want a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem. Why am I not surprised.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
>Putting this together with your last post, I can see you want a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem. Why am I not surprised.
Not at all, I have no idea how you got THAT from me opposing the final solution to the Palestinian problem.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
And the SMART people in the room know that whether you are a NAZI is defined by what you say and do, not by who you are.
So what has Milo said or done that makes him a NAZI? I'll wait.
Hell, I would argue that Israel has become a NAZI state !
That's because you're ignorant and prone to hyperbole.
No other time in history has somebody like him failed to become a dictator
People were afraid that Bush would become a dictator. And then Obama. And now, of course, Trump. He'll be gone in four or eight years, just like those who came before him, even Andrew Jackson.
>So what has Milo said or done that makes him a NAZI? I'll wait.
Anti-Immigrant rhetoric, anti-feminist rhetoric. Cornerstones of Nazism and non-existent in anything else.
>That's because you're ignorant [youtube.com] and prone to hyperbole.
Actually... it's because I'm far better informed than you. That means I don't just read what Israelis write, I read what Palestinians experience - I read THEIR side of the story. And theirs is the side of the people who were invaded, and has been oppressed ever since. If Israel wanted my sympathy they would grant all the stateless Palestinians an unlimited right of return and then either
1) Give all Palestinians full and complete citizenship with complete equal rights and no restrictions or
2) Give Palestinians a state and respect it's borders absolutely.
The Israeli prime minister has made it very clear that he has absolutely no willingness to allow Palestinians their own state - thus forcing them to remain vassals of a state that does not recognize or acknowledge their humanity. You could argue that the means by which Palestinians have protested is wrong, but they are the SAME means by which the ANC protested - and for that the ANC became international heroes and Nelson Mandela is treated like a Saint. Why the difference? Why was bombing Afrikaner civilians understandable but bombing Israeli's is terrorism ?
But all that aside - ultimately the key is in the REASON Israel won't give full and equal rights to Palestinians as citizens which have nothing to do with that. They want to preserve "Israel as a Jewish state" and are afraid of being outnumbered. That is the very definition of Nazism. When you want to preserve an area for a specific ethnic group - even at the price of slaughtering and oppressing another, that's Nazism in a nutshell - and the former INEVITABLY MUST lead to the latter. The Israeli approach is no different from Hitler's Lebensraum.
>People were afraid that Bush would become a dictator. And then Obama. And now, of course, Trump [wordpress.com]. He'll be gone in four or eight years, just like those who came before him, even Andrew Jackson [history.com].
And you think any of those were in any way like Trump ? If you can't tell the difference between exaggerated fears of a politician based on bullshit - and legitimate fears of a demagogue based on what he has actually said and done, then your ignorance is beyond the pale. I didn't say "people" - I said "historians" as in people who make it their lives work to know the difference. When Hitler got elected president nobody thought HE could become a dictator either. Weimar had checks and balances, a constitution and a parliament. Hell the Weimar president had far less power than the US president - most of the power was in the hands of the chancellor (much like modern Germany - do you even know the name of the German president ? He is so unimportant he never makes news outside their borders), they'd given him the appointment as a way to shut up the crazy guy who had somehow gotten 30% of the vote.... from that springboard (much weaker than Trump's) he dismantled every single one of the checks and balances and was an absolute dictator within a year.
The real difference is this: neither Obama nor Bush were authoritarians. Obama was too moderate for his own good, and Bush was a greedy bugger who used his office to make his friends rich - but neither were authoritarian. Trump has never been anything else.
And he gave a senior position to a man who believes that the next world war happening now is inevitable and that the only way for the US to come out on top is for them to START that war. Steve Bannon really believes that - and he has said so, publicly, hundreds of times. He wants a war with China - because he believes one is going ot happen no matter what the US does so the US may as well start it and get first-strike advantage.
Funny how the champion of the working class has filled his cabinet with the very elites the working class STILL think they voted AGAINST. He
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
you "don't know if those videos exist."
That's right. I haven't seen them and I wasn't taking the AC's word for it, but the video's existence was irrelevant to the point I was making, which you completely missed.
"blah blah blah nazis, blah blah blah fuck the left"
Great argument. .
Anti-Immigrant rhetoric
How does anti-immigrant rhetoric make you a NAZI?
anti-feminist rhetoric
How does anti-feminist rhetoric make you a NAZI?
Cornerstones of Nazism and non-existent in anything else.
Bull-fucking-shit. What defined the Nazis was rounding up Jews and exterminating them, Aryan supremacy, and aggressive, expansionist warfare. Wanting to control your borders and thinking that modern feminism is bonkers doesn't make you a Nazi.
You've just taken the position that anybody that disagrees with your politics is a "NAZI", because you're so "SMART".
Actually... it's because I'm far better informed than you. That means I don't just read what Israelis write, I read what Palestinians experience - I read THEIR side of the story.
If you hadn't noticed, my link was a video to an Arab "born to hate Jews" who was steeped in all the rhetoric, on his way to become a militant, who then investigated the other side and actually went to Israel. What he found was a pluralistic and inclusive society that resembled nothing like Nazi Germany or what he had expected. That's the story you don't want to hear or acknowledge.
In reality, it's the Muslim countries with authoritarian regimes, but you just ignore those and make an absurd claim about Israel.
grant all the stateless Palestinians an unlimited right of return
Which would destroy their country after having defended it against attack from five Arab countries.
Give Palestinians a state and respect it's borders absolutely.
When Sharon unilaterally pulled out of Gaza it was used as a new area to stage attacks by Hamas. While there seems to be a general consensus on a two state solution, the reality of it happening to the satisfaction and resolution of all parties seems slim, since it's been on the table for decades.
the SAME means by which the ANC protested - and for that the ANC became international heroes and Nelson Mandela is treated like a Saint. Why the difference?
Why indeed? Mandela shouldn't have been treated as a saint, the tactics of the ANC were unjust, and the country has turned to shit since the ANC came to power.
They want to preserve "Israel as a Jewish state" and are afraid of being outnumbered.
That's understandable when they were attacked by five Arab nations to destroy their country upon initiation, and to this day many Arabs would like to see Israel destroyed.
That is the very definition of Nazism.
No, defending your country against an existential threat is not the "definition of Nazism", and I've already described what was.
preserve an area for a specific ethnic group - even at the price of slaughtering and oppressing another
Bullshit. Jews were rounded up and exterminated in systemic fashion in Nazi Germany, along with Gypsies, mentally disabled, and other "undesirables". Israel has been in existence for decades and done nothing comparable. Fuck you for trivializing such atrocities.
And you think any of those were in any way like Trump ?
They had views that the other side strongly disagreed with and had their own brand of arrogance, along with an increase in executive powers. Sure, Trump is brash and bombastic in ways that they weren't, but that doesn't make him the next Hitler, as the article I linked to clearly pointed out. You have to watch where the violence is coming from, and it's coming from the left who go around calling everybody Nazis as an excuse for their violence and rhetoric.
And he gave a senior position to a man who believes that the next world war happening now is inevitable and that the only way for the
>How does anti-immigrant rhetoric make you a NAZI?
Because NAZIs were anti-immigrant... doh, hell that was their cornerstone policy - opposition to a group of immigrants.
>How does anti-feminist rhetoric make you a NAZI?
It doesn't... by itself (though it DOES by itself make you evil) - but when combined with the rest it sure contributes. And we didn't even get to the abundance of flagrant white supremacist statements he has made, and massive racial stereotypes (which is, also, a form of white supremacist since somehow... they never include negative stereotypes about white people)
> What defined the Nazis was rounding up Jews and exterminating them,
No, that's what their ideas LED to, not where it BEGAN. They were NAZIs many decades before they did that. And while it was Jews that particular time, it doesn't HAVE to be - it just needs to be "people".
>Aryan supremacy,
Milo: CHECK.
> and aggressive, expansionist warfare
Another case of mistaking the end-result for the ideology. That was where it ended up, not where it started. Hitler was not LESS of a NAZI in the 6 years he governed without starting a war.
>. Wanting to control your borders
NOT what anti-immigrant rhetoric actually says, and sure as HELL not what Milo says. I'll be willing to believe you when America considers it equally vital to build a wall on the NORTHERN border and keep Canadian immigrants out (by something other than your culture I mean).
> That's the story you don't want to hear or acknowledge.
I've heard it, it's even somewhat true. It doesn't make the other side any LESS true.
>In reality, it's the Muslim countries with authoritarian regimes
Plenty do, What is the relevance of that to the desire, and right, of Palestinians for democracy ? Oh right- NADA.
> but you just ignore those and make an absurd claim about Israel.
The claim is true. The policy however is, indeed, quite absurd.
>Which would destroy their country
How ? How does SHARING a country equal DESTROYING a country ? Only racist, nazi fucks think that. And don't underestimate how racist Israeli's are - hell the reason the Yemeni Babies Affair was so massive was because their extreme racism even extended to fellow Jews if those Jews came from the wrong places.
>after having defended it against attack from five Arab countries.
What's the relevance of THAT to the plight of Palestinians ? Palestinians aren't even Arabs!
>When Sharon unilaterally pulled out of Gaza it was used as a new area to stage attacks by Hamas.
So ? What does THAT have to do with "if you don't give people equal rights they have a right to fight you for them" ? You think M.L.K would have achieved ANYTHING AT ALL if the Black Panthers didn't exist ? M.L.K. Was ABLE to achieve things with peaceful protest because the politicians KNEW if they did NOT negotiate with him they'd end up having to negotiate with Malcolm X instead.
>Why indeed? Mandela shouldn't have been treated as a saint,
Except that he WAS, in fact, as close to a saint as any human in centuries have been. Including, going to extreme lengths to avert a war which would have been utterly justified.
> the tactics of the ANC were unjust
And also, utterly, unavoidable - the government was not willing to negotiate, they wouldn't consider it. There was no OTHER choice. So no, not unjust. It was a fight FOR justice. You can't fight for justice without fighting.
>and the country has turned to shit since the ANC came to power.
What the fuck does THAT have to do with anything even if it's true ? People have a right to a say in their government. If denied it, they have a right to claim it- by force if needed. Your country only EXISTS because of people who did exactly THAT. Every criticism you raise about Mandela is doubly true of George Washington. Hell Washington didn't go after the revolution and negotiate with Britain and give them a seat in the new government - so he was WORSE than Mandela. Ap
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The Soviets white washed their former leftist allies as 'right wing' after WWII. You mistakes start with believing this propaganda.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Because NAZIs were anti-immigrant... doh, hell that was their cornerstone policy - opposition to a group of immigrants.
You're conflating controlling your borders versus purging citizenry based on ethnicity. Nearly every country in the world controls its borders and limits immigration.
It doesn't... by itself
So you're full of shit, as usual.
though it DOES by itself make you evil
Uh huh, anybody who disagrees with bullshit identity politics is "evil". Modern feminism isn't about equality, it's about male bashing because women have already achieved equality in the West.
What completely solidifies the case against modern feminism is how they act as a shield for Islam and say nothing about importing a real rape culture via mass immigration. The women's march was even so stupid as to have an Islamic apologist raising the ISIS salute at the head of their event.
And we didn't even get to the abundance of flagrant white supremacist statements he has made
Indeed you didn't because you didn't quote any and you won't find any. Several publications have promoted this claim and subsequently backed down when challenged, because it isn't true, and even more so, he has explicitly spoken out against white nationalism. That's one of the things that makes him hated by the core and original Alt-Right (they call people like Milo "Alt-Light").
No, that's what their ideas LED to, not where it BEGAN.
Their actions are what defined them. A handwaving analogy between sensible border policies and a rejection of the loony left with Nazi Germany is ridiculous.
NOT what anti-immigrant rhetoric actually says, and sure as HELL not what Milo says. I'll be willing to believe you when America considers it equally vital to build a wall on the NORTHERN border and keep Canadian immigrants out (by something other than your culture I mean).
Because the practical reality is there aren't a flood of illegal Canadian immigrants coming over the border. Somehow this seems to escape your grasp. I'll also believe celebrities and other social justice idiots on the left have a good handle on immigration issues when they pledge to move to Mexico, and not Canada, in protest of Trump.
I've heard it, it's even somewhat true. It doesn't make the other side any LESS true.
It actually does. It completely refutes your comparison of Israel with Nazi Germany, and it completely invalided the other side he was steeped in before he stepped out of the echo chamber and researched for himself.
Plenty do, What is the relevance of that to the desire, and right, of Palestinians for democracy ? Oh right- NADA.
Puh-lease. You're the one bashing Israel as Nazi Germany, where in reality they are surrounded by countries much more apt of the label.
How does SHARING a country equal DESTROYING a country ?
They are already sharing the country, as I referenced, despite your claim that they are Nazi Germany. Very strange that 20% of the population in Nazi Germany would be Jews, doncha think? But what would happen if 80% of Israel were "Palestinians"? Would it be Israel or Palestine? So much for a two-state solution.
Only racist, nazi fucks think that.
You think running around calling people racist and Nazi still works. It doesn't. People elected Trump despite the shrill cries of social justice idiots like you.
What's the relevance of THAT to the plight of Palestinians ? Palestinians aren't even Arabs!
"The Palestinian pe
>Yes they were. The immense boycott pressure probably did more than any amount of violence.
Typical rightwing American arrogant fuck. Now you're telling a South African what happened in my own country. The boycotts and sanctioned did fuckall to end apartheid. It didn't affect the white population at all. You sanctioned our oil - we invented making oil from coal and said "fuck you". The ONLY people who actually suffered because of sanctions were the very black people they were meant to help. The whites were fine. Hell we were even importing and running the latest software on our computers - the only thing the sanctions did was to make sure we all pirated everything since there WERE no legal purchases available.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Typical rightwing American arrogant fuck. Now you're telling a South African what happened in my own country.
Like you're factually erroneous claims about MLK and the Black Panthers, hypocrite?
The boycotts and sanctioned did fuckall to end apartheid.
Maybe I'm off base, but then again I wouldn't just take your word for it. Anyways, enjoy your country now that it has turned to shit.
Yes, I know what an anomaly product is. I didn't claim that it biases the ANOMALY higher. Do you know what a temperature average is?
I use them as a flag.
Then I usually find myself reading the actual published laws, reports, etc. Watching the actual event or statement on youtube to gain the full context. Etc.
What I've discovered is that about political 70% of our news is hype that only vaguely resembles what they claim.
1. It was note, the photographer even had trouble getting up to the monument.
2. Go look at the link I posted, it clearly visibly debunks the media representation of an empty ceremony.
3. I am not saying Trump's was bigger than Obama's. Just that Trump's was very large too, one of the larger ones in history.
4. Please note that most of the metrics claimed, such as metro transit statistics are meaningless. This was a Republican, most DC residents are not Republicans. Therefore they tend not to use local transit. Most come out of state/district.