Nonetheless, Youtube are censoring him. That's censorship.
How stupid would I have to be to not think that?
Censorship on a private platform is neither a right nor "he cannot speak". Otherwise you'd be forcing every website to pay the costs of displaying everyone's views.
Right. It isn't censorship. It is definitely saying that you will express nothing that we don't like or else there will be punishment. Is that a good move?
Looking at Google's and Youtube's hard veer toward intolerance, It seems like a good way to make a PR problem for themselves.
He cannot upload new videos ----> he cannot speak. Just how stupid do you have to be to deny that?
You tube is not the only place it's possible to speak. How stupid do you have to be to think that?
It certainly isn't censorship, and there are a lot more places to go. But I think that Google, and Youtube are taking a hard turn to the left. And they have every right to turn their service into extreme left wing videos only if they want to.
Do they really want to? That seems like a video service with all of the political leanings of Fox News or Breitbart, just in the opposite direction.
As an example, most if not all the MGTOW channels have been demonetized. Youtube's well within their right. Apparently they are going to make them harder to find next.
Oooookay - that's cowardly and a dick move at the same time. You can upload a video, we just want to make it as hard as possible for people to find it.
If you want to see exactly how Google wants society to be organized, you need to look into the Damore Lawsuit against them. There is extra goodies from teh email system that are entered into evidence, including urgiing personal violence against Damore, Demanding a purge of anyone who holds any opinions that do not fall in lockstep with Google's apparent mandatory thought system where you must confom completely, you must have no other opinion, or you shall be cast out, and violence against you is not a problem, and encouraged by others.
Censorship? Not at all. The sort of totalitarian frame of mind that will not allow any other opinion? It is already in the culture, they are perhaps just awaiting for the chance to enact their dogma.
Suppression has always worked - or not. But yes, if Google wants to do this, they have the right. Personally I think they have tipped their hand a little too soon.
I just joined patreon and a pledged support for a hunting channel that was repeatedly flagged by the cocking PETA fuckers and then demonetized.
Fuck them and fuck the cocksuckers at YouTube.
Very good! The problem here is who decides what is offensive?
If the answer is everyone, then everyone making that decision is going to depopulate Google to nothing very quickly.
I cannot for the life of me figure out what would make a hunting channel offensive. Not everyone is into hunting, but the answer for them is simple - Don't watch the gawdammed hunting video. Everyone has a pretty good idea what is going to happen.
Oh, but then there is that political issue. People with a philosophical problem with hunting will flag the videos without ever seeing them.
And next for everyone's entertainment, the Youtube banishment wars. As political factions find that it's fun to screw with people, we'll get something that looks like a nuclear option. While many lefties are happy to squack about the sites they hate, there is a pushback from the right. David Pakman has been defunded, and I believe the Young Turks as well. Hardly anything but left wing there.
I came up with a hypothesis, a test, and confirmed it to a fair degree. Not to certainty, but further experiments will narrow down the striking difference in search results - made all the more interesting since Google is assumed to provide more and better hits.
So after you explain just how that sounds insane we can discuss that.
Re your sig: Soo true.. once I found out who that was my political "correctness" (what I had of it, anyways) fell away.. It is those whom one may NOT publicly even mention in a bad light or suffer censorship.. I can no longer leave comments on YouTube, even using a VPN!.. well, I can LEAVE them but nobody but me ever sees them... Apparently I stepped on the wrong toes once..and I am very polite , actually.
It's such a pity, when a normal opinion is considered something too evil to be shown. Its also shortsighted.
I've always been for having everyone have their say as long as they are not promoting violence against an individual or group. One of the strange places to get some life info for me was a Robert's Rules of Order book. In the preface, the author noted that the only way a democratic society can work correctly is if the minority can "have their say". Even if on a losing position, they must have their say. He noted that bad outcomes were a tendency when the minority, especially a large minority - is not permitted to have their say. Unfortunately, way too many people think that squelching other people's opinions eliminates the opinion. It does not.
Likely. Only slightly less desirable would be people that work for Google. No, thanks. The douches there sure think highly of themselves. You know what works every time? Stop getting your news from Google, Twitter, or Facebook.
I have been noticing that Google is becoming extremely social Justice aware lately, and they are actively censoring search results no matter what your settings are. This is probably in large reaction to them becoming a feminist run organization.
I usually use DDG for searching. But there are a few times I switch over to google. I noticed that there were getting to be marked differences between the two.
So looking at the differences, I came up with a hypothesis that perhaps a person with sex negative feminism ideaolgy might have decided that there were some things that people should not be allowed to look at under any circumstances.
So I came up with a test. A test word would be used that might be something that is not abnormal, meaning something not uncommon. But also something that would not fit the present day narrative of sex negative feminists.
Okay - the rest of this experiment is of an adult nature.
The test was to use the same browser - Chrome, and perform identical search terms on both Google and DDG. In each case, Safesearch was turned off - no filtering of the results would be used. The term would be searched, and the results would be viewed by image.
The term I settled on was "Jilling", which is a slang term for female masturbation.
So I entered the term, hit search in each browser, then switched over to images. The differences were striking.
Google had something like 5 individual results, and DDG had many pages of results. There were also interesting matters outside of the scope of the investigation, in that a large number of the images came from Tumblr, which is a site largely populated by women.
So like all experiments, new questions are raised. But I am convinced that Google is actively turning sex negative feminist in ideology, and is very actively blocking anything that does not fit their narrative.
Anti-science? Remind us again how many genders there are.
There are only two. Male, and female. There are some intergender people, but if you have trouble figuring out what is what - have them drop trou, and do an inspection
Anti-knowledge?
Using nutjobs is not a very good tactic of trying to smear anyone who isn't a Republican. Both parties have nutjobs. But just so you know, here are Republicans that have been elected, therefore are supported by the mainstream Republican party. Whack-a-doodles are not in firm control of the Democrats. Let us look at a few of these people have to say: https://www.npr.org/2011/09/07...
But then, your little diversion isn't my point at all. If Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution, or Rick Santorum believes that the world was created exactly as in Genisis 1, well I could hardly give a rat's ass. If you want to believe the sun rotates around the earth, or is a burning lump of coal, or that somehow enough water rained out of the sky to cover the entire earth in 40 days from sea level to the top of Everest, (do the math on that) and that the animals in Australia swam to the middle east across the ocean to avoid drowning, well, I support that.
But making policy on all of that is demonstrably anti-science, and it is exactly mainstream Republican dogma. The outliers like John Huntsman are exactly that - the outlier- the exception that proves the rule. Meanwhile, we need to settle if Genesis 1 or 2 is the correct order of creation.
And if some left wing doofus wants to declare that there are an infinite number of genders, or that crystal harmonics rule the universe, the same holds. I am pro science, not pro policy. And right now, the team that is in power, the team that controls what happens is not.
And just as in other anti-science countries, a brain drain will occur.
It is interesting that someone labeled my post flaimebaiit. We have come to a point wheremerely expressing an opinion that does not cast a woman as a victim becomes a terrible misogynistic thing. For what it is worth, my commentary on Group identity differences between men and women comes from some rather feminist research literature, not from Brietbart or Roy Moore.
I'll let it up to the detractors to decide if they want to fight with their own people, or that their hatred of men has over-ruled their ability to reason.
Just as the incredible unemployment rate that Oblama took turned into a resurgent full employment situation the very second fearless leader took the oath, the entire boadband problem has been cured in a matter of days. Time to follow all of the republican ideas. They not only work - they work immediately, and often go back and change the past.
Further proof of God's favor is when cabana boy rand announced how a secretary was so pleased about the recent tax package, because her paycheck increased by a little over a dollar a week. Winning baby - this is it. Vote Republican and get an extra coffee at Starbucks once a month!
I think that the issue you mention is that so many women identify first as women, while most men identify as individuals.
Wow - that's an impressive bit of stereotyping and victim-blaming rolled into a single sentence.
But I'm sure you have plenty of cherry-picked anecdotes to support your position.
Actually, I am not going to do anything but ask you to explain your accusations. Explain how a bit of psychological analysis is stereotyping. Explain how this is victim blaming.
Then I'll offer a few links of the literature by professionals.
Well,
my first linux machine was called Cunilinux... running Slackware 0.9x or was it 0.8... don't remember (was mid 1993).
No idea if that is anti feminist or sexist... I liked the name.
Even if 10 or 20% of men are the culprits, I can see how that presents a significant barrier to all women wanting to enter the field. However, that's still "some men." When people claim the problem is "men," then I'd rather just tune out. The fact is, I don't behave like that, I'd speak out against that behavior if I saw it, but I just don't see it in the environments I frequent. Somehow I still get lumped in as part of the problem because I'm male. Whatever... I stopped listening when I was supposed to fix a problem I have zero control over.
I think that the issue you mention is that so many women identify first as women, while most men identify as individuals. Thia causes some problems later, when there s an assumption that men also identify as an overarching group. A female coder (see the female mentioned first?) is likely to assume that coders who happen to to be male will also identify first as their gender.
So all men have named those WiFi spots as "Feminism Sucks" or "Shut the Fuck Up"
What is unfortunate is that it is pointed out as a symbol of the Patriarchy, and "For the love of God, we must stamp this out!".
It also expresses an everyone must love me outlook.
This indicates a basic misunderstanding of human nature. Whining about it strengthens the bad behavior.
Ridiculing the bad behavior works much better. I don't know how many women were at this conference, but I would spread the word around to the ladies that they were to connect only to the "Feminism Sucks" WiFi, and leave the Shut the Fuck Up wifi to the men. Put it in a few PowerPoints, and print out some notes to sit at the tables.
Why? Because the Super Bowl is an annual symbol social-and-sports cocktail of Americana, and it's going to be on everywhere, and where is it definitely being broadcast at always? Freely over-the-air on one of the Big 3 networks as long as you have an ATSC tuner or conversion into some television in your house with a $60 quality UHF/VHF antenna that's about 2 feet high.
I know you were on a tour de force demonstrating your technical genius, but I think you forgot the big part about a station transmitting the game that you can actually receive.
With great hesitation I say this, not because there's truth to it, but because of the amount of trolling anymore: it's become almost a legitimate excuse to lambaste and start some digital pitchfork rant on Twitter, Reddit or whatever-the-fuck social medium you want to use just to have something to complain about. I'm a devoted 16-week + playoffs NFL watcher for decades and I wasn't upset. The ones who were, used the Super Bowl as a social outlet and wanted some drama-talk to carry over at the water cooler in the AM.
And on this part, you are so right that I feel badly about taking you to task on your previous paragraph
Nah, sounds like a standard SolarCity type setup. You can lease the panels for the electricity generated, but it's a 20 year lease, stiff exit clauses prior to the 20 year term, is non-transferable, and if the electricity generated does not cover the initial projections of income, the homeowner is on the hook to cover the difference.
Well then it is pretty weird. Might as well just generate it and keep it. THe selling back to the grid was always a canard in my book.
in my neck of the woods, but the contracts are just awful. They're structured so that the homeowner takes on all the risk. There's monthly lease payments for the equipment and if the value of the electricity generated doesn't cover the lease you're on the hook to pay the rest. Also if you move you have to buy out the lease or get the new homeowner to buy into it. It's a pretty crap deal all around.
I think your solar power setup is run by the Koch Brothers.
The kicker is that soon (5 years?) batteries will be cheap enough for people to go off grid altogether. And then who will pay the 75% of costs that are not related to generation?
This is going to be a real problem. I certainly plan to drop the grid at the first chance, and those who must remain on it will suffer some pretty big price hikes.
With people who build in isolated ares, we are already seeing the cost of running the grid power to their homes is more expensive than rolling their own.
This is one of the reasons the left has been pushing for mandatory (and anonymous) voting. It really is a civic duty at that point.
Ok, at this point, I have absolutely NO idea what country you are talking about....
It's just a crazy crypto-conservative for whom every possible thing is "the left".
Its the 21st century version of "Now they have allowed white people and brown people to get married, next thing we'll have dogs and cats living together in sin."
Slashdot Mirror
Nonetheless, Youtube are censoring him. That's censorship.
How stupid would I have to be to not think that?
Censorship on a private platform is neither a right nor "he cannot speak". Otherwise you'd be forcing every website to pay the costs of displaying everyone's views.
Right. It isn't censorship. It is definitely saying that you will express nothing that we don't like or else there will be punishment. Is that a good move?
Looking at Google's and Youtube's hard veer toward intolerance, It seems like a good way to make a PR problem for themselves.
He cannot upload new videos ----> he cannot speak. Just how stupid do you have to be to deny that?
You tube is not the only place it's possible to speak. How stupid do you have to be to think that?
It certainly isn't censorship, and there are a lot more places to go. But I think that Google, and Youtube are taking a hard turn to the left. And they have every right to turn their service into extreme left wing videos only if they want to.
Do they really want to? That seems like a video service with all of the political leanings of Fox News or Breitbart, just in the opposite direction.
As an example, most if not all the MGTOW channels have been demonetized. Youtube's well within their right. Apparently they are going to make them harder to find next.
Oooookay - that's cowardly and a dick move at the same time. You can upload a video, we just want to make it as hard as possible for people to find it.
If you want to see exactly how Google wants society to be organized, you need to look into the Damore Lawsuit against them. There is extra goodies from teh email system that are entered into evidence, including urgiing personal violence against Damore, Demanding a purge of anyone who holds any opinions that do not fall in lockstep with Google's apparent mandatory thought system where you must confom completely, you must have no other opinion, or you shall be cast out, and violence against you is not a problem, and encouraged by others.
Censorship? Not at all. The sort of totalitarian frame of mind that will not allow any other opinion? It is already in the culture, they are perhaps just awaiting for the chance to enact their dogma.
Suppression has always worked - or not. But yes, if Google wants to do this, they have the right. Personally I think they have tipped their hand a little too soon.
I just joined patreon and a pledged support for a hunting channel that was repeatedly flagged by the cocking PETA fuckers and then demonetized.
Fuck them and fuck the cocksuckers at YouTube.
Very good! The problem here is who decides what is offensive?
If the answer is everyone, then everyone making that decision is going to depopulate Google to nothing very quickly.
I cannot for the life of me figure out what would make a hunting channel offensive. Not everyone is into hunting, but the answer for them is simple - Don't watch the gawdammed hunting video. Everyone has a pretty good idea what is going to happen.
Oh, but then there is that political issue. People with a philosophical problem with hunting will flag the videos without ever seeing them.
And next for everyone's entertainment, the Youtube banishment wars. As political factions find that it's fun to screw with people, we'll get something that looks like a nuclear option. While many lefties are happy to squack about the sites they hate, there is a pushback from the right. David Pakman has been defunded, and I believe the Young Turks as well. Hardly anything but left wing there.
I guess they'll be saving money on servers soon.
You understand how insane you sound, right?
Elucidate, please.
I came up with a hypothesis, a test, and confirmed it to a fair degree. Not to certainty, but further experiments will narrow down the striking difference in search results - made all the more interesting since Google is assumed to provide more and better hits.
So after you explain just how that sounds insane we can discuss that.
Re your sig: Soo true.. once I found out who that was my political "correctness" (what I had of it, anyways) fell away.. It is those whom one may NOT publicly even mention in a bad light or suffer censorship.. I can no longer leave comments on YouTube, even using a VPN! .. well, I can LEAVE them but nobody but me ever sees them... Apparently I stepped on the wrong toes once..and I am very polite , actually.
It's such a pity, when a normal opinion is considered something too evil to be shown. Its also shortsighted.
I've always been for having everyone have their say as long as they are not promoting violence against an individual or group. One of the strange places to get some life info for me was a Robert's Rules of Order book. In the preface, the author noted that the only way a democratic society can work correctly is if the minority can "have their say". Even if on a losing position, they must have their say. He noted that bad outcomes were a tendency when the minority, especially a large minority - is not permitted to have their say. Unfortunately, way too many people think that squelching other people's opinions eliminates the opinion. It does not.
Likely. Only slightly less desirable would be people that work for Google. No, thanks. The douches there sure think highly of themselves. You know what works every time? Stop getting your news from Google, Twitter, or Facebook.
I have been noticing that Google is becoming extremely social Justice aware lately, and they are actively censoring search results no matter what your settings are. This is probably in large reaction to them becoming a feminist run organization.
I usually use DDG for searching. But there are a few times I switch over to google. I noticed that there were getting to be marked differences between the two.
So looking at the differences, I came up with a hypothesis that perhaps a person with sex negative feminism ideaolgy might have decided that there were some things that people should not be allowed to look at under any circumstances.
So I came up with a test. A test word would be used that might be something that is not abnormal, meaning something not uncommon. But also something that would not fit the present day narrative of sex negative feminists.
Okay - the rest of this experiment is of an adult nature.
The test was to use the same browser - Chrome, and perform identical search terms on both Google and DDG. In each case, Safesearch was turned off - no filtering of the results would be used. The term would be searched, and the results would be viewed by image.
The term I settled on was "Jilling", which is a slang term for female masturbation.
So I entered the term, hit search in each browser, then switched over to images. The differences were striking.
Google had something like 5 individual results, and DDG had many pages of results. There were also interesting matters outside of the scope of the investigation, in that a large number of the images came from Tumblr, which is a site largely populated by women.
So like all experiments, new questions are raised. But I am convinced that Google is actively turning sex negative feminist in ideology, and is very actively blocking anything that does not fit their narrative.
Learning to make a peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwich out of what is in the refrigerator: now that's hard.
It's also sexual harassment if you ask a woman to do that. http://domainincite.com/20201-...
I'm behind the trend. Mine peaked when I retired at 55.
I think you meant to say coal and Jesus.
My bad!
Anti-science? Remind us again how many genders there are.
There are only two. Male, and female. There are some intergender people, but if you have trouble figuring out what is what - have them drop trou, and do an inspection
Anti-knowledge?
Using nutjobs is not a very good tactic of trying to smear anyone who isn't a Republican. Both parties have nutjobs. But just so you know, here are Republicans that have been elected, therefore are supported by the mainstream Republican party. Whack-a-doodles are not in firm control of the Democrats. Let us look at a few of these people have to say: https://www.npr.org/2011/09/07...
But then, your little diversion isn't my point at all. If Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution, or Rick Santorum believes that the world was created exactly as in Genisis 1, well I could hardly give a rat's ass. If you want to believe the sun rotates around the earth, or is a burning lump of coal, or that somehow enough water rained out of the sky to cover the entire earth in 40 days from sea level to the top of Everest, (do the math on that) and that the animals in Australia swam to the middle east across the ocean to avoid drowning, well, I support that.
But making policy on all of that is demonstrably anti-science, and it is exactly mainstream Republican dogma. The outliers like John Huntsman are exactly that - the outlier- the exception that proves the rule. Meanwhile, we need to settle if Genesis 1 or 2 is the correct order of creation.
And if some left wing doofus wants to declare that there are an infinite number of genders, or that crystal harmonics rule the universe, the same holds. I am pro science, not pro policy. And right now, the team that is in power, the team that controls what happens is not. And just as in other anti-science countries, a brain drain will occur.
And vehemently anti immigrant. Hey that's all right . Money and Jesus are all we need.
I'll let it up to the detractors to decide if they want to fight with their own people, or that their hatred of men has over-ruled their ability to reason.
Further proof of God's favor is when cabana boy rand announced how a secretary was so pleased about the recent tax package, because her paycheck increased by a little over a dollar a week. Winning baby - this is it. Vote Republican and get an extra coffee at Starbucks once a month!
I think that the issue you mention is that so many women identify first as women, while most men identify as individuals. Wow - that's an impressive bit of stereotyping and victim-blaming rolled into a single sentence.
But I'm sure you have plenty of cherry-picked anecdotes to support your position.
Actually, I am not going to do anything but ask you to explain your accusations. Explain how a bit of psychological analysis is stereotyping. Explain how this is victim blaming.
Then I'll offer a few links of the literature by professionals.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o...
Shaming tactics have pretty much stopped working. Try conversation.
Well, my first linux machine was called Cunilinux ... running Slackware 0.9x or was it 0.8 ... don't remember (was mid 1993).
No idea if that is anti feminist or sexist ... I liked the name.
I like it!
Even if 10 or 20% of men are the culprits, I can see how that presents a significant barrier to all women wanting to enter the field. However, that's still "some men." When people claim the problem is "men," then I'd rather just tune out. The fact is, I don't behave like that, I'd speak out against that behavior if I saw it, but I just don't see it in the environments I frequent. Somehow I still get lumped in as part of the problem because I'm male. Whatever... I stopped listening when I was supposed to fix a problem I have zero control over.
I think that the issue you mention is that so many women identify first as women, while most men identify as individuals. Thia causes some problems later, when there s an assumption that men also identify as an overarching group. A female coder (see the female mentioned first?) is likely to assume that coders who happen to to be male will also identify first as their gender.
So all men have named those WiFi spots as "Feminism Sucks" or "Shut the Fuck Up"
What is unfortunate is that it is pointed out as a symbol of the Patriarchy, and "For the love of God, we must stamp this out!".
It also expresses an everyone must love me outlook.
This indicates a basic misunderstanding of human nature. Whining about it strengthens the bad behavior.
Ridiculing the bad behavior works much better. I don't know how many women were at this conference, but I would spread the word around to the ladies that they were to connect only to the "Feminism Sucks" WiFi, and leave the Shut the Fuck Up wifi to the men. Put it in a few PowerPoints, and print out some notes to sit at the tables.
Bullies wither when under ridicule
Just a couple days delay! I'll be in Florida starting on Thursday, and want to see this, dammit!
Why? Because the Super Bowl is an annual symbol social-and-sports cocktail of Americana, and it's going to be on everywhere, and where is it definitely being broadcast at always? Freely over-the-air on one of the Big 3 networks as long as you have an ATSC tuner or conversion into some television in your house with a $60 quality UHF/VHF antenna that's about 2 feet high.
I know you were on a tour de force demonstrating your technical genius, but I think you forgot the big part about a station transmitting the game that you can actually receive.
With great hesitation I say this, not because there's truth to it, but because of the amount of trolling anymore: it's become almost a legitimate excuse to lambaste and start some digital pitchfork rant on Twitter, Reddit or whatever-the-fuck social medium you want to use just to have something to complain about. I'm a devoted 16-week + playoffs NFL watcher for decades and I wasn't upset. The ones who were, used the Super Bowl as a social outlet and wanted some drama-talk to carry over at the water cooler in the AM.
And on this part, you are so right that I feel badly about taking you to task on your previous paragraph
the game was good this year!
It left the Patriots with a deflated feeling though.
Nah, sounds like a standard SolarCity type setup. You can lease the panels for the electricity generated, but it's a 20 year lease, stiff exit clauses prior to the 20 year term, is non-transferable, and if the electricity generated does not cover the initial projections of income, the homeowner is on the hook to cover the difference.
Well then it is pretty weird. Might as well just generate it and keep it. THe selling back to the grid was always a canard in my book.
in my neck of the woods, but the contracts are just awful. They're structured so that the homeowner takes on all the risk. There's monthly lease payments for the equipment and if the value of the electricity generated doesn't cover the lease you're on the hook to pay the rest. Also if you move you have to buy out the lease or get the new homeowner to buy into it. It's a pretty crap deal all around.
I think your solar power setup is run by the Koch Brothers.
The kicker is that soon (5 years?) batteries will be cheap enough for people to go off grid altogether. And then who will pay the 75% of costs that are not related to generation?
This is going to be a real problem. I certainly plan to drop the grid at the first chance, and those who must remain on it will suffer some pretty big price hikes.
With people who build in isolated ares, we are already seeing the cost of running the grid power to their homes is more expensive than rolling their own.
Poland?
But my Cabbages! Erm... Bitcoin
Ok, at this point, I have absolutely NO idea what country you are talking about....
It's just a crazy crypto-conservative for whom every possible thing is "the left".
Its the 21st century version of "Now they have allowed white people and brown people to get married, next thing we'll have dogs and cats living together in sin."
We've moved to a mostly cashless society and made a handful of banks the arbiters of what we're allowed to buy.
And Bitcoin is designed explicitly to prevent this kind of abuse. Of course they're afraid of it.
Shit - where am I going to buy my heroin and Eastern European sex slaves now?