If you only listen to the liberal media, you're most likely under the impression that there are no problems with Muslim immigration in Europe
That's an example of what I'm talking about.
It makes two dubious claims. Firstly that if you read "the liberal media" you would think there wasn't a problem, which supposes that the mainstream media is liberal (LOL) and that it isn't reporting these issues.
Secondly it says "problems with Muslim immigration", but has failed to establish that there is a specific problem with Muslims that is not common to any other group of people or the population in general. I recall that the same claims were made about non-Muslims from India, about people from the Caribbean, and about Jews long before Muslims became the big threat.
Things like the prison stats are not proof that there is a "Muslim problem", because they don't account for socio-economic status either. When you look at that it becomes more apparent that there is a poverty problem.
The source you found was the one I mentioned, which notes that the only official statistic is 27%, and to get to 50% you would have to assume that half of the Muslims in prison were afraid to openly celebrate Ramadan. That seems extremely unlikely if half the other inmates are also Muslim.
No, it's because China as the supply chains. A US designed GPU has to be combined with a large number of other parts to be useful, and they are all made in vast quantities in China. So either you ship them all to the US individually for assembly, or you make the GPU and assemble the card over there and ship the finished product.
Conditions in Chinese factories are actually pretty good for the most part. Demand from western manufacturers, a desire to be seen as high quality to get business from the west and the necessity of things like a clean environment and consistent quality to produce highly complex goods has improved things greatly. Of course there are still some bad ones, particularly for textiles, but the idea that it's "slave labour" that is driving China's competitiveness is a myth.
What you and others say when challenged versus how it's actually used is a whole 'nother ballgame.
Do you have an example of me using islamophobia in a way that is not consistent with the definition I gave you?
Have you backed up your claims about what the Rebel says regarding "all Muslims"?
Note that I gave an extended explanation of how, without using those specific words, they try to give that impression or consider all Muslims when producing statistics. This article is an example: https://www.therebel.media/mus...
Some of the numbers are just false, such as the bold "66% of France's prison population is Muslim" statistic. Note also how none of their numbers add up, e.g. 102% total of Syrian refugees (who are not all Muslims) and the 110% of violent criminals in The Netherlands. Those numbers are bogus anyway.
You can of course keep asking for more and more citations. You will doubtless want a reference for the 66% figure being wrong, even though you could just google it and the first result would be what you are asking for. I'm not getting into that game.
Did you cite one example of a critic of Islam that wasn't called an "Islamophobe"?
Yes, myself. Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative in any general sense. And as I also said, ignore the idiots who bandy that word around, they can't change what it really means.
As an example of this look at vacuum cleaners in Japan. People pay a lot for them, compared to Europe, but they are great. Low power, great cleaning, light weight, lots of features like dirt sensors and allergen elimination. The manufacturers competed heavily on features and made them desirable through their marketing.
In Europe the manufacturers failed to do that. Instead they took the easy option of just adding ever more pointlessly powerful motors that didn't really do anything other than waste energy and damage your hearing. So the EU stepped in with energy and performance labels, and a limit on maximum power, and vacuum cleaners got a lot better. It also helped EU manufacturers compete because they generally had better tech than the cheap import brands and were able to compete by investing in R&D.
I'm talking about how people use the word, including people like you
Despite the fact that I've just told you it does't mean that and I don't use it that way.
That you're a social "justice" idiot isn't debatable.
Okay, clearly it's not worth continuing this because no matter what I say you will just ignore it and assume I'm this imaginary SJW. Can you not see that your mind is so closed you can't even respond to what people are saying to you, only what you imagine they must think?
Already been done, but honest and accurate reports were dismissed as "parroting the establishment narrative" and more superficial ones requested to confirm existing views.
Citation very much needed. This is like saying "Christianity's stated goals", as if there is a single authority that represents all forms and all followers.
muslims immigrants almost completely fail to acclimatise into the new culture, instead creating pockets of their culture within their new country.
This is also untrue. Studies have found that they aren't any worse than other immigrants. How many cities have a Chinatown? How many parts of the US are predominantly African American or Latinx? And in America, how much of that is the immigrants not wanting to integrate and how much is the people already there not wanting them to integrate?
I'd also point out that the Muslim populations of Europe are relatively small. In the UK it was 4.4% in 2010 (last census) and about 80% of them don't attend a mosque regularly. For reference 60% of the population identifies as Christian.
I go with sources that have proven accurate in the past.
That's what I said. My whole post was about the reliability of services in the past being a useful predictor of accuracy.
For some reason you interpreted it as considering sources I disagreed with as disreputable. So, I have to ask, is that what you mean by the quoted statement? Or do you actually agree with me?
I mean the widely accepted meaning of the word in the English language. Like if you look it up in a dictionary, or what most people would understand if someone used it.
Anybody that criticizes Islam gets labeled "Islamophic"
Perhaps, but people keep telling me I'm a leftist Nazi SJW too. You can't react to them all, they are just idiots or trolls and basing your ideas on their nonsense is a bad idea. Look, I'm talking to you now, I'll happily criticise Islam for the practice of MGM and for many other things, and I'm not going to worry if some asshat uses their personal definition of islamophobia to label me.
It's not "all Muslims", it's the mass migration.
France has the largest proportion of Muslims in Europe and the most pessimistic projections suggest that it will reach a whopping 14% by 2050. At the moment only around 20% of Muslims in France claim to attend a Mosque regularly, and by 2050 that will likely decrease with time.
In order for the mass migration theory to hold, those numbers have to be obfuscated. For example, by talking abut 4 million Muslims in France, and not differentiating between them. 60% of British people identify as Christian, but the majority of British people also support same-sex marriage, gender equality and many other things that mainstream Christianity in the UK does not.
By the way, Muslims make up 4.4% of the UK population. Christians are not in any danger of being outnumbered in the next few centuries.
Because most people have to trust someone with their DNS queries, especially when on mobile networks. Given a choice of unencrypted DNS queries to your scummy mobile provider's servers or encrypted ones to Cloudflare, you are probably better off with the latter.
At least Cloudflare can't tie up the request with cell location data and sell that information to nearby businesses.
It's the lesser of two evils. If you use your ISP/mobile operator's DNS server then they have a record of every query you make, and the times you visited those sites thanks to deep packet inspection (DPI). At least this way the DNS lookups and the DPI data are kept separate and can't be trivially cross referenced.
The DPI data is getting less useful too, because due to services like Cloudflare and shared virtual servers in general it's become much harder to associate an IP address with a particular web site.
Cloudflare gets you DNS lookups and can of course correlate with accesses to their CDN from your IP address, but it's still better than your ISP having it because your ISP also has the DHCP and billing records to tie it all directly to you. Let's not pretend that most ISPs are less evil than anything Cloudflare does either.
So for most people it's an improvement, although obviously not as good as using a proper on-log VPN or Tor.
You don't have to use Cloudflare's VPN app if you don't trust it, you can just manually configure your DNS servers or use your own local VPN. DNS66 is open source and a good choice, as it also features ad blocking.
In any case, if they are leaking data back to Cloudflare somehow it would be trivial to spot and quickly get them banned from the Play Store. I'm sure someone will check.
What's wrong with being against a movement that is against you?
Nothing, but that's not what islamophobia is. We don't call opposition to aspects of the Islamic faith islamophobia, because we recognize that it's legitimate, same way as we don't call opposition to aspects of Judaism antisemitism. For example, you can be opposed to male genital mutilation without being antisemitic.
Islamophobia is a general hatred of or bias against Muslims, regardless of their individual beliefs and values. Just like how you have a range of people calling themselves Christians, some who think that homosexuality is a sin and that another crusade is a good idea, and some who are just want a Church wedding and a bit of socializing at Christmas/Easter.
Rebel Media takes the view that Muslims are "invading" the west with the goal of "Islamifying" it, and that all Muslims living in the west are a problem. That is islamophobia, a literal fear of Muslims.
Your link confirms that the video is misleading by virtue of the timing being screwed up. So even if we accept that the change was the result of the format shift (which seems unlikely because it's uneven, most of it is at the correct speed except for the moment when his arm comes down) that still leaves the fact that the result is misleading and was used to make a false allegation.
Interesting how he left out "honest," yet threw in "respected" like it's some obligation on the public.
This kind of disingenuous argument really short-circuits discussion. No reasonable person would take what he said and interpret it as honesty not mattering. What do you think rigorous and robust refer to? Rigorous examination of the facts and a robust editorial process that includes corrections.
We have all seen the video of the White House intern grabbed the mic. We have all see the doctored footage where Acosta lowering his arm was sped up to make it look like he struck her, when in fact he reacted gently to her trying to pull the mic away.
If you are still maintaining that the video was not doctored then you are lying and trying to gaslight us. You are quite simply dishonest.
Also note that the standards I laid out were not based on political tribalism either, you invented that bit yourself. Which is itself political tribalism.
On the other hand in 2009 they voted to include alternative medicine (i.e. pseudo-scientific snake oil) in the constitution. Maybe someone from Switzerland can say how much effect it has had; AIUI it was effectively nullified by the fact that politicians didn't change the rules on funding treatments to remove the "proven effective" requirement.
Direct democracy can be great, but can also result in nonsense, so it's important to have strong checks and balances. Problem is that people get very upset if they vote for something a a check or balance frustrates it, e.g. Brexit.
It's disreputable because left-leaning people say it's disreputable.
No, it's disreputable because reputable sources who have investigated formed a consensus that it's disreputable. In the face of that, you would need a pretty powerful argument to show that it wasn't the case.
You're not allowed to criticize them; they're media!
He means attacking reputable media organizations, claiming they are part of some leftist conspiracy, calling them fake news and banning their staff from the White House for trying to get answers to difficult questions.
Just calling yourself a journalist, setting up a glorified blog and publishing complete rubbish does not elevate you to the same level as an established news organization with editorial standards and a reputable history. The alt-right knows that, which is why they try to drag such organizations down to their level by denigrating them.
The issue is that the GP selected a very disreputable source for their claims. If those claims were true then it would seem wise to select a source with a good reputation and history of accurate reporting.
It's similar to how Wikipedia has banned Brietbart and the Daily Mail as sources. They could waste time evaluating every single citation, but it's easier to just ban sources with extremely poor levels of accuracy because if the story is true there will certainly be better citations available.
Thus it is worth discussing the reliability of sources, because if we see someone who relies exclusively on Rebel Media we know we should apply extra scrutiny, if not simply ignoring them. Time is limited, and citing sources like Rebel Media is worse than citing no sources at all.
I don't think people seek the truth on social media as much as get bombarded by low quality news when they go there.
Even if it's not fake news, if often contains language that subtly warps people's perception of events. The classic example is talking about "hoards" and "floods" or migrants, or describing a million bucks as a "huge amount" when it's relatively modest in context. Commonly known as weasel words.
Was it from the real Secretary of State for CA, or a fake one?
Even if the message was not controversial, by spreading messages from fake Secretaries of State it makes them look legitimate and trustworthy, so that when they start posting misinformation it's more effective.
Slashdot Mirror
If you only listen to the liberal media, you're most likely under the impression that there are no problems with Muslim immigration in Europe
That's an example of what I'm talking about.
It makes two dubious claims. Firstly that if you read "the liberal media" you would think there wasn't a problem, which supposes that the mainstream media is liberal (LOL) and that it isn't reporting these issues.
Secondly it says "problems with Muslim immigration", but has failed to establish that there is a specific problem with Muslims that is not common to any other group of people or the population in general. I recall that the same claims were made about non-Muslims from India, about people from the Caribbean, and about Jews long before Muslims became the big threat.
Things like the prison stats are not proof that there is a "Muslim problem", because they don't account for socio-economic status either. When you look at that it becomes more apparent that there is a poverty problem.
The source you found was the one I mentioned, which notes that the only official statistic is 27%, and to get to 50% you would have to assume that half of the Muslims in prison were afraid to openly celebrate Ramadan. That seems extremely unlikely if half the other inmates are also Muslim.
Ah okay, you got me. I do really want the one-legged lesbians to be in charge. It's only fair.
No, it's because China as the supply chains. A US designed GPU has to be combined with a large number of other parts to be useful, and they are all made in vast quantities in China. So either you ship them all to the US individually for assembly, or you make the GPU and assemble the card over there and ship the finished product.
Conditions in Chinese factories are actually pretty good for the most part. Demand from western manufacturers, a desire to be seen as high quality to get business from the west and the necessity of things like a clean environment and consistent quality to produce highly complex goods has improved things greatly. Of course there are still some bad ones, particularly for textiles, but the idea that it's "slave labour" that is driving China's competitiveness is a myth.
What you and others say when challenged versus how it's actually used is a whole 'nother ballgame.
Do you have an example of me using islamophobia in a way that is not consistent with the definition I gave you?
Have you backed up your claims about what the Rebel says regarding "all Muslims"?
Note that I gave an extended explanation of how, without using those specific words, they try to give that impression or consider all Muslims when producing statistics. This article is an example: https://www.therebel.media/mus...
Some of the numbers are just false, such as the bold "66% of France's prison population is Muslim" statistic. Note also how none of their numbers add up, e.g. 102% total of Syrian refugees (who are not all Muslims) and the 110% of violent criminals in The Netherlands. Those numbers are bogus anyway.
You can of course keep asking for more and more citations. You will doubtless want a reference for the 66% figure being wrong, even though you could just google it and the first result would be what you are asking for. I'm not getting into that game.
Did you cite one example of a critic of Islam that wasn't called an "Islamophobe"?
Yes, myself. Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative in any general sense. And as I also said, ignore the idiots who bandy that word around, they can't change what it really means.
As an example of this look at vacuum cleaners in Japan. People pay a lot for them, compared to Europe, but they are great. Low power, great cleaning, light weight, lots of features like dirt sensors and allergen elimination. The manufacturers competed heavily on features and made them desirable through their marketing.
In Europe the manufacturers failed to do that. Instead they took the easy option of just adding ever more pointlessly powerful motors that didn't really do anything other than waste energy and damage your hearing. So the EU stepped in with energy and performance labels, and a limit on maximum power, and vacuum cleaners got a lot better. It also helped EU manufacturers compete because they generally had better tech than the cheap import brands and were able to compete by investing in R&D.
It's not just a case of building a chip factory either, you need massive supply chains for all the other parts you need.
And that's the biggest reason why China is so cheap. It's not the labour costs, it's the supply chains and economy of scale.
I'm talking about how people use the word, including people like you
Despite the fact that I've just told you it does't mean that and I don't use it that way.
That you're a social "justice" idiot isn't debatable.
Okay, clearly it's not worth continuing this because no matter what I say you will just ignore it and assume I'm this imaginary SJW. Can you not see that your mind is so closed you can't even respond to what people are saying to you, only what you imagine they must think?
Already been done, but honest and accurate reports were dismissed as "parroting the establishment narrative" and more superficial ones requested to confirm existing views.
islam's currently stated goals
Citation very much needed. This is like saying "Christianity's stated goals", as if there is a single authority that represents all forms and all followers.
muslims immigrants almost completely fail to acclimatise into the new culture, instead creating pockets of their culture within their new country.
This is also untrue. Studies have found that they aren't any worse than other immigrants. How many cities have a Chinatown? How many parts of the US are predominantly African American or Latinx? And in America, how much of that is the immigrants not wanting to integrate and how much is the people already there not wanting them to integrate?
I'd also point out that the Muslim populations of Europe are relatively small. In the UK it was 4.4% in 2010 (last census) and about 80% of them don't attend a mosque regularly. For reference 60% of the population identifies as Christian.
I go with sources that have proven accurate in the past.
That's what I said. My whole post was about the reliability of services in the past being a useful predictor of accuracy.
For some reason you interpreted it as considering sources I disagreed with as disreputable. So, I have to ask, is that what you mean by the quoted statement? Or do you actually agree with me?
Who is "we"?
I mean the widely accepted meaning of the word in the English language. Like if you look it up in a dictionary, or what most people would understand if someone used it.
Anybody that criticizes Islam gets labeled "Islamophic"
Perhaps, but people keep telling me I'm a leftist Nazi SJW too. You can't react to them all, they are just idiots or trolls and basing your ideas on their nonsense is a bad idea. Look, I'm talking to you now, I'll happily criticise Islam for the practice of MGM and for many other things, and I'm not going to worry if some asshat uses their personal definition of islamophobia to label me.
It's not "all Muslims", it's the mass migration.
France has the largest proportion of Muslims in Europe and the most pessimistic projections suggest that it will reach a whopping 14% by 2050. At the moment only around 20% of Muslims in France claim to attend a Mosque regularly, and by 2050 that will likely decrease with time.
https://www.thelocal.fr/201712...
In order for the mass migration theory to hold, those numbers have to be obfuscated. For example, by talking abut 4 million Muslims in France, and not differentiating between them. 60% of British people identify as Christian, but the majority of British people also support same-sex marriage, gender equality and many other things that mainstream Christianity in the UK does not.
By the way, Muslims make up 4.4% of the UK population. Christians are not in any danger of being outnumbered in the next few centuries.
Because most people have to trust someone with their DNS queries, especially when on mobile networks. Given a choice of unencrypted DNS queries to your scummy mobile provider's servers or encrypted ones to Cloudflare, you are probably better off with the latter.
At least Cloudflare can't tie up the request with cell location data and sell that information to nearby businesses.
It's the lesser of two evils. If you use your ISP/mobile operator's DNS server then they have a record of every query you make, and the times you visited those sites thanks to deep packet inspection (DPI). At least this way the DNS lookups and the DPI data are kept separate and can't be trivially cross referenced.
The DPI data is getting less useful too, because due to services like Cloudflare and shared virtual servers in general it's become much harder to associate an IP address with a particular web site.
Cloudflare gets you DNS lookups and can of course correlate with accesses to their CDN from your IP address, but it's still better than your ISP having it because your ISP also has the DHCP and billing records to tie it all directly to you. Let's not pretend that most ISPs are less evil than anything Cloudflare does either.
So for most people it's an improvement, although obviously not as good as using a proper on-log VPN or Tor.
You don't have to use Cloudflare's VPN app if you don't trust it, you can just manually configure your DNS servers or use your own local VPN. DNS66 is open source and a good choice, as it also features ad blocking.
In any case, if they are leaking data back to Cloudflare somehow it would be trivial to spot and quickly get them banned from the Play Store. I'm sure someone will check.
What's wrong with being against a movement that is against you?
Nothing, but that's not what islamophobia is. We don't call opposition to aspects of the Islamic faith islamophobia, because we recognize that it's legitimate, same way as we don't call opposition to aspects of Judaism antisemitism. For example, you can be opposed to male genital mutilation without being antisemitic.
Islamophobia is a general hatred of or bias against Muslims, regardless of their individual beliefs and values. Just like how you have a range of people calling themselves Christians, some who think that homosexuality is a sin and that another crusade is a good idea, and some who are just want a Church wedding and a bit of socializing at Christmas/Easter.
Rebel Media takes the view that Muslims are "invading" the west with the goal of "Islamifying" it, and that all Muslims living in the west are a problem. That is islamophobia, a literal fear of Muslims.
Your link confirms that the video is misleading by virtue of the timing being screwed up. So even if we accept that the change was the result of the format shift (which seems unlikely because it's uneven, most of it is at the correct speed except for the moment when his arm comes down) that still leaves the fact that the result is misleading and was used to make a false allegation.
Interesting how he left out "honest," yet threw in "respected" like it's some obligation on the public.
This kind of disingenuous argument really short-circuits discussion. No reasonable person would take what he said and interpret it as honesty not mattering. What do you think rigorous and robust refer to? Rigorous examination of the facts and a robust editorial process that includes corrections.
We have all seen the video of the White House intern grabbed the mic. We have all see the doctored footage where Acosta lowering his arm was sped up to make it look like he struck her, when in fact he reacted gently to her trying to pull the mic away.
If you are still maintaining that the video was not doctored then you are lying and trying to gaslight us. You are quite simply dishonest.
And can you share these standards with us?
Also note that the standards I laid out were not based on political tribalism either, you invented that bit yourself. Which is itself political tribalism.
On the other hand in 2009 they voted to include alternative medicine (i.e. pseudo-scientific snake oil) in the constitution. Maybe someone from Switzerland can say how much effect it has had; AIUI it was effectively nullified by the fact that politicians didn't change the rules on funding treatments to remove the "proven effective" requirement.
Direct democracy can be great, but can also result in nonsense, so it's important to have strong checks and balances. Problem is that people get very upset if they vote for something a a check or balance frustrates it, e.g. Brexit.
Do you consider all sources reputable, or is that your standard for deciding which ones are disreputable?
It's disreputable because left-leaning people say it's disreputable.
No, it's disreputable because reputable sources who have investigated formed a consensus that it's disreputable. In the face of that, you would need a pretty powerful argument to show that it wasn't the case.
You're not allowed to criticize them; they're media!
He means attacking reputable media organizations, claiming they are part of some leftist conspiracy, calling them fake news and banning their staff from the White House for trying to get answers to difficult questions.
Just calling yourself a journalist, setting up a glorified blog and publishing complete rubbish does not elevate you to the same level as an established news organization with editorial standards and a reputable history. The alt-right knows that, which is why they try to drag such organizations down to their level by denigrating them.
The issue is that the GP selected a very disreputable source for their claims. If those claims were true then it would seem wise to select a source with a good reputation and history of accurate reporting.
It's similar to how Wikipedia has banned Brietbart and the Daily Mail as sources. They could waste time evaluating every single citation, but it's easier to just ban sources with extremely poor levels of accuracy because if the story is true there will certainly be better citations available.
Thus it is worth discussing the reliability of sources, because if we see someone who relies exclusively on Rebel Media we know we should apply extra scrutiny, if not simply ignoring them. Time is limited, and citing sources like Rebel Media is worse than citing no sources at all.
I don't think people seek the truth on social media as much as get bombarded by low quality news when they go there.
Even if it's not fake news, if often contains language that subtly warps people's perception of events. The classic example is talking about "hoards" and "floods" or migrants, or describing a million bucks as a "huge amount" when it's relatively modest in context. Commonly known as weasel words.
Was it from the real Secretary of State for CA, or a fake one?
Even if the message was not controversial, by spreading messages from fake Secretaries of State it makes them look legitimate and trustworthy, so that when they start posting misinformation it's more effective.