Slashdot editors have shown that they are willing to take a stand in summaries but when it comes to this constant torrent of identity politics crap, they stay silent. I infer only one thing from this: Slashdot editors (at least passively) support the basic tenants of SJW movement such as world is socially constructed, or that all the differences between group representations in any section of society are and should be only explained by oppression by those holding all the power namely white heterosexual male.
This support goes on explaining the torrent of SJW approved articles as the editors are on a mission to lecture their audience about the "biases". I'm not interested it listening this. You see, this shit permeate the whole society. I get this from everywhere. I can't even watch a fucking soccer match without being reminded that I should "say no to racism". I came to slashdot mainly the get the news in fashion that is "nerdy". "Nerdy" meaning (amongst other things) "showing intellectual interest and rigor". By extension I expect it to mean that this place would be void of this intellectually dishonest lecturing about "biases". Instead it is filled with it and I really don't like reading it. So I'm leaving.
I would like to that the editors and the community for the past 15 years that I've been a reader and a commenter.
Trump announced his presidential campaign in June of 2015 and came into office with the established policy of putting American workers first. He and his team have had over a year to "craft a reasonable update to the policy".
No he didn't. He ran for the office as a total outsider. Basically whole Washington elite was against him. This means that he didn't get much or any support from them for running. He had to digure it out by himself. It is pretty obvious that he was running full time and he didn't have time for formulating policies.
I think you intuitevly know this but ignore it so that you can have some bad to say about Trump.
You know. It is only certain kind of horror movies, where old people are telling young people to leave, now!. Typically young people won't leave. Ever.
But in all seriousness, if old people are telling you that they made a huge mistake and you all should turn clock back a bit, maybe you should listen. They probably know what they are talking about.
It has already vetured to dangerous. Jordan Peterson has been recently documenting (quite visibly) how this SWJ horse ship is creeping to legistlation. Given he's "only" talking about Canada but the same thing is also happening US and especially Europe (where freedom of speech is non-existing).
First, men are masturbating to easily available Internet porn (and women also to some extend). It's hard to get hard on with a real woman when you have ejaculated to 10x more beautiful and younger girl just yesterday and you have a completely new such girl awaiting you behind a couple of clicks.
Two, women are getting fatter and fatter. Men are visual and a normal girl these days have such a fat asses that you need to look the other way to maintain an erection. Or at least I need to. I tried to have sex with these fat asses couple of a few times (they are easily available in Tinder and typically comply to having sex on first date) but now I rather blue ball my self or jack off.
Either of these problems are not discussed in polite company, so we can expect that nothing will be done about it. Men should quit porn. The urges that will kick in a couple of days will drive them to seek more human interaction. The second part is that as a society we should identify which food ingredients drive epidemic level of fatness. I think sugar is to blame as is also the food industry to some extend that is trying to make food as addictive as possible. People treat some food stuff with same behavioural patters as they would treat cocaine.
You (and many others) are assuming that border agents require that gives you full marks in university examination. More probably they are observing your general attitude and approach to the question.
Here's a better summary copy-pasted from the article as the one copy-pasted from The Guardian article is shit *.
In recent years, there has been a huge increase in the number of bots online, varying from Web crawlers for search engines, to chatbots for online customer service, spambots on social media, and content-editing bots in online collaboration communities. The online world has turned into an ecosystem of bots. However, our knowledge of how these automated agents are interacting with each other is rather poor. Bots are predictable automatons that do not have the capacity for emotions, meaning-making, creativity, and sociality and it is hence natural to expect interactions between bots to be relatively predictable and uneventful. In this article, we analyze the interactions between bots that edit articles on Wikipedia. We track the extent to which bots undid each other’s edits over the period 2001–2010, model how pairs of bots interact over time, and identify different types of interaction trajectories. We find that, although Wikipedia bots are intended to support the encyclopedia, they often undo each other’s edits and these sterile “fights” may sometimes continue for years. Unlike humans on Wikipedia, bots’ interactions tend to occur over longer periods of time and to be more reciprocated. Yet, just like humans, bots in different cultural environments may behave differently. Our research suggests that even relatively “dumb” bots may give rise to complex interactions, and this carries important implications for Artificial Intelligence research. Understanding what affects bot-bot interactions is crucial for managing social media well, providing adequate cyber-security, and designing well functioning autonomous vehicles.
* The Guardian, directly quoted in the summary is doing random edits and seems to be incapable of high-lighting the main points. Case in point. The article has the following quote:
[S]ome of the articles most contested by bots are about Pervez Musharraf (former president of Pakistan), Uzbekistan, Estonia, Belarus, Arabic language, Niels Bohr, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
While The Guardian sees it fit to shorten this to:
The scientists reveal that among the most contested articles were pages on former president of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf, the Arabic language, Niels Bohr and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Note how the order of the list stays the same and how Pervez Musharraf is explained with the same words ("former president of Pakistan"). It seems obvious that the journalist has copy-pasted the sentence and then proceeded to remove references to Uzbekistan, Estonia, and Belarus. This edit strikes me as odd. Why remove those bit while leaving the others. What's more, the article has selected the examples carefully to highlight their main point (you won't find anything resembling it from the The Guardian article):
This would suggest that a significant portion of bot-bot fighting occurs across languages rather than within. In contrast, the articles with most human-human reverts tend to concern local personalities and entities and tend to be unique for each language.
The Press is supposed to cover what the government does and what the impact of that is.
Come on. You can't seriously claim that they are doing this well at the moment. Assessing the impact requires skills in predicting the future. May I point out that you are defending an organisation that claimed that Clinton would win with 98% probability. If you fair you must admit that the general animus among the chattering class (e.g. NYT) played a role why they got it so wrong. So the animus is there and it obviously affects the quality of the reporting.
Or, when was the last time when you read an article from NYT which tried to give fair assessment of Trump's views and plans on specific topic? Keep that in mind the next time you read some hysterical BS about "muslim ban" or "russians".
Trump is definitely helping the NYT to succeed, even if that's not his intention. By singling out the NYT he's giving them a legitimacy as a voice for those that dislike Trump (which according to polls is well over half the nation).
I think he's fully aware of this effect. For example, I think some of the back-and-forth between Trump and Morning Joe was purposefully only to this effect. What I also believe is that there is a long game. Even as this gives NYT short term financial benefits, it will affect its brand in detrimental ways in long term. NYT does not want to be in the same ecological anti-Trump niche with Huffington Post and the like. It wants to be something more. It wants to be taken seriously and Trump is attacking this.
Is it though? I'm not American but share the rest of the world's fascination with the crazy shit Trump says, but I don't follow him on Twitter or read everything he says - but even/I/ know he regularly refers to the NYTimes as "the failing NYTimes".
As he's the President of the United States, whether or not he's using the 140 character limit of Twitter to say things that are trivially provably false I think is extremely important. If the NYTimes is failing then Trump is saying a true thing.
If it's not failing, then he's making a statement as if it's a fact that is at best just completely unsubstantiated, and at worst a complete lie to push some other agenda. Given his position in the world, it's important to try to establish a baseline for how useful his word is.
So far it doesn't seem to be very useful.
First you state that you don't listen to him and then you make analysis about "usefulness" of his words. Please. You are mistaken. His words are very useful. He typically communicates ethos and he seems to stay true to it. He also communicates distractions.
He's also good at branding so that is also what he does. He picks fights where he selects a singular opponent and bashes it, him or her restlessly, making a show of the fight. He's branding New York Times as "failing". And if you don't believe me it works, here we are discussing if it is true or not. This might sound like nothing but look at what is happening to CNN. Trump is fucking burying it. I don't know why he got so mad at CNN but he really made them pay the price.
This is his way of forcing the media to give him more positive bias (or less negative bias).
It is also worth pointing out that there is a personal vendetta here. For example, NYT had a front page story making fun of his hair (claiming that he wears toupee; he didn't, at least at the time, but I think he's wearing it again). The NYT piece was mean spirited and mocking in tone. I think we should expect more from NYT, which, after all, is Trump's ethos, when he talks about "failing New Your Times". So in a sense he has a point, don't you think?
Comparison between Trump and New York Times is not fair.
Trump is now in the profession of lying. He's a politician if you haven't noticed. The tendency of politicians to lie is well known. Such is life. Luckily, we have a counter balance: news media. Which brings me to point out the obvious:
New York Times is in the profession of telling the truth. That is the sole purpose of its existence. The fact that New York TImes lies (or even have a clear bias) is worse that Trump lying. He's a politician and NYT is trusted news media. You can assume Trump lies but you should also be able to assume that NYT tells the truth.
The fact that you are even comparing NYT and Trump in this regard, means that we all have already lost. NYT is not credible anymore.
Schools should teach all pupils to be able to spot fallacies, and encourage them to castigate those who use them. A world without fallacies would be a world where trump couldn't be president.
Funny thing that. This reminded me about small change that I noticed in modern school curriculum. When I was as school (in the 90's), they told me about ad hominem, etc. And of course there was probably the most widely made fallacy of appealing to authority. Now my children are in school, and appeal to authority is no more. Instead there is appeal to false authority.
We live in a age of bullshit when any specific theory is put above intellectual scrutiny and we are to take someone's word for it.
I think the headline and summary gives a wrong impression. Sure, sexual harassment is tolerated but the wider picture the writing paints is about dysfunctional organisation. Specifically:
There was the sexual harassment that gets all the discussion.
One of the other sexist aspects is the fact that she was denied a transfer. This seems to be due to the some half assed policy to increase the number of women in organisation with the net effect that her transfer was blocked because her current manager wanted/needed women in his team.
The third documented "sexist" thing is not buying leather jackets to female employees due to larger unit price. I don't think the problem here is sexual in nature. This same could have happened to fat people or any other minority group. Don't get me wrong, the company is wrong in doing this and excluding a number of people of any sort of team building exercise is really bad. Especially when it's done to save a few hundred bucks.
The main problem with the Uber organisation seem to be the utter politicisation of all aspects of management. From the description I'm willing to guess that the organisation is filled with power hungry people, who in turn hire and promote others like them. You know the type. A corporate version of these all talk, no action politicians.
Sound like high minded excuse to start use the platform for political purposes. All these words "bullying", "fake news", etc. are code words involved in liberal virtue signalling. "Fake news" is something that those evil right wingers do (especially it does not apply to New York Times, et al. or any garbage coming from BLM or other such outlets). "Bullying" is anything that makes a member of a designated minority group feel bad. Facebook is going the same way as Twitter.
Given Facebooks enormous reach, I think we can say that rarely has world placed such a huge power in the hands of one individual. We are unfortunate that the individual in case is Mark Zuckenberg, a man so insecure that he needs constantly signal his virtue. I guess it was only a matter of time until he would succumb to this. This is going to be a slippery slope and is going to get worse. As it does, it will become harder and harder to call out liberal bullshit (Trevor Martin -type of misinformation) as contradictory views to orthodoxy is hidden deeper and deeper.
People who are repelled by this (I think term "red pilled" is used) feel (with justification) that they get better information from such luminaries as infowars.com and breitbart.com. O tempora, o mores. Five years ago I didn't expect that I would seriously say that there are any sane reasons that one should pay any attention to infowars.com. (Just to make it clear: I am NOT endorsing infowars.com in any way possible. I'm just saying that due to general drop in quality in other news, it has become relatively better.)
As a side note, this trend has pushed me back to the Slashdot. It seems that, one again, this is almost the only place where even some sane voices are heard. (Ten years ago it Slashdot was for the place to be for a different reason.) Reddit has become unreadable, twitter also, now facebook, and so on. Case in point, the coverage of PewDiePie -scandal in past day was covered best here on slashdot. Decent analysis, perspective, opposing views, etc. in comments that was not available anywhere else. Thanks folks, keep it up. You might be the last best hope for humanity until news media fixes it self.
despite being orders of magnitude more honest than her opponent
I don't think this statement survives any kind of honest and serious scrutiny. Given that she really didn't give that many interviews, didn't held that many press conferences, her lies-to-statements made ratio is quite high. In fact, I have hard time of finding any serious statement she made about her past positions or those emails that wasn't a lie.
Sure, Trump lies when it suits him but to say that he lies orders of magnitudes more than Hillary Clinton just does not add up.
Given the extremely partisan nature of you comment, I will assume that you are a Democrat. (It would be fair to state such a thing aloud.) You lost the elections because you nominated one of the most corrupted career politician available to be your nominee. And why? Because it was "her turn" and because "being the first female president" trumped all other considerations.
This is bad news as these fact checkers have proven to be just as biased as any other news souce such sa MSNBC or Fox News. They are fake authorities to decide what is true and what is not. This will lead to ever more tighter group think in the left leaning segments of the society while the right leaning segments will get alienated even further by what they call "mainstream media" institutions. It only takes one false positive identification of "fake news" to discredit this as cencorship by any right leaning person. (And trust me, the bias is there, so the false positive is something that will annoy right leaning people, not left leaning.)
In short: Don't do it. Please. Instead try to work it so that people get exposed to other points of views.
Christ, you guys sound like the naive Obama supporters in 2008.
The president is not going to save you. He's not the messiah, he's not even a dictator. You're supposed to vote for the better person, the smart one, the one who knows what they're doing.
I'm the first to admit that Hilary isn't really smart enough or good enough to be a good president, but Trump isn't even close.
Donald Trump is really smart. Denying it is denying the facts. Here's Marke Halperin's analysis, which nails it: http://www.mediaite.com/online...
I decided to check this. Turns out that when Mussolini was talking about 'Draining the swamp', he meant that he wanted to... drain a swamp. Like a swamp with still water and mosquitoes. They had a problem with malaria, which was (and still is in Africa) a real killer.
It's the fat epidemic. The number of girls not having sex are over weight. Over weight girls are sexually unactractive and don't get any. That's it. Sorry about the reason being politically incorrect.
Thank you for saying it better than I personally could. It is real sad that such vast majority of people and media don't seem to have ant respect for the one thing that has made America the shining city on the hill namely democracy.
And again, I reiterate what I said earlier. Where do rights come from?
You're missing the whole point of what the founding fathers and the US constitution was attempting to create.
These inalienable rights "come from" nowhere. They exist innately and the constitution was written largely to express this, and to prevent laws from being created which would stifle or try to remove them. The social construct aspect applies insofar as to how to balance things when the desires or actions of one person impact the rights of another person.
Funny thing that the majority opinion that you are defending clearly says that these rights are social constructs and not only that but that they are found.
This ain't the US. Finland does have a justice system that deserves the name.
Money doesn't buy you a get out of jail card there.
To make this statement you would need to have intimate knowledge of both Finnish justice system and US justice system.
Your "example" about money shows that you don't have knowledge of either of them. Finland's justice system, and obviously so for those who pay any attention, is quite corruptible and incompetent. It is wasteful and inefficient. This statement is backed by the fact that I do live in Finland and I do pay attention to our legal system.
I do not know how our system compares to others. I can fully expect similar problems with other legal systems as they also are run by people.
By the way, just to make a point about you silly point about "money buying out of jail card": In Finland white collar crime usually goes unpunished. In rare cases where it is punished, the punishments are in range of "fines or 2-20 months of jail time." Compare this to Mr. Madoff rotting in jail the rest of his life or 150 year which ever is shorter.
a possible arms race that could lead to a nuclear war
Yeah. For the clarity to other readers, this statement is not supported by any logic nor by any argument. It is just that "some analysts" (i.e. probably some dude the author met in a pub) say that something could lead to "nuclear escalation". It is there to attract eye balls and clicks. Now that we have agreed that the whole talk about "nuclear war" or "nuclear escalation", we can focus on discussing this pretty cool sounding hypersonic weaponry stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for writing this. The whole "Pepe is hate symbol" got to be the fakest news of 2016.
That's it. I'm quitting slashdot.
Slashdot editors have shown that they are willing to take a stand in summaries but when it comes to this constant torrent of identity politics crap, they stay silent. I infer only one thing from this: Slashdot editors (at least passively) support the basic tenants of SJW movement such as world is socially constructed, or that all the differences between group representations in any section of society are and should be only explained by oppression by those holding all the power namely white heterosexual male.
This support goes on explaining the torrent of SJW approved articles as the editors are on a mission to lecture their audience about the "biases". I'm not interested it listening this. You see, this shit permeate the whole society. I get this from everywhere. I can't even watch a fucking soccer match without being reminded that I should "say no to racism". I came to slashdot mainly the get the news in fashion that is "nerdy". "Nerdy" meaning (amongst other things) "showing intellectual interest and rigor". By extension I expect it to mean that this place would be void of this intellectually dishonest lecturing about "biases". Instead it is filled with it and I really don't like reading it. So I'm leaving.
I would like to that the editors and the community for the past 15 years that I've been a reader and a commenter.
Trump announced his presidential campaign in June of 2015 and came into office with the established policy of putting American workers first. He and his team have had over a year to "craft a reasonable update to the policy".
No he didn't. He ran for the office as a total outsider. Basically whole Washington elite was against him. This means that he didn't get much or any support from them for running. He had to digure it out by himself. It is pretty obvious that he was running full time and he didn't have time for formulating policies.
I think you intuitevly know this but ignore it so that you can have some bad to say about Trump.
You know. It is only certain kind of horror movies, where old people are telling young people to leave, now!. Typically young people won't leave. Ever.
But in all seriousness, if old people are telling you that they made a huge mistake and you all should turn clock back a bit, maybe you should listen. They probably know what they are talking about.
It has already vetured to dangerous. Jordan Peterson has been recently documenting (quite visibly) how this SWJ horse ship is creeping to legistlation. Given he's "only" talking about Canada but the same thing is also happening US and especially Europe (where freedom of speech is non-existing).
First, men are masturbating to easily available Internet porn (and women also to some extend). It's hard to get hard on with a real woman when you have ejaculated to 10x more beautiful and younger girl just yesterday and you have a completely new such girl awaiting you behind a couple of clicks.
Two, women are getting fatter and fatter. Men are visual and a normal girl these days have such a fat asses that you need to look the other way to maintain an erection. Or at least I need to. I tried to have sex with these fat asses couple of a few times (they are easily available in Tinder and typically comply to having sex on first date) but now I rather blue ball my self or jack off.
Either of these problems are not discussed in polite company, so we can expect that nothing will be done about it. Men should quit porn. The urges that will kick in a couple of days will drive them to seek more human interaction. The second part is that as a society we should identify which food ingredients drive epidemic level of fatness. I think sugar is to blame as is also the food industry to some extend that is trying to make food as addictive as possible. People treat some food stuff with same behavioural patters as they would treat cocaine.
You (and many others) are assuming that border agents require that gives you full marks in university examination. More probably they are observing your general attitude and approach to the question.
Here's a better summary copy-pasted from the article as the one copy-pasted from The Guardian article is shit *.
* The Guardian, directly quoted in the summary is doing random edits and seems to be incapable of high-lighting the main points. Case in point. The article has the following quote:
While The Guardian sees it fit to shorten this to:
Note how the order of the list stays the same and how Pervez Musharraf is explained with the same words ("former president of Pakistan"). It seems obvious that the journalist has copy-pasted the sentence and then proceeded to remove references to Uzbekistan, Estonia, and Belarus. This edit strikes me as odd. Why remove those bit while leaving the others. What's more, the article has selected the examples carefully to highlight their main point (you won't find anything resembling it from the The Guardian article):
What's the point of these taxonomical exercises? Like, who gives a fuck?
The Press is supposed to cover what the government does and what the impact of that is.
Come on. You can't seriously claim that they are doing this well at the moment. Assessing the impact requires skills in predicting the future. May I point out that you are defending an organisation that claimed that Clinton would win with 98% probability. If you fair you must admit that the general animus among the chattering class (e.g. NYT) played a role why they got it so wrong. So the animus is there and it obviously affects the quality of the reporting.
Or, when was the last time when you read an article from NYT which tried to give fair assessment of Trump's views and plans on specific topic? Keep that in mind the next time you read some hysterical BS about "muslim ban" or "russians".
Trump is definitely helping the NYT to succeed, even if that's not his intention. By singling out the NYT he's giving them a legitimacy as a voice for those that dislike Trump (which according to polls is well over half the nation).
I think he's fully aware of this effect. For example, I think some of the back-and-forth between Trump and Morning Joe was purposefully only to this effect. What I also believe is that there is a long game. Even as this gives NYT short term financial benefits, it will affect its brand in detrimental ways in long term. NYT does not want to be in the same ecological anti-Trump niche with Huffington Post and the like. It wants to be something more. It wants to be taken seriously and Trump is attacking this.
Is it though? I'm not American but share the rest of the world's fascination with the crazy shit Trump says, but I don't follow him on Twitter or read everything he says - but even /I/ know he regularly refers to the NYTimes as "the failing NYTimes".
As he's the President of the United States, whether or not he's using the 140 character limit of Twitter to say things that are trivially provably false I think is extremely important. If the NYTimes is failing then Trump is saying a true thing.
If it's not failing, then he's making a statement as if it's a fact that is at best just completely unsubstantiated, and at worst a complete lie to push some other agenda. Given his position in the world, it's important to try to establish a baseline for how useful his word is.
So far it doesn't seem to be very useful.
First you state that you don't listen to him and then you make analysis about "usefulness" of his words. Please. You are mistaken. His words are very useful. He typically communicates ethos and he seems to stay true to it. He also communicates distractions.
He's also good at branding so that is also what he does. He picks fights where he selects a singular opponent and bashes it, him or her restlessly, making a show of the fight. He's branding New York Times as "failing". And if you don't believe me it works, here we are discussing if it is true or not. This might sound like nothing but look at what is happening to CNN. Trump is fucking burying it. I don't know why he got so mad at CNN but he really made them pay the price.
This is his way of forcing the media to give him more positive bias (or less negative bias).
It is also worth pointing out that there is a personal vendetta here. For example, NYT had a front page story making fun of his hair (claiming that he wears toupee; he didn't, at least at the time, but I think he's wearing it again). The NYT piece was mean spirited and mocking in tone. I think we should expect more from NYT, which, after all, is Trump's ethos, when he talks about "failing New Your Times". So in a sense he has a point, don't you think?
Comparison between Trump and New York Times is not fair.
Trump is now in the profession of lying. He's a politician if you haven't noticed. The tendency of politicians to lie is well known. Such is life. Luckily, we have a counter balance: news media. Which brings me to point out the obvious:
New York Times is in the profession of telling the truth. That is the sole purpose of its existence. The fact that New York TImes lies (or even have a clear bias) is worse that Trump lying. He's a politician and NYT is trusted news media. You can assume Trump lies but you should also be able to assume that NYT tells the truth.
The fact that you are even comparing NYT and Trump in this regard, means that we all have already lost. NYT is not credible anymore.
Schools should teach all pupils to be able to spot fallacies, and encourage them to castigate those who use them. A world without fallacies would be a world where trump couldn't be president.
Funny thing that. This reminded me about small change that I noticed in modern school curriculum. When I was as school (in the 90's), they told me about ad hominem, etc. And of course there was probably the most widely made fallacy of appealing to authority. Now my children are in school, and appeal to authority is no more. Instead there is appeal to false authority.
We live in a age of bullshit when any specific theory is put above intellectual scrutiny and we are to take someone's word for it.
I think the headline and summary gives a wrong impression. Sure, sexual harassment is tolerated but the wider picture the writing paints is about dysfunctional organisation. Specifically:
Sound like high minded excuse to start use the platform for political purposes. All these words "bullying", "fake news", etc. are code words involved in liberal virtue signalling. "Fake news" is something that those evil right wingers do (especially it does not apply to New York Times, et al. or any garbage coming from BLM or other such outlets). "Bullying" is anything that makes a member of a designated minority group feel bad. Facebook is going the same way as Twitter.
Given Facebooks enormous reach, I think we can say that rarely has world placed such a huge power in the hands of one individual. We are unfortunate that the individual in case is Mark Zuckenberg, a man so insecure that he needs constantly signal his virtue. I guess it was only a matter of time until he would succumb to this. This is going to be a slippery slope and is going to get worse. As it does, it will become harder and harder to call out liberal bullshit (Trevor Martin -type of misinformation) as contradictory views to orthodoxy is hidden deeper and deeper.
People who are repelled by this (I think term "red pilled" is used) feel (with justification) that they get better information from such luminaries as infowars.com and breitbart.com. O tempora, o mores. Five years ago I didn't expect that I would seriously say that there are any sane reasons that one should pay any attention to infowars.com. (Just to make it clear: I am NOT endorsing infowars.com in any way possible. I'm just saying that due to general drop in quality in other news, it has become relatively better.)
As a side note, this trend has pushed me back to the Slashdot. It seems that, one again, this is almost the only place where even some sane voices are heard. (Ten years ago it Slashdot was for the place to be for a different reason.) Reddit has become unreadable, twitter also, now facebook, and so on. Case in point, the coverage of PewDiePie -scandal in past day was covered best here on slashdot. Decent analysis, perspective, opposing views, etc. in comments that was not available anywhere else. Thanks folks, keep it up. You might be the last best hope for humanity until news media fixes it self.
despite being orders of magnitude more honest than her opponent
I don't think this statement survives any kind of honest and serious scrutiny. Given that she really didn't give that many interviews, didn't held that many press conferences, her lies-to-statements made ratio is quite high. In fact, I have hard time of finding any serious statement she made about her past positions or those emails that wasn't a lie.
Sure, Trump lies when it suits him but to say that he lies orders of magnitudes more than Hillary Clinton just does not add up.
Given the extremely partisan nature of you comment, I will assume that you are a Democrat. (It would be fair to state such a thing aloud.) You lost the elections because you nominated one of the most corrupted career politician available to be your nominee. And why? Because it was "her turn" and because "being the first female president" trumped all other considerations.
This is bad news as these fact checkers have proven to be just as biased as any other news souce such sa MSNBC or Fox News. They are fake authorities to decide what is true and what is not. This will lead to ever more tighter group think in the left leaning segments of the society while the right leaning segments will get alienated even further by what they call "mainstream media" institutions. It only takes one false positive identification of "fake news" to discredit this as cencorship by any right leaning person. (And trust me, the bias is there, so the false positive is something that will annoy right leaning people, not left leaning.)
In short: Don't do it. Please. Instead try to work it so that people get exposed to other points of views.
Christ, you guys sound like the naive Obama supporters in 2008.
The president is not going to save you. He's not the messiah, he's not even a dictator. You're supposed to vote for the better person, the smart one, the one who knows what they're doing.
I'm the first to admit that Hilary isn't really smart enough or good enough to be a good president, but Trump isn't even close.
Donald Trump is really smart. Denying it is denying the facts. Here's Marke Halperin's analysis, which nails it: http://www.mediaite.com/online...
Do you know who came up with 'Drain the swamp'?
Mussolini.
I decided to check this. Turns out that when Mussolini was talking about 'Draining the swamp', he meant that he wanted to... drain a swamp. Like a swamp with still water and mosquitoes. They had a problem with malaria, which was (and still is in Africa) a real killer.
More information here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You need to calm down with your hyberpole about Donald Trump. He's quite a personality but a Mussolini he is not.
It's the fat epidemic. The number of girls not having sex are over weight. Over weight girls are sexually unactractive and don't get any. That's it. Sorry about the reason being politically incorrect.
Thank you for saying it better than I personally could. It is real sad that such vast majority of people and media don't seem to have ant respect for the one thing that has made America the shining city on the hill namely democracy.
And again, I reiterate what I said earlier. Where do rights come from?
You're missing the whole point of what the founding fathers and the US constitution was attempting to create.
These inalienable rights "come from" nowhere. They exist innately and the constitution was written largely to express this, and to prevent laws from being created which would stifle or try to remove them. The social construct aspect applies insofar as to how to balance things when the desires or actions of one person impact the rights of another person.
Funny thing that the majority opinion that you are defending clearly says that these rights are social constructs and not only that but that they are found.
This ain't the US. Finland does have a justice system that deserves the name.
Money doesn't buy you a get out of jail card there.
To make this statement you would need to have intimate knowledge of both Finnish justice system and US justice system.
Your "example" about money shows that you don't have knowledge of either of them. Finland's justice system, and obviously so for those who pay any attention, is quite corruptible and incompetent. It is wasteful and inefficient. This statement is backed by the fact that I do live in Finland and I do pay attention to our legal system.
I do not know how our system compares to others. I can fully expect similar problems with other legal systems as they also are run by people.
By the way, just to make a point about you silly point about "money buying out of jail card": In Finland white collar crime usually goes unpunished. In rare cases where it is punished, the punishments are in range of "fines or 2-20 months of jail time." Compare this to Mr. Madoff rotting in jail the rest of his life or 150 year which ever is shorter.
Yeah. For the clarity to other readers, this statement is not supported by any logic nor by any argument. It is just that "some analysts" (i.e. probably some dude the author met in a pub) say that something could lead to "nuclear escalation". It is there to attract eye balls and clicks. Now that we have agreed that the whole talk about "nuclear war" or "nuclear escalation", we can focus on discussing this pretty cool sounding hypersonic weaponry stuff.