Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Pages Spreading Fake News Won't Be Able To Buy Ads (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Facebook says it's taking another step against Pages that share fabricated news stories. The company has already been working with outside fact-checkers like Snopes and the AP to flag inaccurate news stories. (These aren't supposed to be stories that are disputed for reasons of opinion or partisanship, but rather outright hoaxes and lies.) It also says that when a story is marked as disputed, the link can can no longer be promoted through Facebook ads. The next step, which the company is announcing today, involves stopping Pages that regularly share these stories from buying any Facebook ads at all, regardless of whether or not the ad includes a disputed link. In this case, Leathern said blocking ad-buying is meant to change the economic incentives. Facebook is concerned that "there are Pages posting this information that are using Facebook Ads to build audiences" to spread false news. By changing the ad policy, Facebook makes it harder for companies to attract that audience.
Now there is something I would have never expected. Facebook a real world news source.
Going to get really interesting in a year or 2. Can Facebook be a real news source and the Epicenter of the Zuck for President Universe.
It's not about fact, but about pushing the PC narrative.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
And any valid potlical opinion 'people' might disagree with will be labeled 'extremist', 'alt-right', 'racist', 'inciting hatred', or simply 'nazi', and disappeared, no matter if it is actually true or not. And whoever controls the censors gets to decide what is true and what is not.
It's easy to see where this is heading. Next will be the deletion of Facebook pages that spread so-called fake news. Or anything Facebook finds objectionable.
In the recent past, the simple work-around would be buy a domain name and link to such content hosted somewhere. However, GoDaddy, Dreamhost, Network Solutions, and others have now taken it upon themselves to, in effect, censor content by deleting the domain name associated with any site they find objectionable.
Interesting how many internet neutrality proponents are all for it except when it concerns content and expression they don't like. Seems to me that domain name registrars, DNS providers, co-location facilities, ISPs, communication providers, and network access points should all be considered common carrier utilities and not permitted to arbitrarily block usage nor content unless dictated so by law.
win-win
Either snopes covers more right wing stories because a) snopes is biased, or b) right wing believes are based on false information.
Slashdot are going to start losing ad revenue soon once advertisers realise that the only people still reading Slashdot are the alt-right and their associated sock accounts. I mean, the only thing these wingnuts buy are tiki torches.
All advertising that DOES make it to me, will now be 100% flatly IGNORED. I want UNBIASED content. When you bias it, I go into UBER IGNORE mode. Censorship is BS, as are those who engage in it!
NOW !!!
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
If you Trump-supporting idiots (yes, idiots) DIDN'T SO CONSTANTLY GET CAUGHT LYING, like the idiot himself? Then you would have nothing to fear from fact checking!
Now they'll get even less traffic.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
If he's American, then yes, to Americans, most people are leftists. After all, your leftists are our right-wingers.
Ezekiel 23:20
"Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists, it'd be easy for them to decree something as non-fact."
Just because every utterance from the White House turns out to be a lie, doesn't make fact-checkers "leftist", it just makes the orange Hitler a lying piece of shit.
Not just biased, but down right dishonest.
Whaaah! We don't have access to our servers, we are being held hostage by the people my wife sold her shares in the company to... but we'll just leave out that fact when we beg for money.
'Do you find that most people are "leftists"?'
Compared to him, most people are.
The US government is run by right wing extremists. Only now even nuttier farther right extremists want their share.
Conservatives upset that belief can be dismissed on the same basis as was used to submit it.
Libertarians upset that "privatizing truth" is what the free market decided upon.
Liberals upset that moral relativism can be fact checked.
The only winning move is not to use facebook.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
The most right-wing party in Denmark (in government, not Nazis and that far-right BS) almost verges the American Democrats party. A guy like Bernie Sanders would be center/slightly right-wing in Denmark.
[citation needed]
Serious question.
Facts don't have a political slant.
I don't respond to AC's.
A bit of unintentional humor there, I see.
Facts don't have a political slant, but collections of facts do. By choosing which facts to present, you can shape the narrative to support a particular position or weaken support for that position. For example, you might:
And so on. The problem is, all the sources of news are so skewed in one way or another that people don't know who to trust anymore. Clearly, some sources are particularly bad, and filtering out that noise is a laudable effort, but without a quality source of news to replace it, I fear that the void will just be filled by more noise.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I've used snopes.com many times but found it behind most of the time. Just today linked from fark.com: "Health professionals report cases where people put sunscreen on their eyeballs to watch eclipse" http://www.foxnews.com/health/...
sunscreen +eclipse site:snopes.com - Nada on all variations.
People telling lies about politics won't be able to make money from people telling lies about their products.
It's correct, the stuff Americans call "left wing" seems like the right wing politics in Europe. Worse, anything centrist gets called Marxism, which is hilarious.
Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists, it'd be easy for them to decree something as non-fact.
They're vetting themselves.
Citation?
You see that is generally how fact checking works, it isn't purely an opinion, it is an opinion based on cited sources.
I'm not a snowflake but my president is.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
This.
President Trump’s 492 false or misleading claims in his first 100 days ...
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
What about sites like The Onion or Ironic Times?
Everyone I don't like is literally hitler - the post
Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists, it'd be easy for them to decree something as non-fact.
It seems that many people on Slashdot have been afflicted with outrage blindness when they read something upsetting because they never seem to read the part that would otherwise defuse their outrage.
These aren't supposed to be stories that are disputed for reasons of opinion or partisanship, but rather outright hoaxes and lies.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
... fake news is easy to identify. It's not a matter of bias, it's a matter of fact.
Either something happened or it didn't.
It's not hard.
However, why in tarnation is anybody getting their real goddam news on fucking Facebook?
That's the question.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
If we let the RW people vet the stories, then we would have more "pizzagate" type of stories.
Republicans are snowflakes: they are white, cold, and when you get enough of them together they shut down public schools.
Snopes posts the evidence for their conclusions. The only reason you don't like it is because you don't like the conclusions, and that makes it "biased", I guess. Please take your meds and rejoin the rest of society.
You know, you fools that keep comparing Trump to Hitler or the "right" to nazi's have no fucking clue what the hell you are are talking about. You are comparing the US government and its president to a system and man that murdered 12 million jews, homosexuals, and other people he found undesirable in most efficient process he could come up with. A man that started a world war that killed over 50 million people.
When your trump derangement syndrome has you frothing at the mouth and pulling bullshit out of your ass like this, then you are one sorry excuse for a human. Go talk to someone that survived one of the real Nazi death camps and compare Trump to Hitler and see what they tell you.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
If it happened then citations should be forthcoming.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The biggest mistake the president and all his men did was take off the hoods.
Everybody over the age of two has a goddam camera and a connection to a billion people.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Something along these lines perhaps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
As soon as you say that "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." someone tries to hide the truth by modding it down.
Basically proving the point.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
And wow, now I'm getting downmodded for wanting someone to demonstrate the veracity of their assertion.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Bill Clinton feared the open internet in 1995
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news
> would be consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared
> that the Internet was allowing average citizens, especially conservatives,
> to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information that had
> previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
Hillary Clinton whining about an internet "Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function"
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
Apparently CNN (Clinton News Network) wasn't winning the battle for hearts and minds, so the Democrats wanted to destroy Breitbart website... Hillary Campaign Vows To Destroy Opposition Website
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Are we also going to get 'beheading' button next to 'like'?
It's all about perspective
https://youtu.be/HrN-GPYIcbQ
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
I'm willing to bet you are neither.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Well looking at these facts I see a bunch of claims by Trump that could or could not be tree. Then I see a bunch of claims by the Washington post that say these claim's by Trump are not true. What I don't see is evidence from the Washington Post that can be used to check their facts. So, what we have here is a bunch of unverified claims by the Great Orange being counter claimed by a bunch of unverifiable claims by a failing media rag.
This put the counter claims by the Washington Post exactly in the same frame as those they are saying are false. In other words not worth the web page they are printed on.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
And therefore you know why they have selected it?
This is just another 'cut off the funding to anyone who we dont agree with/like/feel share our morality/spoke against us/etc..'
Kind of like the Obama driven banking attack on the 'immorals' isnt it.
Totalitarianist regimes likes to paint their power grabs as 'morality' and 'fairness', oldest play in the book.
The Stalinists did it, the Maoists did it, the Nazis did it.. I have little doubt that the Romans, Greeks, etc etc did it also.
I would be surprised in good old Ghengis didnt play that game also.
You make a good point. God forgetting to put "Thou shalt not fuck children" explains the Catholic Church pretty well.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
And this is bad... how? Leftists are de-facto winners in the new economy.
Don't worry, just give Trump some time.
Tell me more about the tattoos I don't have.
Norwegian here. In our country, even our most right-wing party (FRP) would be classified as way to the left of the Democratic party. Note that what we call "centrist parties" are those that more or less want to continue the system we've had since the 70s, which is quite socialist (~35% income tax, only public schools and universities, only public health care, public pensions fond, and state monopolies controlling eg. liquor stores, train transport, oil, and postal services). What we call left-wing parties (RÃdt) explicitly declare themselves as communist, and wish to increase towards 50% income taxation to increase the redistribution of wealth, increase state student loans to about 14,000â/year, and so on. So yeah. The entire American political spectrum is to the right of all major Norwegian parties, and I imagine it to be similar in much of the rest of Europe.
A man that started a world war that killed over 50 million people.
Hitler became Chancellor 6 years before he started a war. Given Trump's foreign diplomacy skills he may well outdo him.
Can we please just change model away from the "political spectrum". Otherwise it just becomes a game of everyone calling all right-wings Hitler and all left-wings Stalin. Let's make it a political forest where we have a bunch of political trees such as conservatives, liberals, libertarians, progressive conservatives, etc. That are all able to have their own political stance without this game of strawman shovong eachother into political stances that nether side actually believes. Oh, on a side note this site is called slashdot. It's a site about technology.
Or if you call anyone that doesn't agree with you a nazi, fascist, racist, biggot, sexist, etc in order to justify silencing, assaulting, hating, belittling, etc. That's the point the Left is right now. There's kids going out saying they want to punch nazis and that seems to be anyone that doesn't hold a Progressive point of view. The media is complicit in this in that they're getting ratings reporting on the skirmishes. That same media that also admitted to colluding with Hillary against Bernie.
Ah. I made typos. *The model*, *shoving*. I really wish slashdot gave us a way to edit typos. Just give us a 2 minute window or something. It's way too easy to typo on mobile especially when the input field shows 5 lines of text.
ASsociated press and Snopes leftists?
Boy what a bubble you must live in
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Based on their existence, I have to assume the religious rules were necessary at the time. People are entirely capable of being moral on the own, but even in current society religion is needed to keep some people in line. Whether it be for the instilled morals, or for the feeling that life and what you do with it matters.
The difference between CNN and fake news is that CNN publishes retractions and corrections.
Fake news isn't about bias, it's about fabricating stories entirely with the intent to mislead and continuing those lies even after they have been exposed. Just being less than perfect doesn't count, and if you think it does then literally all news is fake.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The problem is, all the sources of news are so skewed in one way or another that people don't know who to trust anymore.
That's not true. For example, the BBC goes to great lengths to present both sides of an argument. In fact the BBC has been criticised for it, because some people feel that they give fringe views only held by a small number of people too much weight in comparison to more mainstream ones.
No news outlet is going to track down every random conspiracy theory just to get "all sides", but there are some who so present a mostly unbiased description of events and the opinions of those involved.
I don't want to go too far in defending them because I have on occasion sent them corrections myself (and they acted on them), but this idea that there are no reliable sources any more is just dangerous post-truth hand-wringing.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well looking at these facts I see a bunch of claims by Trump that could or could not be tree.
Care to name a specific one?
What I don't see is evidence from the Washington Post that can be used to check their facts.
You have to check their back-issues. As handy as it would be if they provided links, Trump lies so much that it's difficult to keep up and keep all the evidence organized. That's why I'm asking you for a specific example, so that there is a manageable number to fact-check.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You know, you fools that keep comparing Trump to Hitler or the "right" to nazi's have no fucking clue what the hell you are are talking about.
No. Listen carefully.
We are not comparing Trump to Hitler, we are pointing out that there are literal, actual Nazis involved in his administration and in his electoral campaign. And many others who are not literal Nazis, but have supported Nazis or nationalists, or are nationalists, or are just generally awful people.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
We are not comparing Trump to Hitler, we are pointing out that there are literal, actual Nazis involved in his administration and in his electoral campaign. And many others who are not literal Nazis, but have supported Nazis or nationalists, or are nationalists, or are just generally awful people.
You mean, the same Trump whose first foreign visit was to Israel, and whose daughter is Jewish, is a Nazi sympathiser? While your side keeps shouting praise of a vile theo-political ideology who literally (in the real sense of this word) tend to have "death to Jews" on their flags?
You're like Putin whose propaganda went all out towards equating Ukraine with Pravyi Sektor when it had 1 parliament member. Of the two sides of American politics, it's the left whose mainstream politicians give support to a violent "kill those who have a different skin color than us" terrorist hate group: Sanders gave BLM a wholehearted support while Clinton was at least somewhat in favour of it. I don't see Trump praising the alt-right.
Thus, of the two violent red-white-and-black flag raising, raised-hand gesture, racist groups, the left are worse (in the US).
Things are different for example in Poland or Turkey, but Facebook has nowhere as much influence here.
And globally, Hitler killed "only" 21 millions, while communists clock around 180M (totalling Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc). Weighting religious wars upon how much they were religious and how much secular, I'd give Christianity 100M and Islam around 75M (vast majority of it in India). So yeah, even literal Nazis (not to be confused with alt-right who are racist but mostly not nationalist and almost never socialist) were nowhere as bad as your heroes. (Preempting your likely answer, no, killing 21M folks doesn't make you good.)
So sorry but I refuse to discriminate between "hate those with a different skin color, shape of genitals we dislike, etc" groups -- they all are a plague that humanity suffers from.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
So in your head antifa are fascist? Wut?
You mean, the same Trump whose first foreign visit was to Israel, and whose daughter is Jewish, is a Nazi sympathiser?
Symapthiser isn't the word I'd use. But he associated with them and fails to condemn them when given the opportunity, because he knows that distancing himself from them would damage his base. A lot of his support comes from the far right.
He's a businessman. He doesn't care who they are, he cares about winning. If their goals align with his, that's all he cares about.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Stop with that conspiracy nonsense and US partisan bullshit, please! Nature doesn't give a shit about politics, facts can be checked regardless of anyone's political affiliation. There's one reality and it doesn't care for which party you vote.
Do we have to wait for the chimney's to smoke?
Not calling out a fascist racist leader, when you need to, is like a reverse Godwin.
A silently released "woopsy so sad too bad" blurb well after the damage has been done isn't a meaningful retraction or correction, it's a joke at best. Just look at how many people STILL vehemently insist on prosecuting the UVA rape that never was. Or even better look at the AP's institutionalized bias against Israel in all its reporting, as revealed by its own former reporters such as Matti Friedman.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Symapthiser isn't the word I'd use. But he associated with them and fails to condemn them when given the opportunity, because he knows that distancing himself from them would damage his base.
You mean, like this?
Even if he didn't, I'd blame your Dear Leader for this only once I hear Hillary and Bernie condemning BLM. To the contrary, they keep singing praise.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Of course you are. And then when confronted with jews and women and minorities in real life where you can't simply pretend they're not the very people you claim to represent you simply dump jars of piss on their heads or violently attack them.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
The irony is that the people calling trump and everyone to the right of the khmer rouge a nazi are the ones who actually commit real world violence against jews and marched by the millions behind a convicted jew-killing terrorist.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
The thing with comparisons is they are comparisons, not direct equations. When someone points out the language and approach of someone is similar to those used by someone else, they are not saying these people are exactly the same in every way. By your logic it's impossible to draw attention to fascistic bent because until they are actually self-proclaimed fascists with their own flag and identity, you will dismiss any and all criticisms.
A couple of days ago on Twitter I was informed in all seriousness by some Trump supporter in Louisiana that David Cameron and Theresa May are 'more socialist than they should be' and that some of their policies are 'communist'.
Unfortunately, even if the rest of what he says appears rather unhinged, it doesn't look like a parody account.
He only criticised the Nazis when he was forced to do so by the people around him. He's also bent over backward to not put off far-right supporters. He had actual white supremacists as advisers. If he's not a supporter of theirs, he's doing his best impression of them.
And you can keep your whataboutism - we're discussing Trump here, not whatever phantoms you wish to deflect criticism of "your guy".
You know, you fools that keep comparing Trump to Hitler or the "right" to nazi's have no fucking clue what the hell you are are talking about.
Yep, the Trump-Hitler analogy is right off.
There's no way Trump is capable of writing a book.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Nonsense. People break religious rules all the time, the rules aren't keeping them in line.
Religious prescription against murder, rape, incest, etc are because societies recognise those things as undesirable, so any religion claiming moral authority reflects that societal opinion to avoid the inherent credibility hit.
Hence ISIS with their murderous ways being rejected by other muslims. Whether Islam is made up bullshit or not, the ISIS interpretation of it failed to garner widespread support.
Religion as a whole is a population control tool, but human societies tend towards moral codes anyway and religion in no way keeps anybody 'in line'. If anything, quite the opposite - or should I cite ISIS again?
Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists, it'd be easy for them to decree something as non-fact.
It seems that many people on Slashdot have been afflicted with outrage blindness when they read something upsetting because they never seem to read the part that would otherwise defuse their outrage.
These aren't supposed to be stories that are disputed for reasons of opinion or partisanship, but rather outright hoaxes and lies.
Most people don't have an issue with that. The problem is with extremist philosophies that require their outright lies and hoaxes to be perpetuated in order to gain momentum (Ironically, see Hitler's "Big Lie"). So when a large organisation is willing to point out when people are being lied to, it upsets the organisations that depend on spreading lies to remain relevant.
The alt-right are getting their panties in a bunch because social media has become the place where they spread their lies and propaganda, and it's been quite effective for them in garnering support. If ordinary people are informed that their posts are lies, that will relegate them back to obscurity. So of course they're going to oppose that with every weapon in their arsenal, which of course does not anything remotely factual. Like all extremists, they fear irrelevance.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
And you can keep your whataboutism - we're discussing Trump here, not whatever phantoms you wish to deflect criticism of "your guy".
How exactly is Trump "my guy"? For starters, the last time I checked, I'm not in America. Nor am I a right-winger in any way. I'm just responding to AmiMoJo, pointing out which side of the American fence is more similar to the Nazis. At this point, what you guys are doing is not just pot calling the kettle black, it's pot calling a slightly dirty refrigerator black.
My family had some unpleasantries with actual Nazis. My paternal grandma was raised in a family with 8 kids, 6 of which (adult at the time) got killed by Germans in the Warsaw Uprising, so was her first husband -- two weeks after they got married.
But I'm also not forgetting that the Uprising started when the Russian army was coming and already had footholds not just in the city but even on the other side of Vistula river. Then they backpedaled and waited several months for the Germans to squash the Uprising, all while not only denying the Americans/British/Poles-in-UK any opportunity to supply the Uprising but even actively shooting at American planes who tried to help anyway. Thus, while my grandma's siblings were directly killed by Germans, I blame the Ruskies more for their deaths. It is still possible to die in a winning battle but that's a calculated risk, not assuming someone might be so vile to sabotage their own war effort for a minor propaganda gain ("we relieved Warsaw" vs "we 'liberated' Warsaw").
And what riles me the most is that history books still call Russians "allies". "Allies" who started the war as enemies, were enemies the day after the war ended, and shot at your planes midway in the war. So please stop ignoring all wrongness done by those you consider "your side".
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Which is what? I can look at the policies favoured by US politicians or politically visible people and pretty much everything save for a very small percentage of individuals is either the politics of our mainstream right-wing party (which currently has ~13% voter support) or politics to the right of it. On the long-term average, ~20% voters vote straight Marxist, either for the Communist (in name) party or for the other almost-Communist (in spirit) party. In other words, the individual loonies dismissed in the US have parliament seats here, and not exactly few of them. Hell, even our 13%-ish right-winger party might be labeled as socialists by Republicans.
Ezekiel 23:20
One might argue that Stalinists persecuting the descendants of kulaks doesn't exactly sound like "equality from birth" either.
Ezekiel 23:20
I agree with you.
Sadly that liberal reality isn't being reflected in much of the media, or indeed in the censorship policies and actions of major social media corporations.
A lot of people still insist the moon landing was fake. Do you want to be in charge of converting the non-believers? I prefer to deal with reality, where it is easier to admit that forcing people to believe anything, including basic fact, is sometimes impossible.
When you have 24 hours of fake news from CNN followed by a 2 minute "we were wrong but only because the president is so terrible it was easy for us to make that mistake", that is far more damaging than a "far-right" site that has no credibility pushing fake news.
The day that CNN publishes their retractions for the same amount of time that they published the fake news without using the apology as another chance to throw digs at the president will be the day their reputation goes a little up.
Hell, the way they phrase their banner shows their hate "Trump holds economic news conference while Houston floods."
CNN plays all day at my work. Just when I think I'm losing support of Trump, I'll end up in the cafeteria and see those banners and remember that there is an enormous propaganda compain trying to make me feel that way. I really didn't think the press could treat someone worse than Bush Jr (who I am sick of and wish would disappear - him coming out against Trump doesn't make his haters like him and it makes his supporters regret him)
Using Snopes as a fact checker is literally like asking a few random people on the Internet to google stuff for you.
Literally, it's a small staff with well established biases (note: we all have biases, they aren't special or especially bad in this regard), and are hardly authoritative on any subject at all.
Their "refutation" of Pizzagate was literally citing a Washington Post article (who Podesta writes and consults for, among other things) which declared it an unfounded conspiracy theory without looking at any of the underlying data or points, some of which were pretty well documented (for example, Hillary interceding with Haiti to get Laura Silsby freed - who was allegedly involved with child trafficking there, or the Podesta's brothers bizarre art collection depicting murder and child torture, or Bill and Hillary Clinton's many trips on the Lolita Express to Epstein's private island). This is simply a type of normalcy bias. There's some really shady stuff associated with the Podesta brothers and the Clinton circle. It wasn't all fake news.
I agree that retractions should be better publicised. In some countries they are legally required to be as prominent as the original claim, e.g. a front page story results in a front page retraction in similar position, font size etc.
However, the point still stands. CNN does at least admit to their mistakes. And bias isn't fake news, it's bias, a different problem. We are talking about things that are factually untrue or at least extremely, deliberately misleading.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Hitler didn't campaign on a promise to murder Jews and he didn't say he would start a world war. His appealed to populism on the right to get elected. And things ended up quite badly. There are enough parallels between the current administration and what happened in Germany that one would be foolish not to be concerned.
Since the people vetting the ads are almost all leftists
This article isn't about anyone vetting any ads. You're about as well informed as I'd expect.
Snopes have credibility, you don't.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
News sources are not "so skewed." Many of them have their biases. And for daily news they also have a limited amount of time and column space. If you want deeper news analysis, look to weekly news magazines like The Economist and The Atlantic. They are usually very well balanced presenting the nuances of viewpoint. They are also written to a higher reading level. The Economist is conservative (although maybe liberal by US standards) and The Atlantic liberal but both really go into great depth in their examination. If you have to put out a story the next morning, you can't do this and so you should understand the difference between news and analysis.
"Nazis are left wing" - This dumbass.
Before you spout 'national socialist' let me just refer you to China, NK, etc. "Socialist" a fucking fig leaf for tyranny there just as it was in the 3rd Reich.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Yeah, Snopes has shown itself to be incredibly biased, and openly supported Hillary Clinton. AP might have a little bit more journalistic integrity (that was a thing in the 20th century), but it's pretty clear that the goal of this is to return to the leftist media status quo that dominated for so long.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Well, yes: that's the ideology of national socialists, and American progressives.
The right wing consists of theocrats, monarchists, libertarians, and free market types, and those ideologies generally don't advocated killing or subjugating anybody because of their ancestry or discriminating based on race or ancestry.
Hitler gassed 6 million people. Counting the Taco Bell incident, Trump's only gassed a couple dozen at most.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Well, since you don't say what country you're from, that's kind of hard to disprove. I mean, you could be from Marxist F*ckistan.
What you say is, however, wrong when talking about major European democracies like the UK or Germany: those are generally more conservative than the US.
The "political spectrum" is a consequence of U.S. politics. Because they use voting systems that favour a two-party state, there's little use for the political compass in the U.S. Everything is ultimately for or against one of the two parties.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
If you're making claims, you should point to the sources of the claims, and those sources should be verifiable.
"Unnamed sources withing the Trump Administration" is not a valid attribution. Such as proven with the Comey Testimony before congress, where the "unnamed source" was flat out wrong. But since we don't know who that was, we can't discount that source as being bad source.
I realize that the News Media wants people on the inside, and don't want to reveal their sources, but that kind of crap is not reliable source material.
On the other hand, you have Wikileaks, which has a 100% proven record, saying it wasn't the Russians or any state actor who got them the DNC documentation. Yet that is not a "valid source" because it wasn't the WAPO, NYT, CNN or MSNBC, who all relied on "Unnamed sources" inside the intelligence community.
So, by "Fake News" which fake news are you going to go with? The Russians Hacking the Election was "fake news" for well over a year, and there is even a special prosecutor tied to it. Meanwhile, the DNC actually hacked an election, got caught colluding with foreign governments and yet that was never really reported.
There is plenty of fake news, both by Trump and the Democrats/media complex. If we ignore the fake news being spread by our side, we're nothing but a hypocrites. Fake news works, because it is easier to spread a lie than it is to counter with actual verified information.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
We are not comparing Trump to Hitler, we are pointing out that there are literal, actual Nazis involved in his administration and in his electoral campaign. And many others who are not literal Nazis, but have supported Nazis or nationalists, or are nationalists, or are just generally awful people.
You mean, the same Trump whose first foreign visit was to Israel, and whose daughter is Jewish, is a Nazi sympathiser? While your side keeps shouting praise of a vile theo-political ideology who literally (in the real sense of this word) tend to have "death to Jews" on their flags?
Did you not hear the chant of "Jews will not replace us" at the Unite the Right rally? Did you not hear Trump call those demonstrators "very fine people"? In case you want to see some cold, hard evidence of the KKK and neonazis at this rally, here you go: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictur....
Your failed attempt at a rebuttal is nothing more than a sampler pack of logical fallacies. False equivalence: Muslims/BLM are not Nazis. Hasty generalization: All Muslims are not anti-Semitic, just as all Christians are not anti-Semitic. Association fallacy: Just because Trump's daughter is Jewish doesn't mean he isn't defending Nazis. Red herring: This question isn't about BLM, it's about whether Trump defended Nazis. And just plain wrongness - Trump going to Israel has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he is defending Nazis.
My challenge to you: see if you can defend Trump without resorting to a fallacy, diversion, or outright lie. I'll bet that you can't, because if you're being honest, he's simply indefensible.
How about Sonia K.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/19/opinions/holocaust-survivor-trump-charlottesville-sonia-k-opinion/index.html
Or, MIchael Bornstein
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/holocaust-survivor-charlottesville-white-supremacists-are-finding-another-voice-n792461
Or, Alfred Munzer
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/dc/dc-holocaust-survivor-responds-to-trumps-remarks-on-charlottesville/464692365
Or, Jack Rosenthal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/this-holocaust-survivor-noticed-a-detail-in-charlottesville-you-might-have-missed_us_59a09bf8e4b05710aa5c3feb
Or, Erika Gold
http://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/holocaust-survivor-responds-to-president-trumps-nazi-comments
Long live the Speaker Bracelet
Rolo D. Monkey
This seems like a very nice approach. Nobody's being censored this way, and making BS less profitable will certainly reduce the amount of it being made.
You do understand that there's no coherent, organized group called "leftists", right? This isn't self-dealing in the way that you state.
"literal-Nazi" is a common phrase today, though I don't think people know what it really means..
Not even the people he was condemning believed it was a honest statement. That's one of the problems with President Lies-a-lot Trump, he lies so frequently and about so many things, big and small, that only his most ardent die-hard supporters believe anything he says until he backs it up with actual action.
Trump condemns the groups so that people like you will have something to believe in. The real Trump is the "violence on many sides" Trump, who tried to turn a murder by a white supremacist into victim blaming.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Well, whatever that was, it didn't last long.
Have gnu, will travel.
Is it ok to compare someone to Hitler if some of tehir supporters dress like Nazis, yell "Heil Hitler!", and claim that their new glorious leader will purge the country of all non-white people?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Don't be silly, you know what he meant. The hilarity is he is correct....I grew up in communist state and they used to scream 'fascist, nazi' against all 'enemies of the people'. It is absolutely the worst offence imaginable. /. than old time Russia. And if I look at a more mundane site e.g. YouTube the situation is nothing short of disastrous.
What is even more unimaginable is that western societies are having that kind of discussions ATM. You have no idea how crazy this is for people with my background...
All of this only reaffirms my conclusion that:
1. Western governments are the same self serving greedy totalitarian asses as the so-called communists
2. Western people do not have developed sence of freedom in stark contrast of their professed beliefs. You guys love 'might makes right' and you love oppresing others in your society. I see more totalitarian minded people on
Shame, shame, shame....
Bastardizations are an issue, but those issues are much more prevalent in an atheistic society (USSR, China)
Yeah, now show me how great the mentioned countries are in comparison.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Well kind of, it's too early to say he is the next Hitler, but I draw the line at suggesting comparisons are out of the question. The fact it's merely too early, something that couldn't be said of any other President in living memory, rather than ridiculous, is by itself worrying.
When Trump decided to scapegoat immigrants and smear immigrants and Muslims, and when he endorsed violence against protestors, and when he did all of this while apparently embracing the idea of imprisoning his political rival, it was raising enough red flags for any comparisons with Hitler to be forgivable. He certainly has gone out of his way to look like a fascist. The question, still unanswered, is how far he'll go.
I know you're getting push back on the comparisons and it's important to seem "reasonable", but you can do that without suggesting Trump isn't a long way down a dark and frightening road, and that we shouldn't fear that or raise comparisons with others who have been on that road.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You see that is generally how fact checking works, it isn't purely an opinion, it is an opinion based on cited sources.
Except that when a west-cost employee of a large Silicone Valley company, where the corporate culture is actively very left-leaning in its politics and where employees who question the bubble-like ideological echo chamber are fired, is in charge of scoring your social media post as Fake News, and YOU DON'T KNOW WHY, it's not based on cited sources. But you're just as disappeared, while those supporting the opposite position are rewarded with more visibility. We're not talking about fact checking, we're talking about supporting an editorial position in favor of certain politics, and doing so according to rules supported by company bosses who wear their left-leaning politics on their sleeves. You know this, we all know this. SJW cubicle dwellers are going to be deciding what is, and what is not fake-enough news to qualify as deserving a ban.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There are certainly some similarities, but what I mean is no-one is saying that is as bad as Hitler was right now. He's bad, just not that bad. Yet.
Hopefully it won't get much worse.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'm no Trump defender, but as far as we know, he hasn't gassed anybody. And that would be front page everywhere if he had. The concern with a character like Trump is that his whole brand is about doing shocking things that are out of bounds of historically acceptable behavior. However once the novelty wears off, in order to maintain, more and more ridiculous things will have to happen. Nobody knows where this leads. As much as I dislike Trump, I really don't think it will be him that engages in genocide but we are paving the road to bad things and that's scary.
I love how the people who want to be labeled "right" or "left" are now straining to imply that their websites are moderated better (or is it worse?) than the other side's! This is fucking awesome! You don't even need to mention politics anymore; just point out the people with the green or purple bandanas aren't as good at selling ads or soliticiting user-generated content as the people with the purple or green bandanas. Say it a certain way, and you're right-wing. Say it a different way, and you're left-wing.
America finally left politics behind, but we kept the trademarks since they still had commercial entertainment value.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
And at very least, CNN does not continue to repeat their mistaken stories as though they'd never been found to be false.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Galileo in his day would have been deemed fake news because people believed the stars revolved around the earth. Will Facebook remove fake news posts that have no scientific basis, such as those that say childhood vaccines cause autism, organic foods are healthier than non-organic and GMO foods are dangerous and unhealthy? What about misleading and fake new posts comparing solar cell or wind turbine power capacity to fossil fuel and nuclear power plant capacity? Solar and wind can produce power only a few hours a day due to their need for strong sunlight and wind. They produce a third or less of their rated capacity, while fossil and nuclear fuel plants can run 24 hours a day and get very close to their stated power production capacity. If you are an atheist, an article about a miracle is fake news. If you are religious, an article that wonderful things happen by chance is fake news. Fake news is a mantra that really means my candidate did not get elected because unflattering things were said about my candidate by the opponent and that affected the election.
Let me restate that. There are no American news outlets that don't suck. The Beeb is usually pretty good, but it tends to cover British politics, which most of us Yanks don't care about, rather than U.S. politics, which we do.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
No sane person should accept Facebook's highly-questionable judgment about what constitutes "fake news". Zuckerberg has is own axes to grind, and he's trying to put his entire FOOT on the scale, not just his thumb.
It's not just the bias, and it isn't the lack of publishing the analysis. It's the lack of actually doing the analysis and fact checking. It's the interviews where the interviewees say things that require a complete lack of understanding of the facts of the issue they're talking about, and then the interviewers don't appear to even know enough about the issues to point out how utterly absurd the things they're saying are.
It's really bad when some of the most respected names in journalism here are comedians. They seem to be the only journalists with enough ability to think on their feet to ask the tough questions.
I'm not sure if the problem is that the journalists are clueless, that they don't take time to prepare, or that they fear not getting people to agree to interviews if they point out when the interviewees are outright lying, but the result is that so much of American journalism completely fails to be much more than a bullhorn for bulls**t artists. That's not journalism; that's being a PR mouthpiece. There's a difference.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Yes, but then I hear CNN saying that there is a constitutional crisis in the country because the President pardoned Sheriff Arapio. The hysteria of proclaiming that the President is causing a constitutional crisis by using one of the powers granted to the President by the Constitution leaves me wondering if the President is really all that bad, or if it is just media hysteria.
Some jerks organize to protest the removal of a statue. Some more jerks come out to throw rocks, urine and feces at them. Things escalate to violence, to the point someone dies. The President says there is enough blame to go around. Immediately, the media goes into a frenzy as if the apocalypse has arrived. Then I wonder if the President is all that bad, or if it is media hysteria.
So, yes. I wonder just how bad Trump is. But, then I have to wonder how bad he may not be.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The U.S. government is run by moderates on behalf of the feudal elite who, being at least somewhat smarter than you, masquerade as whatever the fuck they need to
Well, elections have consequences and he has a pen. So, there.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I think you must be from a different part of the country and just misunderstood the President. To be clear "he was a disgrace to himself, his family, and his country" is considered a STRONG condemnation in most parts of the US.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Hitler gassed 6 million people. Counting the Taco Bell incident, Trump's only gassed a couple dozen at most.
Actually, Hitler gassed or otherwise murdered 6 million Jews. Conservative estimate that Hitler also murdered at least as many homosexuals, gypsies, and those he considered "defective" in some manner. This is why I quote the 12 million number, instead of the 6 million.
This is what sets me off when people compare anyone to Hitler. They really don't know what kind of monster he was. That is why everyone needs to sit down and talk to a survivor of the camps while they are still around.
Godwin's law clearly applies here. Once you compare Trump to Hitler and his government to the Nazi's, you have lost. Your argument is over.
Hitler was a horror that left a stain on history forever. Trump is nothing more than a four year inconvenience. Time to put them in perspective.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Where's the proof? Many of Wikileaks' announcements are from a guy who fled Sweden and then holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid facing a criminal charge, then lied about it and feigned fear of the US. I don't consider him a reliable source.
Which election would that be? The nominating process was not neutral, but why should it be? That's how you get candidates like Trump.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Logical fallacies:
Hasty generalization: Some people chanting that they won't be replaced, is not all people chanting.
Hasty generalization: Just because some of the people were bad does not mean they all were. You claim to know the marcher's motives. Do you know them all?
Just plain wrong: He was not defending Nazis, he was defending the right of people to speak out. They have the RIGHT, whether you agree or not.
Just plain wrong: Supporting Nazis when his daughter, a trusted supporter that he keeps close, is Jewish would be ridiculous. Flying to support Israel while being a Nazi support would be ridiculous.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Actually, Hitler was a lot more competent than Trump, and the current US is in a lot better shape to resist fascists than Weimar Germany. Too much of the US right wing is sympathetic to Nazis, but certainly not all of it.
The correct comparison is hardcore Trump supporters to Hitler supporters. They're disaffected, have an entitlement complex, are frequently racist, and generally don't give a crap about reality or other people. They're happy to listen to pleasant lies in preference to harsh truths.
Trump is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and has the nuclear launch codes. He could start a world war, and many more than 50 million people would die.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We are not comparing Trump to Hitler,
Yes, Yes you are.
it just makes the orange Hitler a lying piece of shit.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Members of the American Nazi Party? I'll call anyone who Sieg Heil's other than in parody or carries a Nazi flag a Nazi. Close enough.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
As a leftist, who knows other leftists, you're lying. There are leftists who participate in some of those activities, but considering that what leftists do is precisely like accusing the entire right wing of being Nazis and white supremacists.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I always forget how toxic the slashdot community can get.
You mean like the "Women make 75% of what men do for the same work" type bias?
Or, how about the "Blue states have higher income that red states" bias (ignoring that blue states have much higher costs of living)?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Did you actually follow Snopes during the campaign? They were calling all sorts of stories false, about both Clinton and Trump. As one who was following Snopes at the time, I never saw any declaration of support for Clinton, and hence there was no open support.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It looked to me like Sanders might qualify as a centrist in Western Europe. (I supported him, and considered his platform to be a darn good start.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Given the state of the Democrat party's election results, I'd have to agree with you about the incoherent and unorganized.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Ah, another historical illiterate who thinks Nazis were in some sense leftist. The Soviet Union would a reasonable left-wing equivalent.
Hitler talked about a thousand-year Reich. Communists talked about the withering away of the state. Hitler was nationalist. Communists were classist. Hitler cozied up to private enterprise, which Communists discouraged and often banned it (although typically not an individual working for himself or herself; the line that was not to be crossed was private citizens having employees). Hitler had race enemies, and Communists had class enemies. Hitler was supported by right-wing Germans, and Stalin wasn't popular among the Russian right wing (when it still existed).
The National Socialists did have socialists until Hitler had them murdered. If you've read Mein Kampf, you might remember his discussion of what propaganda is, and how you never change it, even when you realize some of it's wrong.
Learn something about European conservatives and Socialists sometime.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The right wing also included militarist Japan and Nazi Germany, which apparently doesn't fit into your right==good attitude.
Theocrats have always been in favor of subjugating and/or killing people because of their religion. Monarchists have always been in favor of subjugating and/or killing people because of their country. Libertarians aren't really right-wing as a class. Those in favor of free markets have tended to support subjugation and killing of people in other countries that threatened their profits.
There are very few leftists in the US who actually want to kill millions of people because of their ancestry.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Who was talking about the Democrats? And if you consider the Democratic party "leftist", then we have extremely different views of the world. I consider it centrist with a slight lean to the left.
There's a big difference between saying that there are very few (if any) sources of news that don't pick and choose facts in ways that bias public perception and saying that "there are no facts". As someone who chose communications (broadcasting) as my second major in undergrad, I lament the decline in the quality of journalism. It's really, really obvious how far things have fallen, at least from my perspective, and I thought that long before the "fake news" claims began—like a decade before, and maybe longer.
My view is that if you don't get your news from multiple sources—both left-biased and right-biased—you are likely uninformed, and even if you do, you might be uninformed. :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
How do you expect anyone to debate with you when you refuse to accept someone isn't the straw man you assumed they were?
Where did you get that quote from, it is it your original creation?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Civil rules (Hammurabi's code) are older than any known religious rules. But they don't teach you that in Sunday school.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'm with you, but with a caveat. For a lot of folks who believe as you do, getting news from "left-biased" sources means the Washington Post and New York Times, and "right-biased" sources are Breitbart and Fox News.
The problem with that is that the Washington Post and New York Times are in no way "left-biased". They are centrist and corporatist and exist only to advance the same elite interests that Breitbart and Fox News advance. So what you end up getting is a lovely survey of the Right side of the political spectrum. They run the gamut from A to B and back again, but that's it. Center-Right to Far-Right. Even though a whopping 36% of Americans polled have a positive view of Socialism (curiously, almost exactly the same as President Trump's approval numbers), socialism doesn't get into your supposed survey of "both sides".
You go anywhere in Europe or Canada, Mexico, South America, even Israel, and you'll see a much more robust debate across the entire political spectrum. But the Overton Window has shifted things so far that a plurality of Americans are left completely out of the conversation.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You shifted right, following the Red Media takeover, and in the process you and your pals allowed fact checking to become a left-wing value. That is why it now appears that newspapers are damn near communist, not because the eveyone else drifted left.
Nope. Let's go line by line.
Hasty generalization: Some people chanting that they won't be replaced, is not all people chanting.
Never said it was. That said, if you protest in lockstep with the "Jews will not replace us" crowd and the KKK, what does that make you? Conservatives regularly condemn BLM by association with hooligans and vandals at the protests, and in some cases with merit. If you are protesting on the same side as the KKK and choose not to leave, you deserve condemnation. Richard Spencer and a lot of other known white supremacists were advertised as part of the event. Anyone joining that protest is CHOOSING to associate with neonazis, so it is CORRECT to call them nazi sympathizers, at the very least.
Hasty generalization: Just because some of the people were bad does not mean they all were. You claim to know the marcher's motives. Do you know them all?
See the above. If you knowingly hang out with your buddies while they commit a crime, the law calls you culpable. Same principle applies here. Being friends with a felon doesn't make you a felon. Going along for the ride while a felony is committed, though, does make you guilty. In the same way, being associated with someone who happens to be a nazi doesn't make you a nazi. Holding a sign right next to them at a protest, though...
Just plain wrong: He was not defending Nazis, he was defending the right of people to speak out. They have the RIGHT, whether you agree or not.
This had nothing to do with free speech. It was about a false equivalence between nazis and anti-nazis. "There were fine people on both sides".
Just plain wrong: Supporting Nazis when his daughter, a trusted supporter that he keeps close, is Jewish would be ridiculous. Flying to support Israel while being a Nazi support would be ridiculous.
How so? I didn't say that Trump is a Nazi, and neither did the parent. It's an indisputable fact, however, that Trump has called them and their associates "fine people", and consistently rationalized their actions. Here's another fact - Trump IS ridiculous. He pardons Arpaio for "the ratings". He loves applause and adulation, whether it comes from nazis or not. I don't think he's actually, himself, a neonazi, because that takes a level of ideological commitment that Trump has never demonstrated. He is, however, an authoritarian demagogue who will do absolutely anything to further his own selfish ends.
Sadly that liberal reality isn't being reflected in much of the media, or indeed in the censorship policies and actions of major social media corporations.
It doesn't matter.
Reality is reality.
Those who are ignoring, bending or denying the truth are just digging their own graves and putting their reputation, jobs and even criminal responsibility on the line.
Just to be brought down by the first five-year-old who'll shout "Emperor's naked ass is showing!" as they pass by.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Not sure what you're trying to do with that bit of ignoratio elenchi.
I could give you two sources proving that, once controlled for all the various factors like exact same job, position, work experience etc. - average, spherical, women make about 5% less than average, spherical, men.
In a vacuum.
But I seriously can't be bothered to do googling for someone willing to throw around canards like that, copied from some self-serving radical loon's blog.
As for the second one... it's a whole bunch of generalizations and misconstrued ideas that it is not even wrong.
Reality has a liberal bias not because being liberal is inherently better - it's because in order to accept the truth one must dispense with sacred cows (spherical and otherwise) and other delusions based on blind faith.
I.e. Accept the change and new information as it comes along.
While authorities, a world of fixed values, idealization of the past... all the essence of conservative thought... are all nothing but long dead sacred cows, festering in the putrid juices of their own outdated data and ideas.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The original quote comes from the original post that I responded too.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
My understanding of the code is mostly limited to brief internet searches. But, based on the preface of Hammurabi's code it is backed by religion. So, wouldn't it be more accurate to say it's the oldest known set of religious rules?
Not even the people he was condemning believed it was a honest statement. That's one of the problems with President Lies-a-lot Trump, he lies so frequently and about so many things, big and small, that only his most ardent die-hard supporters believe anything he says until he backs it up with actual action. Trump condemns the groups so that people like you will have something to believe in. The real Trump is the "violence on many sides" Trump, who tried to turn a murder by a white supremacist into victim blaming.
This is why you can't debate people with Trump Derangement Syndrome. As soon as Trump is mentioned they loss all contact with reality and start frothing at the mouth, screaming, and ranting. "Trump Bad Trump BADD." All logic flies right out the window. There sense of reality is so warped they simply can't get past it. Some of these fools are even blaming the hurricane on Trump.
Here is some news from you suffering from TDS. We are going to be just fine. Here is what Trump will probably be. A mediocre one term president. That is all. We survived Bush Prime, Bush Beta, and Obama, Come 2020 we'll be doing just fine.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Except that when a west-cost employee of a large Silicone Valley company, where the corporate culture is actively very left-leaning in its politics and where employees who question the bubble-like ideological echo chamber are fired, is in charge of scoring your social media post...
So don't use that service. This is what freedom is all about....
The problem with those so-called Atheistic States is the despotic authoritarian system, not the lack of religion. Look at North Korea, a modern example that you would call "atheistic", but I would counter that it is an extremely Religious society. That Religion revolves around worshiping the Kim family, and by extension the state that they established.
Kim Jong Il's birth was "heralded by a swallow, caused winter to change to spring, a star to illuminate the sky, and a double rainbow spontaneously appeared". Could have come straight out of any religious text (wasn't someone else's birth heralded by a star?). He could also control the weather with his mood, because what religion is complete without miracles?
It's identical to the "Noble" Lie: elites propagate misinformation to placates the proles, allowing them to further some agenda. The difference is the agenda, not the technique. It matters who is telling the Lie and what they believe is "Noble". When the Saudis stone a rape victim to death and only whip the rapist, they probably believe they are doing the noble thing too.
Belief without evidence and a lack of skepticism are the cause of, not the solution to, authoritarianism.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Actually, that kind of left-right division is centuries old, and based on where legislators sat. It may not have been heavily used for a while.
I'd hope that almost everyone was closer to Mussolini in many respects than Stalin, as Stalin was far worse. Mussolini is an interesting case, since he was basically a revolutionary who hated the current government of Italy (a popular opinion then), and switched from left-wing to right-wing as the right wing's chances of overthrowing the government got better. That's not what the left is doing currently.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Rubbish. Religion was removed for them to be despotic authoritarians. Read Marx for pity sake, see what happened in the founding of Mao's China, Lenin and Trotsky's Russia (and the continuation under Stalin), Pot's Cambodia, Castro's Cuba, etc.. etc.. etc.. Those are facts backed in history
You then cherry pick a specific "religion" in the DPRK to argue against the validity of actual facts and history with Judea Christian societies. I can't tell if you are really that much of an idiot, or believe your own bullshit.
Sorry, but I refuse to attempt to argue against someone who repeats the same lie and ignores facts. I gave you the ammunition you need to cure ignorance if you choose. As they say, you can lead a horse to water. Here is a hint: Listening to paid for communist speakers like Nye or Kraus does not make you smart. It makes you a moron.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It doesn't claim to 'come from god', so no.
When it was written, by men, every culture came with an associated religion. Which was on everything, like a gang tag.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I ignored the ad-hominem in your last comment, but obviously I triggered you somehow since you clearly can't help yourself.
If you're so right and backed up by facts and history as you claim, why resort to insults?
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Ultimately, there is very little difference between "God chose me to tell you what he said" and "God sent me to rule on his behalf". The rules are still backed by God.
My comment was not simply ad hominem, I pointed you to the facts. The same set of facts several times. Are you apologizing for cherry picking and arguing from ignorance? No, I thought not. It's much easier to claim "victim" instead of "sorry for being wrong and arguing my wrongness". Why resort to the same exact fallacy logic in 3 sequential posts if you are right and I am wrong?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Denial is a survival strategy.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"Bias" that results in a habitual pattern of publishing outright falsehoods or wording things in such a way as to promote false beliefs is fake news.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
According to the original use, as you say, approximately everyone today is a leftist, including Republicans, the alt-right, and libertarians. The frames of reference changed to keep the distinction useful.
Mussolini was not a socialist. Fascist Italy was definitely capitalist. I interpret his change from Socialist to Fascist as him being an opportunistic revolutionary.
Stalin's "Socialism in one country" was a strategic move. Communism called for the Revolution to spread world-wide, and the Soviets were generally pushing that all along, including when Stalin was running things. It was a matter of putting building up the Soviet Union at a higher priority than spreading the Revolution elsewhere, not giving up on the plans to take over the world. "Socialism in one country" as a replacement for world revolution would have been a major ideology change.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This is what you said originally:
This is what you are saying now:
So, you knew full well that the left-right wing distinction we are making now is completely different from the one that is "centuries old", but you misrepresented it as being "that kind of centuries-old distinction" anyway.
Now, as to "keeping the distinction useful", the new distinction was indeed useful: as I was pointing out, it was useful as a propaganda tool for socialists/communists to shed the stench of totalitarianism and mass murder that had started to cling to them starting in the 1930's. But as far as I can tell, the "new frame" you talk about really has no consistent definition. But you're welcome to try to give one.
That's incorrect: both Republicans and libertarians generally are simply "conservative": that is, we prefer less government, smaller government, and more individual responsibility, like the US used to have after emancipation and before the progressive era. That is what makes us "right wing" in the old sense. Socialists, communists, and fascists are "left wing" in the old frame because they want change towards socialist/progressive government, towards a European-style nation.
Sorry, but you're proving again how ignorant you are of history. Mussolini engaged in massive deficit spending, building public works, and building up the military. Mussolini embraced syndicalism and fascist corporatism, in which the economy was managed by "councils" consisting of workers, industry, and government representatives. Mussolini said: When brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.
I mean, how gullible do you have to be to believe that a political movement whose credo is "everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" would allow private investors to decide what the economy does?
This is why you can't debate people with Trump Derangement Syndrome. As soon as Trump is mentioned they loss all contact with reality and start frothing at the mouth, screaming, and ranting. "Trump Bad Trump BADD." All logic flies right out the window. There sense of reality is so warped they simply can't get past it. Some of these fools are even blaming the hurricane on Trump.
Here is some news from you suffering from TDS.
I see you couldn't actually disagree with anything I wrote and you didn't point out anywhere where my logic "flew out the window". The sad thing is that I'm not "frothing at the mouth", I'm an impartial observer. You, on the other hand, seem to be inventing claims, because I don't see anybody blaming Trump for the hurricane and I certainly haven't, don't and won't do so. Are you sure you're not suffering from some derangement syndrome?
We a re going to be just fine. Here is what Trump will probably be. A mediocre one term president. That is all. We survived Bush Prime, Bush Beta, and Obama, Come 2020 we'll be doing just fine.
At this point, Trump can only hope to achieve mediocrity. He's on course to be the worst president since Nixon, and it's possible he'll take Nixon's spot as the worst President since Herbert Hoover.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It has evolved. The right wing, in those days, was for conservativism, which included monarchy for the most part, since that was part of the established order. Currently, there are relatively few monarchs, and most of them have little actual power. Currently, the right wing favors democracy along with suppressing votes of "those people".
Right-wing people don't in general want small government. They want government to be less intrusive in the economy and more intrusive on individual choices. They want to spend more money on the military and the criminal justice system. Many of them want the government to enforce what their particular religion wants.
It's ironic that you would accuse the left of massive deficit spending, when at least since 1980 the right wing has been the party of deficits. Clinton very nearly balanced the budget (using smoke and mirrors, of course, but Republicans run up horrifying deficits even with that). Obama brought the deficit down by a trillion dollars. It's asinine that you would accuse the left of favoring military build-ups. It's stupid to take Mussolini at his word.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Yes indeed, and so we have established that you were lying when you claimed that today's left/right distinction was centuries old.
Your reasoning: "There is 'the left' and everybody else is an amorphous mass we leftists call 'the right', and they are all Republicans, or all neo-Nazis, or all corporatists, depending on what kind of propaganda message our tribe wants to get across."
Well, yes: he was a progressive, a socialist, and a fascist. Of course it's stupid to "take him at his word".
It isn't that I can't. It is that I'm not going too. Your illness, TDS, will not let you see anything positive at all about Trump. Trump could end world hunger, bring world peace, and solve the budget by shitting gold bricks and you would still find something to rant "Trump bad ... Trump bad" about.
Nixon got us out of Vietnam and Trump saved us from Hillary.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Devine right of kings doesn't make every rule made by the king a 'god given' rule. There is still a difference.
In other terms, the religious don't get to claim all social accomplishments from back in the bad old days when the priests could have anybody killed. Accomplishments were achieved despite the priests.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If you're making claims, you should point to the sources of the claims, and those sources should be verifiable.
You mean like this.
Trump & Billy Bush lewd conversation about women Donald Trump On Tape: I Grab Women "By The Pussy” - YouTube
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
It isn't that I can't. It is that I'm not going too.
It's quite clearly both.
Your illness, TDS, will not let you see anything positive at all about Trump. Trump could end world hunger, bring world peace, and solve the budget by shitting gold bricks and you would still find something to rant "Trump bad ... Trump bad" about.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe I'm a rational person and the bad thing that I pointed out about Trump is a valid point. However, it seems like you are having some kind of childish tantrum because I said that Trump is dishonest.
Nixon got us out of Vietnam and Trump saved us from Hillary.
Well, if that isn't damning Trump with faint praise! It occurs to me that you may have Hillary derangement syndrome, because if the best thing you can say about the president is that he didn't lose the election, you need to have much higher standards.
Fanatically anti-fanatical