There are also non-rescued cats that are released to the wild.
Who cares? The cats were in the wild to begin with. If they did nothing,...
Doing nothing is preferable when your "something" makes things worse.
even in the best-case scenario, there would be more cats—maybe all not right there in the park, but there would be more cats,...
The problem is more cats in the sanctuary. Release them on the google campus or somewhere *other* than the sanctuary.
Also, chances are good that they put the feeding station in that park because the cats were already attracted to the owls. So moving the feeding station won't reduce the nearby cat population; it will just reduce the number of cats caught.
The feeding stations increases the size of the cat population that the sanctuary can accommodate. Without the extra food in the sanctuary there may be fewer cats. Too much competition for limited food may cause some migration elsewhere, secondary food sources interfere with that pressure.
But even if I'm completely wrong, and they actually put the feeding station in the park in a deliberate attempt to kill as many owls as possible,...
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Burrowing owls are a nuisance to property development in the Bay Area
Stop feeding the cats, and they'll get hungry. Some will, no doubt, move on. Others will look at the owls and say "well, yesterday I had a good bit of kibble, but that's gone now. And you're about dinner-sized...."
Cats, especially ferals, will prefer live prey over kibble. Kibble is what cats eat when they can get nothing else, and that includes house cats.
Which would make the cats even more dangerous to local wildlife. While cats do hunt when well-fed, they hunt even more when they need to hunt to eat.
When presented with live prey and hard dry and crunchy pet food at a feeder the feral cats will prefer the live prey. Well fed housecats eating meaty canned food will kill birds and other prey instinctively on sight and opportunity, and then sometimes drag the carcases into the house to show you.
The larger point you are missing is the location of the feeders. If your logic were true they are drawing feral cats towards the burrowing owls, not away from them. The feeders need to move out of the owl habitat.
From the above it sounds as if Google is rescuing cats that would otherwise have been put down by animal control. If they aren't trapping them themselves, it would result in a net *increase*.
The problem is not with the rescued cat, those that find a home. There are also non-rescued cats that are released to the wild. The danger to the burrowing owls is actually increased by the employees putting cat feeders in areas where they draw the feral unadoptable cats to the burrowing owls rather than drawing them away.
The entire complaint seems to be that they aren't killing the cats they can't find homes for.
I guess you missed the part about putting cat feeders in a refuge, in burrowing owl habitat, even near the burrowing owl feeders. That increases the danger to the owls by drawing cats to that area. If feeders are used they should be drawing cat away from burrowing owls, not towards them. When presented with the option of live prey or hard dry and crunchy pet food what do you think the feral cats released will go for?
Keep the cat feeders on campus, don't put them in a wildlife refuge.
Still, electricity from clean sources like wind, hydro, solar, and nuclear (yes, nuclear) is cleaner than burning any fossil fools like oil or natural gas.
In the US over 60% of electricity comes from fossil fuels, including 30% from coal. Renewables only account for 17%. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs...
Tesla seems to take all the fun out of performance. It used to be able oil and gas and the small of exhaust coming out of two dual 2.5" exhaust pipes with a sound that made an indication of how fast it was. Now it's just a really quick golf cart.
An over the air software update can fix that, they can play "vroom vroom" noises on the cabin speakers.
Add a bottle of "old car smell" spray and you can have your oil/gas/exhaust odors too.
Most of the post-WWII prosperity and middle-class grwoth in the US was thanks to most of the rest of the industrialized world being reduced to rubble. The 1950s-1970s boom in the US was a consequence of having the only industrial base that was completely intact after the war. Once the rest of the world rebuilt, that type of growth was impossible to sustain and we started to see stagnating wages and economic problems.
The problem with that thesis is that when Europe rebuilt, they did so with a robust labor movement in place and have since overtaken the US in terms of economic mobility and the economic factors that made up what used to be called the "American Dream". We killed the golden goose in the US by suppressing the labor movement. Fortunately, it's coming back.
European success and US failure were not due to organized labor in the 1960s and beyond. It had far more to do with the cultural imperative of buying locally. For example far more Europeans would consider where something was made, give it some consideration in their purchasing decisions, while in the US we pretty much only considered price. Were you around in the 1970s, did you notice all the "Save a Job, Buy American" bumper stickers? How true that was, sadly it was ignored. The post-war suffering of Europeans taught them the value of buying local, the post-war excess of the US contributed to us losing that wisdom.
European consumers supported European industry and workers, US consumers abandoned US industry and workers. Union membership had little to do with it. Of course, US Union corruption may have made Americans a little less sympathetic to the Union's "Buy American" campaigns.
US Labor was not suppressed. It was ignored by consumers and workers due to its corruption and by politicians due to its impotence (it could no longer deliver the worker's votes). Union leadership killed US labor.
... but I come from a union family. Three generations of union members...
Me too, grandfather and father. Some of the following coming from a dinner table conversation when I asked my dad why he was on strike. I had visited the picket lines earlier in the day.
Most of the post-WWII prosperity and middle-class growth in the US was thanks to the labor movement.
Yes and no. The labor movements great advances had already occurred before WW2. Post-war labor was coasting on old glories, the important stuff was enshrined into law not labor contracts by then. Labor's important battles had been won. Post-war labor became a "racket" according to my 40+ year union member grandfather, working hard to perpetuate its own existence and doing little for the workers. My eventually 40+ year union member father concurred. Both speak highly of the unions in the decades before WW2, but after, a very different thing. The point about the important stuff being law, that union contracts were more about preserving union power and finances and not so much about the workers, that came from these union members.
Unions became weaker not merely due to politicians but because workers recognized that big labor had become a racket that did little for them, they lost worker respect, they lost influence with workers and as a result lost influence among politicians.
And today, left-wing politicians *talk* about unions, but when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is these left-wing politicians go non-union just like the CEOs. For example the California San Francisco bay area buying Chinese steel for bridge projects.
Post WW2 economic success was due to our main economic competitors being wrecked by the war, post-war spending of wartime savings, and the economic stimulus of rebuilding and feeding various devastated parts of the world. It was a time where nearly any idiot manager or CEO could make a buck, its an incredibly poor time to look at for business and economic examples. As you learn in econ 101, comparison require all other things to be equal. And 1950s America was a very unique atypical situation.
Not a problem. If a particular "chinese" startup demonstrates success, is gaining traction, etc then someone in the US could always create a copycat product.
So you think I've never tried openbsd? I don't know why you'd think that.
Perhaps referring to BSD in general and occasionally mentioning using FreeBSD does that.
I thought with my response it's clear I've used it, and hacked it.
Remotely, a default install? And you reported it?
Doesn't matter I suppose. If you think you're safe with it and love it, continue to use it. You'll make it easier for someone else to get in. Maybe I see you on a web cam soon?
You really have a reading comprehension problem don't you? I've been referring to infrastructure applications using the default install, firewall/router for example. Not a desktop. No web cam.
Actually at work where we used Linux for a high profile big hacking target server application we used no Linux distribution. We built a minimal environment by hand from scratch, absolutely no services/software that wasn't necessary for the server role.
Interesting. Funny actually. So you're trying to convince me that you know what you're talking about? That's not the way to do it.
Another reading comprehension error on your part, let me translate. We essentially created our own distro that was more minimal than those commercially available. Literally no service, no tool, no application was installed that was not actually needed. It was a "distro" customized precisely to our particular application. Minimal points of attack. What services, tools and applications that were used had their main source repositories monitored and our software was kept up to date.
Last time I remember this debate came up someone ported a few Linux hacks over to BSD within days.
Not all BSDs are the same, OpenBSD is different. Your FreeBSD experience does not quite qualify you for comment here.
Linux can be a very minimal installation as well. There are distros for that. As I said, there is a whole lot more to it and you seem to have no idea what that is.
Actually at work where we used Linux for a high profile big hacking target server application we used no Linux distrobution. We built a minimal environment by hand from scratch, absolutely no services/software that wasn't necessary for the server role.
Default configuration is minimal... Well that's one way to put it. Severely lacking is a much better way to put it.
You seem rather ill-informed regarding OpenBSD. It is minimal for security reasons. However this minimal configuration that is part of the ongoing security audit provides what is necessary for infrastructure boxes like a router/firewall.
BSD is close to being 20 years behind Linux in security.
Your lack of info regarding OpenBSD is becoming even more apparent. The time between remote exploits in OpenBSD for that default install is measured in years.
Do yourself a big favor, throw your BSD machines away. Don't get ubuntu or the other debian crap. Base it all off of Fedora. You'll be fine.
Actually for Linux boxes I use CentOS for internal purposes, except where OpenBSD is superior (ex firewall/router). I do use Ubuntu for some development and compatibility testing because users pick the target platform, not developers. That said, the thing you are failing to see is that BSD and Linux serve different roles. Each better in different areas.
I use a cheap Pentium motherboard (also low power)
The first Pentiums were nicknamed "Coffee Warmers" for good reason.
You realize Intel still makes "Pentiums"? Not really anything like the original, but this is probably what the GP is referring to. 25-35W. https://www.intel.com/content/...
The Linux kernel is really just as secure as an OpenBSD kernel. You can also easily configure a distro with the exact same services and no more that would run on a default OpenBSD install.
As the GP pointed out, Linux distros need a bit of reconfiguration and expertise to do so. This is a common point of failure in the Linux based approach.
In contrast, OpenBSD's default configuration is minimal, just enough to do those core infrastructure systems like a router/firewall.
The problem is the human, not the kernel, which is why OpenBSD is often considered far superior for this specific task, a router/firewall. Few opportunities for human based errors.
A self made/installed Linux box probably the least secure solution for most people. Unless you really know how to secure and lock down your Linux box AND keep it up to date on weekly basis, your "router" is far from secure. There are few people who really know what they're doing in this domain.
This is why OpenBSD was created. Out-of-the-box security, time between remote exploits measured in years, and a firewall is part of the default install. Yes, it still needs patches but one is starting from a far far better place than Linux.
If you want someone to work with you there needs to be some accommodation, but with Linux there is no accommodation, only submitting to the dictates of the GPL.
OK, what if a developer signed an NDA and wrote a driver under a different license?
That has happened and users of those hardware devices have had Linux support via a closed binary. Such binaries are sometimes not installed by default due to ideological purity but some distributions have a simple question during install to allow such binaries. And users approving them get working hardware under Linux.
Please consult a dictionary, "leftist" does not mean full blown communist. For an example of leaning far to the left and intolerance witness the behavior of students on US college campuses when a speaker confronts the current US leftwing bubble. Silicon valley isn't quite that bad but it leans towards such intolerance and silencing of what makes them uncomfortable.
Your reaction to the word "leftist" is amusing. Please consult the dictionary to return to reality, it doesn't mean what you think. Your notion that I am an extremist betrays yourself, you are projecting. I am actually an independent. Agreeing with dems on some things, usually social, repubs on others, usually defense or fiscal. The fact that you assume ill-intent for the accurate observation of silicon valley having a pronounced political leaning and that such a leaning has been demonstrated at other companies who try to remove inappropriate content, facebook and youtube, demonstrates my point regarding a hostility to non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts. Thank you for the assist.
Just because you can find a definition of something doesn't make it a real thing.
Actually it can, and it certainly debunks your claim that the word is "made up". Unlike the definition of "unicorn" that you cite, the definition of "leftist" that I cited did not use the word "mythical".
"the political left" isn't a homogeneous thing either. "Left" doesn't even fully overlap with "Democrat" at this point in time!
"homogeneous", "fully overlap", both straw man of yours. I don't recall referring to democrats. Simply people who lean left, as demonstrated by previously mentioned actions at facebook and youtube.
Your flamebait was well earned. I hope the leftists don't turn you into a gay SJW tonight. Sleep tight!
Thank you for the further hysteria over the use of the word "leftist". Did you read the definition: "a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views". I don't see mention of gay SJW in there, I don't think those are requirements. The lengths you go to dismiss the observable facts of leftist leanings at facebook and youtube and likely twitter is quite amazing. Truly it is an uncomfortable truth for you. What do you think is so wrong about being sympathetic to the views of the political left?
You'd have a point if I were as mistaken about the nature of the consensus in silicon valley as they are about the nature of the consensus in the industrial states
I see. It's OK when you do it because you're correct in your sweeping generalisations and attribution of characteristics of a group to an individual. Thank you for illustrating my point.
Your point is false. Other than my friends that I referred to, people whose politics I know quite well, I referred to the consensus of a large group, not an individual. A group that through their content removal at facebook and youtube well establishes their political leaning in the domain we are speaking of.
If we were discussing an organization with strong rightward leaning and I used the term "fake news" would you have a problem?
If you were using it as a pejorative, absolutely.
Leftist is a pejorative? And I thought it was a simple noun used in context to describe the general political leanings of a group.
""leftist
noun
1. a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views.
adjective
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or advocated by the political Left." http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares? The cats were in the wild to begin with. If they did nothing, ...
Doing nothing is preferable when your "something" makes things worse.
even in the best-case scenario, there would be more cats—maybe all not right there in the park, but there would be more cats, ...
The problem is more cats in the sanctuary. Release them on the google campus or somewhere *other* than the sanctuary.
Also, chances are good that they put the feeding station in that park because the cats were already attracted to the owls. So moving the feeding station won't reduce the nearby cat population; it will just reduce the number of cats caught.
The feeding stations increases the size of the cat population that the sanctuary can accommodate. Without the extra food in the sanctuary there may be fewer cats. Too much competition for limited food may cause some migration elsewhere, secondary food sources interfere with that pressure.
But even if I'm completely wrong, and they actually put the feeding station in the park in a deliberate attempt to kill as many owls as possible, ...
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Burrowing owls are a nuisance to property development in the Bay Area
There is no development in the sanctuary.
Stop feeding the cats, and they'll get hungry. Some will, no doubt, move on. Others will look at the owls and say "well, yesterday I had a good bit of kibble, but that's gone now. And you're about dinner-sized...."
Cats, especially ferals, will prefer live prey over kibble. Kibble is what cats eat when they can get nothing else, and that includes house cats.
Which would make the cats even more dangerous to local wildlife. While cats do hunt when well-fed, they hunt even more when they need to hunt to eat.
When presented with live prey and hard dry and crunchy pet food at a feeder the feral cats will prefer the live prey. Well fed housecats eating meaty canned food will kill birds and other prey instinctively on sight and opportunity, and then sometimes drag the carcases into the house to show you.
The larger point you are missing is the location of the feeders. If your logic were true they are drawing feral cats towards the burrowing owls, not away from them. The feeders need to move out of the owl habitat.
From the above it sounds as if Google is rescuing cats that would otherwise have been put down by animal control. If they aren't trapping them themselves, it would result in a net *increase*.
The problem is not with the rescued cat, those that find a home. There are also non-rescued cats that are released to the wild. The danger to the burrowing owls is actually increased by the employees putting cat feeders in areas where they draw the feral unadoptable cats to the burrowing owls rather than drawing them away.
The entire complaint seems to be that they aren't killing the cats they can't find homes for.
I guess you missed the part about putting cat feeders in a refuge, in burrowing owl habitat, even near the burrowing owl feeders. That increases the danger to the owls by drawing cats to that area. If feeders are used they should be drawing cat away from burrowing owls, not towards them. When presented with the option of live prey or hard dry and crunchy pet food what do you think the feral cats released will go for?
Keep the cat feeders on campus, don't put them in a wildlife refuge.
Still, electricity from clean sources like wind, hydro, solar, and nuclear (yes, nuclear) is cleaner than burning any fossil fools like oil or natural gas.
In the US over 60% of electricity comes from fossil fuels, including 30% from coal. Renewables only account for 17%.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs...
Tesla seems to take all the fun out of performance. It used to be able oil and gas and the small of exhaust coming out of two dual 2.5" exhaust pipes with a sound that made an indication of how fast it was. Now it's just a really quick golf cart.
An over the air software update can fix that, they can play "vroom vroom" noises on the cabin speakers.
Add a bottle of "old car smell" spray and you can have your oil/gas/exhaust odors too.
The problem with that thesis is that when Europe rebuilt, they did so with a robust labor movement in place and have since overtaken the US in terms of economic mobility and the economic factors that made up what used to be called the "American Dream". We killed the golden goose in the US by suppressing the labor movement. Fortunately, it's coming back.
European success and US failure were not due to organized labor in the 1960s and beyond. It had far more to do with the cultural imperative of buying locally. For example far more Europeans would consider where something was made, give it some consideration in their purchasing decisions, while in the US we pretty much only considered price. Were you around in the 1970s, did you notice all the "Save a Job, Buy American" bumper stickers? How true that was, sadly it was ignored. The post-war suffering of Europeans taught them the value of buying local, the post-war excess of the US contributed to us losing that wisdom.
European consumers supported European industry and workers, US consumers abandoned US industry and workers. Union membership had little to do with it. Of course, US Union corruption may have made Americans a little less sympathetic to the Union's "Buy American" campaigns.
US Labor was not suppressed. It was ignored by consumers and workers due to its corruption and by politicians due to its impotence (it could no longer deliver the worker's votes). Union leadership killed US labor.
... but I come from a union family. Three generations of union members ...
Me too, grandfather and father. Some of the following coming from a dinner table conversation when I asked my dad why he was on strike. I had visited the picket lines earlier in the day.
Most of the post-WWII prosperity and middle-class growth in the US was thanks to the labor movement.
Yes and no. The labor movements great advances had already occurred before WW2. Post-war labor was coasting on old glories, the important stuff was enshrined into law not labor contracts by then. Labor's important battles had been won. Post-war labor became a "racket" according to my 40+ year union member grandfather, working hard to perpetuate its own existence and doing little for the workers. My eventually 40+ year union member father concurred. Both speak highly of the unions in the decades before WW2, but after, a very different thing. The point about the important stuff being law, that union contracts were more about preserving union power and finances and not so much about the workers, that came from these union members.
Unions became weaker not merely due to politicians but because workers recognized that big labor had become a racket that did little for them, they lost worker respect, they lost influence with workers and as a result lost influence among politicians.
And today, left-wing politicians *talk* about unions, but when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is these left-wing politicians go non-union just like the CEOs. For example the California San Francisco bay area buying Chinese steel for bridge projects.
Post WW2 economic success was due to our main economic competitors being wrecked by the war, post-war spending of wartime savings, and the economic stimulus of rebuilding and feeding various devastated parts of the world. It was a time where nearly any idiot manager or CEO could make a buck, its an incredibly poor time to look at for business and economic examples. As you learn in econ 101, comparison require all other things to be equal. And 1950s America was a very unique atypical situation.
Not a problem. If a particular "chinese" startup demonstrates success, is gaining traction, etc then someone in the US could always create a copycat product.
So you think I've never tried openbsd? I don't know why you'd think that.
Perhaps referring to BSD in general and occasionally mentioning using FreeBSD does that.
I thought with my response it's clear I've used it, and hacked it.
Remotely, a default install? And you reported it?
Doesn't matter I suppose. If you think you're safe with it and love it, continue to use it. You'll make it easier for someone else to get in. Maybe I see you on a web cam soon?
You really have a reading comprehension problem don't you? I've been referring to infrastructure applications using the default install, firewall/router for example. Not a desktop. No web cam.
Actually at work where we used Linux for a high profile big hacking target server application we used no Linux distribution. We built a minimal environment by hand from scratch, absolutely no services/software that wasn't necessary for the server role.
Interesting. Funny actually. So you're trying to convince me that you know what you're talking about? That's not the way to do it.
Another reading comprehension error on your part, let me translate. We essentially created our own distro that was more minimal than those commercially available. Literally no service, no tool, no application was installed that was not actually needed. It was a "distro" customized precisely to our particular application. Minimal points of attack. What services, tools and applications that were used had their main source repositories monitored and our software was kept up to date.
Last time I remember this debate came up someone ported a few Linux hacks over to BSD within days.
Not all BSDs are the same, OpenBSD is different. Your FreeBSD experience does not quite qualify you for comment here.
Linux can be a very minimal installation as well. There are distros for that. As I said, there is a whole lot more to it and you seem to have no idea what that is.
Actually at work where we used Linux for a high profile big hacking target server application we used no Linux distrobution. We built a minimal environment by hand from scratch, absolutely no services/software that wasn't necessary for the server role.
Default configuration is minimal... Well that's one way to put it. Severely lacking is a much better way to put it.
You seem rather ill-informed regarding OpenBSD. It is minimal for security reasons. However this minimal configuration that is part of the ongoing security audit provides what is necessary for infrastructure boxes like a router/firewall.
BSD is close to being 20 years behind Linux in security.
Your lack of info regarding OpenBSD is becoming even more apparent. The time between remote exploits in OpenBSD for that default install is measured in years.
Do yourself a big favor, throw your BSD machines away. Don't get ubuntu or the other debian crap. Base it all off of Fedora. You'll be fine.
Actually for Linux boxes I use CentOS for internal purposes, except where OpenBSD is superior (ex firewall/router). I do use Ubuntu for some development and compatibility testing because users pick the target platform, not developers. That said, the thing you are failing to see is that BSD and Linux serve different roles. Each better in different areas.
I use a cheap Pentium motherboard (also low power),
This sounds suspicious to me. Define cheap, Pentium, and low power.
Well there is the current generation Pentium G5500T, 2 cores, 3.2 GHz, $85, 35W, ... ?
...?
https://www.intel.com/content/...
Or the previous generation Pentium G4400, 2 core, 3.3 Ghz, $45, 54W,
https://www.intel.com/content/...
There is a G4400T at 2.9 Ghz and 35W but I don't know if its still available.
I use a cheap Pentium motherboard (also low power)
The first Pentiums were nicknamed "Coffee Warmers" for good reason.
You realize Intel still makes "Pentiums"? Not really anything like the original, but this is probably what the GP is referring to. 25-35W.
https://www.intel.com/content/...
The Linux kernel is really just as secure as an OpenBSD kernel. You can also easily configure a distro with the exact same services and no more that would run on a default OpenBSD install.
As the GP pointed out, Linux distros need a bit of reconfiguration and expertise to do so. This is a common point of failure in the Linux based approach.
In contrast, OpenBSD's default configuration is minimal, just enough to do those core infrastructure systems like a router/firewall.
The problem is the human, not the kernel, which is why OpenBSD is often considered far superior for this specific task, a router/firewall. Few opportunities for human based errors.
A self made/installed Linux box probably the least secure solution for most people. Unless you really know how to secure and lock down your Linux box AND keep it up to date on weekly basis, your "router" is far from secure. There are few people who really know what they're doing in this domain.
This is why OpenBSD was created. Out-of-the-box security, time between remote exploits measured in years, and a firewall is part of the default install. Yes, it still needs patches but one is starting from a far far better place than Linux.
If you want someone to work with you there needs to be some accommodation, but with Linux there is no accommodation, only submitting to the dictates of the GPL.
OK, what if a developer signed an NDA and wrote a driver under a different license?
That has happened and users of those hardware devices have had Linux support via a closed binary. Such binaries are sometimes not installed by default due to ideological purity but some distributions have a simple question during install to allow such binaries. And users approving them get working hardware under Linux.
Please consult a dictionary, "leftist" does not mean full blown communist. For an example of leaning far to the left and intolerance witness the behavior of students on US college campuses when a speaker confronts the current US leftwing bubble. Silicon valley isn't quite that bad but it leans towards such intolerance and silencing of what makes them uncomfortable.
Your reaction to the word "leftist" is amusing. Please consult the dictionary to return to reality, it doesn't mean what you think. Your notion that I am an extremist betrays yourself, you are projecting. I am actually an independent. Agreeing with dems on some things, usually social, repubs on others, usually defense or fiscal. The fact that you assume ill-intent for the accurate observation of silicon valley having a pronounced political leaning and that such a leaning has been demonstrated at other companies who try to remove inappropriate content, facebook and youtube, demonstrates my point regarding a hostility to non-politicallycorrect non-leftist posts. Thank you for the assist.
I think you are responding to the wrong post
Just because you can find a definition of something doesn't make it a real thing.
Actually it can, and it certainly debunks your claim that the word is "made up". Unlike the definition of "unicorn" that you cite, the definition of "leftist" that I cited did not use the word "mythical".
"the political left" isn't a homogeneous thing either. "Left" doesn't even fully overlap with "Democrat" at this point in time!
"homogeneous", "fully overlap", both straw man of yours. I don't recall referring to democrats. Simply people who lean left, as demonstrated by previously mentioned actions at facebook and youtube.
Your flamebait was well earned. I hope the leftists don't turn you into a gay SJW tonight. Sleep tight!
Thank you for the further hysteria over the use of the word "leftist". Did you read the definition: "a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views". I don't see mention of gay SJW in there, I don't think those are requirements. The lengths you go to dismiss the observable facts of leftist leanings at facebook and youtube and likely twitter is quite amazing. Truly it is an uncomfortable truth for you. What do you think is so wrong about being sympathetic to the views of the political left?
You'd have a point if I were as mistaken about the nature of the consensus in silicon valley as they are about the nature of the consensus in the industrial states
I see. It's OK when you do it because you're correct in your sweeping generalisations and attribution of characteristics of a group to an individual. Thank you for illustrating my point.
Your point is false. Other than my friends that I referred to, people whose politics I know quite well, I referred to the consensus of a large group, not an individual. A group that through their content removal at facebook and youtube well establishes their political leaning in the domain we are speaking of.
Using the word "leftist" as a perforative is your spin. It was not my usage.
If we were discussing an organization with strong rightward leaning and I used the term "fake news" would you have a problem?
If you were using it as a pejorative, absolutely.
Leftist is a pejorative? And I thought it was a simple noun used in context to describe the general political leanings of a group.
""leftist
noun
1. a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views.
adjective
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or advocated by the political Left."
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...