How do you possibly figure Trump "openly despises homosexuals?" He was for gay marriage back in the early 2000s, long before Obama and Hillary, and had no problem with Caitlyn Jenner using the women's bathroom in Trump Tower.
How do you turn someone's openly positive statements and actions about LGBT people and rights into "openly despises homosexuals?"
People file complaints to the FCC, all the time, about everything. Just google "Funny FCC complaints." Here's the first result, the top 10 funniest complaints about SNL:
Because the Internet is wonderful, a Freedom of Information Act request was filed for every complaint about SNL the FCC has received in the last five years. That request was carried out and posted in its entirety on this website.
This document is 226 pages long and littered with paranoia, unabashed racism and homophobia, generally angry people, and, of course, fun. Lots and lots of fun.
Included in there are accusations SNL was carrying out a human trafficking ring. It's all nuts.
So what we have here is Colbert makes a vulgar joke. People report it to the FCC because people report everything to the FCC. And they investigate and respond because that's the job of the FCC. Trump critics then turn this into "Trump supporters want the government to shut down anti-Trump views." It's just confirmation bias.
And that was the ONLY thing that ever happened to him. He was protested against. Boohoo. Poor little snowflake couldn't handle people having a different opinion from him.
Wait, so if you want to hear someone speak and I pepper spray you, beat you over the head with a flag pole, and set fire to the venue, you'll recognize that as someone simply having a difference of opinion with you? Huh. Good to know.
So, the issue I see here is we've grievously mislabeled the political parties. The "liberals," as they call themselves, are in fact authoritarians. The entire Democratic party has actually now become the party of extreme authoritarianism. There's nothing even remotely liberal about their key views anymore. The label "liberal" they wield like torches and pitchforks is nothing but a weak but surprisingly effective disguise that they only really care to use to fool themselves. And make no mistake; Nothing offends them more than disrespecting what they perceive as their righteous authority. Once you realize that, the apparent madness of the situation evaporates and the big picture becomes completely clear.
but it is merely the moderate left view that people in general shouldn't be demeaned--women, immigrants, etc--but individuals may have done actions deserving of being demeaned
Meh. Hillary ran the ad with the women saying "here's how Trump describes women" with things like "fat pig," which is just how Trump described a specific woman, Rosie O'Donnell. Trump did not describe women in general as "fat pigs," which wouldn't make any sense at all, but they pretended like he did.
The left also has absolutely no problem generalizing the evils of "white people," "men," Christians, etc.
The variable that determines whether someone is insultable or not seems to be "likely voting habits."
I would say the problem we encounter today is leftists suppressing science to justify horrific evil behavior, so we need an honest evaluation of the truth going forward.
It goes something like this. Assume there are no genetic differences in intellectual ability between people of recent European and African descent. Notice there is a difference in group average outcomes (income, test scores, job placement, etc) in the United States between people of recent European and African descent. Since you've already established (without proof, and contrary to empirical evidence as well as basic understanding of evouationary biology) that there is no difference in these populations' average natural ability, the difference in outcomes must be because of racism on the part of the European-Americans against the African-Americans. This justifies hatred and resentment against the European-Americans, and the use of government force to extract resources from the European-Americans or enforcement of different behavioral standards to "correct" their oppressive misdeeds. Naturally this will also be profitable for the people pushing this narrative.
If it turns out that no, in fact the reason for the difference in outcomes are largely genetic, then the entire justification for the redistribution and vilification falls apart. This is very bad for the left, so they have to forcibly shut down anyone who tells the truth about genetic differences between human haplogroups, insisting they are not just wrong, but also evil. This all ends very poorly.
I don't know what to say about Trump's "logo" other than it was just a generic slogan, but maybe that said "genuine" to some people.
I liked Trump's slogan because it actually told you to do something. It immediately involves the listener in the process. You can respond by agreeing ("I would like to help Make America Great Again"), or by disagreeing ("I don't want to make America great again") or by rejecting the premise ("America already is/never was great"). But it contained a call to action that forces one to engage. Compare this to other slogans:
Clinton: "I'm With Her." There's no direct call to action there. There's no goal. There's no evaluation of the current situation or a possible future. It's empty.
Jill Stein: "It's in our hands." No shit. There's nothing to really disagree with there, but also nothing for you to do. There is no engagement.
Marco Rubio: "A New American Century." What the fuck does that mean, Marco? What am I supposed to do with the new American century?
Ted Cruz: "Reigniting the Promise of America." Well that sounds nice, but there's nothing to engage me or call me to action. Also it's passive. The "promise of America" sounds like asking what my country can do for me, not what I can do for my country.
Carly Fiorina: "New Possibilities. Real Leadership." Now that's generic and meaningless.
Jeb Bush: "Jeb!" Man, fuck you Jeb. Low energy.
So, I'd say Trump's slogan was far less generic than anybody else's, and at least it said something, and required the listener to evaluate the call to action and accept or reject it.
First, the author is making arguments about the practice of science, not the results of science. It has nothing to do with predetermined outcomes.
When she says
attacks on black and brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues.
How do you figure that attacks on black or brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, or mass shootings are complaints about the practice of science? Is she saying that scientists have been attacking black or brown lives, or running oil pipelines, mass shooting people in their practice of science? Have scientists been mass shooting black people for science in some way I didn't know about? That's pretty fucked up, and if that's the case then yes I agree we must stop these mass murdering scientists.
There was one I saw awhile back that had a "2S" in it for "two spirits," which is what native americans called people who were transgender. So, the acronym will not be complete when they run out of letters in the alphabet. They've got numbers now, too.
The problem is the author's choice of issues that are included in "science" are concerns for left-wing politics with the desired left-wing outcomes predetermined.
"The issues that are really important to science are protecting gun rights, lowering tax burdens and protecting religious liberty. What do you mean I'm just co-opting 'science' for my right-wing political beliefs? I didn't say anything about 'the right' you're just inserting terms!"
Science is (was) just a method of learning which things we can prove are false via experiment and repeated observation. It is no longer. It is no longer a system of determining what is false, it is a system of advocating for desired political outcomes.
Science is dead. And it's been dead for a long time, and social scientists have been masquerading in its in corpse. Finally the carcass has rotted so badly the stench has become unignorable.
I haven't heard of any other nation coming close to the scale of Russia:
How about the Hillary Clinton campaign and Correct the Record? They got millions of dollars to pay people to go post pro-HRC stuff and anti-Bernie/Trump stuff on social media. They completely dominated/r/politics on reddit. It's not a secret...there's FEC filings, news articles about them, the stated purpose of the organization on their website. They're now reorganized as ShareBlue and are continuing to do the same thing.
I think we need campaign rules like the ones that say "This message approved by Such-and-Such campaign" on TV/radio, but for blog/social media posts. If you're being paid to write your comment there needs to be a disclaimer saying so at the bottom.
It would be helpful if there were any evidence, at all, of a Russian disinformation campaign. What sort of disinformation were the Russians spreading?
Are you sure it's not that rather than take responsibility for their horrid candidate and massively corrupt party the Democrats are just blaming everything on Russia as a distraction?
And then they spin it in circles. CNN reports "According to an article in the New York Times, aliens are raping bigfoot," referencing a NYT Times article "Are aliens raping bigfoot?" which cites a Buzzfeed article "Twitter exploding about alien/bigfoot rape" which references some twitter account spamming alien/bigfoot rape stories made up on 4chan. By the next week every news agency has stopped with the question marks and "mays" and "could bes" in their headlines and are just reporting on everyone's reaction to all the alien/bigfoot rape going on.
You're also missing the way in which news is manufactured by news agencies reporting on other news agency reporting. For instance, during the election a story was started about Russian twitter bots supporting Trump. One "journalist" claimed that twitter accounts he was looking at years ago for spouting Russian propaganda were now spouting Trump propaganda. He gave no evidence of this. No twitter handles for viewers to go look at, no screenshots, no examples of what kind of propaganda, Russian or Trumpian these things were pushing. That got reported by Buzzfeed as something like "Russian troll bots may be spamming for Trump," then reported by NYT as "Are Russian bots spreading pro-Trump messages?" with a link to the Buzzfeed article and then CNN "NY Times reports Trump's online support from fake Russian accounts." And now it's just common knowledge that Russian propaganda bots have haxx0red the minds of every American voter, despite never getting so much a screenshot of a single one of these bots.
I'm far less concerned about what Russian troll bots are doing than what Buzzfeed, CNN, and the NY Times are doing. People sort of believe a few of the things that come out of the later.
Link to the NSA demonstrating that? I seem to recall the report came from the CIA, and their "evidence" amounted to "this is in line with the sort of things Russians want to do," plus some Cyrillic characters left over in files and some timestamps that corresponded to Russian working hours. Of course, one of the leaked CIA hacking tools, UMBRAGE, does exactly this. You press a button for "make it look like the Russians did it" and it makes it look like the Russians did it, "make it look like the Chinese did it" and it makes it look like the Chinese did it. These tools were available on the black market for over a year before the DNC hack, so literally anyone could have done this.
The CIA and the media want you to believe the Russians did it, but it is by no means proven.
Trump is irrefutably up to his eyeballs in debt to Putin connected billionaires.
Did you even read the article you linked? One guy, in the UK, who was out of government after 2004 says in 2008 Trump suggests that maybe in 2008 Trump borrowed money from Russians. He's not even stating that Trump did borrow money, just that the possibility exists that he did.
If this is irrefutable evidence then you have bizarrely low standards for evidence. Either that, or, you were just looking for validation from this article, not information.
Why should comics pander to YOU specifically, why can't they be for EVERYONE? What makes you, the white male nerd who calls others "normies" such a "special snowflake"
I'd say mainly because I actually like the things, and watch the shows. Being a superhero or a space captain seems to be a white male nerd fantasy, not a black woman fantasy. So they replace Tony Stark in the Iron Man comics with a black girl and sales tank. The white males reading Iron Man didn't identify with the black girl, and it seems black girls don't identify with Iron Man, at least not enough to go buy comic books.
So you've decided against a show...JUST because it doesn't have someone who looks like you in the Captains chair?
I said I'd watch it. But my prediction is I won't enjoy it as much as I would have if the characters were people I could more easily identify with, so my interest may wane. And that not enough people who do identify with the people they put in the captain's chair will identify with sci-fi space exploration stuff. The ratings will suffer and the show will go off the air. Nobody will get what they want. We'll then get articles from HuffPo about how the show failed because people like me are evil racist sexists.
I don't know why I'm required to like something that's been changed to no longer be something I identify with. Very few white rappers are successful. We don't go yelling at black people that they're somehow wrong or "special snowflakes" because while they like lots of black rappers, they don't like many white rappers.
I'll give the show a shot, sure. But I'm expecting them to do the same thing they did with comic books and female ghostbusters and all that kind of stuff. Race/gender swap the characters, lazy and shitty writing, and then lots of snarky asides about how white men like me are assholes. Finding enjoyment in that seems masochistic, and I'm not a masochist.
There's more money in making shows for EVERYONE
That has not been the case with regards to comic book sales. They replaced Thor with a woman, Tony Stark with a black girl, Captain Britain with a muslim woman, Hulk with a Korean guy, and book sales are absolutely in the toilet. They kept the traditional characters for the movies and it's the most profitable movie franchise of all time. SJWism costs money, it doesn't make it.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you possibly figure Trump "openly despises homosexuals?" He was for gay marriage back in the early 2000s, long before Obama and Hillary, and had no problem with Caitlyn Jenner using the women's bathroom in Trump Tower.
How do you turn someone's openly positive statements and actions about LGBT people and rights into "openly despises homosexuals?"
I introduce my wife as "my first wife." (we've never been divorced). I think it's funnier than she does, though.
People file complaints to the FCC, all the time, about everything. Just google "Funny FCC complaints." Here's the first result, the top 10 funniest complaints about SNL:
Because the Internet is wonderful, a Freedom of Information Act request was filed for every complaint about SNL the FCC has received in the last five years. That request was carried out and posted in its entirety on this website.
This document is 226 pages long and littered with paranoia, unabashed racism and homophobia, generally angry people, and, of course, fun. Lots and lots of fun.
Included in there are accusations SNL was carrying out a human trafficking ring. It's all nuts.
So what we have here is Colbert makes a vulgar joke. People report it to the FCC because people report everything to the FCC. And they investigate and respond because that's the job of the FCC. Trump critics then turn this into "Trump supporters want the government to shut down anti-Trump views." It's just confirmation bias.
And that was the ONLY thing that ever happened to him. He was protested against. Boohoo. Poor little snowflake couldn't handle people having a different opinion from him.
Wait, so if you want to hear someone speak and I pepper spray you, beat you over the head with a flag pole, and set fire to the venue, you'll recognize that as someone simply having a difference of opinion with you? Huh. Good to know.
So, the issue I see here is we've grievously mislabeled the political parties. The "liberals," as they call themselves, are in fact authoritarians. The entire Democratic party has actually now become the party of extreme authoritarianism. There's nothing even remotely liberal about their key views anymore. The label "liberal" they wield like torches and pitchforks is nothing but a weak but surprisingly effective disguise that they only really care to use to fool themselves. And make no mistake; Nothing offends them more than disrespecting what they perceive as their righteous authority. Once you realize that, the apparent madness of the situation evaporates and the big picture becomes completely clear.
Wait, so I can call someone a fag, so long as I think they're heterosexual and likely to be offended by being called a fag? Good to know.
but it is merely the moderate left view that people in general shouldn't be demeaned--women, immigrants, etc--but individuals may have done actions deserving of being demeaned
Meh. Hillary ran the ad with the women saying "here's how Trump describes women" with things like "fat pig," which is just how Trump described a specific woman, Rosie O'Donnell. Trump did not describe women in general as "fat pigs," which wouldn't make any sense at all, but they pretended like he did.
The left also has absolutely no problem generalizing the evils of "white people," "men," Christians, etc.
The variable that determines whether someone is insultable or not seems to be "likely voting habits."
Did you look at the p values for this study? Are they only .05?
I would say the problem we encounter today is leftists suppressing science to justify horrific evil behavior, so we need an honest evaluation of the truth going forward.
It goes something like this. Assume there are no genetic differences in intellectual ability between people of recent European and African descent. Notice there is a difference in group average outcomes (income, test scores, job placement, etc) in the United States between people of recent European and African descent. Since you've already established (without proof, and contrary to empirical evidence as well as basic understanding of evouationary biology) that there is no difference in these populations' average natural ability, the difference in outcomes must be because of racism on the part of the European-Americans against the African-Americans. This justifies hatred and resentment against the European-Americans, and the use of government force to extract resources from the European-Americans or enforcement of different behavioral standards to "correct" their oppressive misdeeds. Naturally this will also be profitable for the people pushing this narrative.
If it turns out that no, in fact the reason for the difference in outcomes are largely genetic, then the entire justification for the redistribution and vilification falls apart. This is very bad for the left, so they have to forcibly shut down anyone who tells the truth about genetic differences between human haplogroups, insisting they are not just wrong, but also evil. This all ends very poorly.
Imagine a situation of Trump's equivalent there President of the Solar System or the like.
Isn't that this exact scenario? I mean, they're building a wall around a star...
I explain it as aliens made by God.
So, among the many, many, many people who bought Trump condos were some alleged Russian mobsters? And that makes Trump a Putin puppet?
Is the car dealership you purchased your last vehicle from a StevenMaurer puppet?
I don't know what to say about Trump's "logo" other than it was just a generic slogan, but maybe that said "genuine" to some people.
I liked Trump's slogan because it actually told you to do something. It immediately involves the listener in the process. You can respond by agreeing ("I would like to help Make America Great Again"), or by disagreeing ("I don't want to make America great again") or by rejecting the premise ("America already is/never was great"). But it contained a call to action that forces one to engage. Compare this to other slogans:
Clinton: "I'm With Her." There's no direct call to action there. There's no goal. There's no evaluation of the current situation or a possible future. It's empty.
Jill Stein: "It's in our hands." No shit. There's nothing to really disagree with there, but also nothing for you to do. There is no engagement.
Marco Rubio: "A New American Century." What the fuck does that mean, Marco? What am I supposed to do with the new American century?
Ted Cruz: "Reigniting the Promise of America." Well that sounds nice, but there's nothing to engage me or call me to action. Also it's passive. The "promise of America" sounds like asking what my country can do for me, not what I can do for my country.
Carly Fiorina: "New Possibilities. Real Leadership." Now that's generic and meaningless.
Jeb Bush: "Jeb!" Man, fuck you Jeb. Low energy.
So, I'd say Trump's slogan was far less generic than anybody else's, and at least it said something, and required the listener to evaluate the call to action and accept or reject it.
Again, link?
Also, since when does anyone on /. believe a thing the NSA or CIA says?
First, the author is making arguments about the practice of science, not the results of science. It has nothing to do with predetermined outcomes.
When she says
attacks on black and brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, sexual harassment and assault, ADA access in our communities, immigration policy, lack of clean water in several cities across the country, poverty wages, LGBTQIA rights, and mass shootings are scientific issues.
How do you figure that attacks on black or brown lives, oil pipelines through indigenous lands, or mass shootings are complaints about the practice of science? Is she saying that scientists have been attacking black or brown lives, or running oil pipelines, mass shooting people in their practice of science? Have scientists been mass shooting black people for science in some way I didn't know about? That's pretty fucked up, and if that's the case then yes I agree we must stop these mass murdering scientists.
There was one I saw awhile back that had a "2S" in it for "two spirits," which is what native americans called people who were transgender. So, the acronym will not be complete when they run out of letters in the alphabet. They've got numbers now, too.
The problem is the author's choice of issues that are included in "science" are concerns for left-wing politics with the desired left-wing outcomes predetermined.
"The issues that are really important to science are protecting gun rights, lowering tax burdens and protecting religious liberty. What do you mean I'm just co-opting 'science' for my right-wing political beliefs? I didn't say anything about 'the right' you're just inserting terms!"
Science is (was) just a method of learning which things we can prove are false via experiment and repeated observation. It is no longer. It is no longer a system of determining what is false, it is a system of advocating for desired political outcomes.
Science is dead. And it's been dead for a long time, and social scientists have been masquerading in its in corpse. Finally the carcass has rotted so badly the stench has become unignorable.
Can you link one of those articles, then? That has actual screenshots of Russian accounts spreading disinformation?
I haven't heard of any other nation coming close to the scale of Russia:
How about the Hillary Clinton campaign and Correct the Record? They got millions of dollars to pay people to go post pro-HRC stuff and anti-Bernie/Trump stuff on social media. They completely dominated /r/politics on reddit. It's not a secret...there's FEC filings, news articles about them, the stated purpose of the organization on their website. They're now reorganized as ShareBlue and are continuing to do the same thing.
I think we need campaign rules like the ones that say "This message approved by Such-and-Such campaign" on TV/radio, but for blog/social media posts. If you're being paid to write your comment there needs to be a disclaimer saying so at the bottom.
It would be helpful if there were any evidence, at all, of a Russian disinformation campaign. What sort of disinformation were the Russians spreading?
Are you sure it's not that rather than take responsibility for their horrid candidate and massively corrupt party the Democrats are just blaming everything on Russia as a distraction?
And then they spin it in circles. CNN reports "According to an article in the New York Times, aliens are raping bigfoot," referencing a NYT Times article "Are aliens raping bigfoot?" which cites a Buzzfeed article "Twitter exploding about alien/bigfoot rape" which references some twitter account spamming alien/bigfoot rape stories made up on 4chan. By the next week every news agency has stopped with the question marks and "mays" and "could bes" in their headlines and are just reporting on everyone's reaction to all the alien/bigfoot rape going on.
You're also missing the way in which news is manufactured by news agencies reporting on other news agency reporting. For instance, during the election a story was started about Russian twitter bots supporting Trump. One "journalist" claimed that twitter accounts he was looking at years ago for spouting Russian propaganda were now spouting Trump propaganda. He gave no evidence of this. No twitter handles for viewers to go look at, no screenshots, no examples of what kind of propaganda, Russian or Trumpian these things were pushing. That got reported by Buzzfeed as something like "Russian troll bots may be spamming for Trump," then reported by NYT as "Are Russian bots spreading pro-Trump messages?" with a link to the Buzzfeed article and then CNN "NY Times reports Trump's online support from fake Russian accounts." And now it's just common knowledge that Russian propaganda bots have haxx0red the minds of every American voter, despite never getting so much a screenshot of a single one of these bots.
I'm far less concerned about what Russian troll bots are doing than what Buzzfeed, CNN, and the NY Times are doing. People sort of believe a few of the things that come out of the later.
Link to the NSA demonstrating that? I seem to recall the report came from the CIA, and their "evidence" amounted to "this is in line with the sort of things Russians want to do," plus some Cyrillic characters left over in files and some timestamps that corresponded to Russian working hours. Of course, one of the leaked CIA hacking tools, UMBRAGE, does exactly this. You press a button for "make it look like the Russians did it" and it makes it look like the Russians did it, "make it look like the Chinese did it" and it makes it look like the Chinese did it. These tools were available on the black market for over a year before the DNC hack, so literally anyone could have done this.
The CIA and the media want you to believe the Russians did it, but it is by no means proven.
Trump is irrefutably up to his eyeballs in debt to Putin connected billionaires.
Did you even read the article you linked? One guy, in the UK, who was out of government after 2004 says in 2008 Trump suggests that maybe in 2008 Trump borrowed money from Russians. He's not even stating that Trump did borrow money, just that the possibility exists that he did.
If this is irrefutable evidence then you have bizarrely low standards for evidence. Either that, or, you were just looking for validation from this article, not information.
Why should comics pander to YOU specifically, why can't they be for EVERYONE? What makes you, the white male nerd who calls others "normies" such a "special snowflake"
I'd say mainly because I actually like the things, and watch the shows. Being a superhero or a space captain seems to be a white male nerd fantasy, not a black woman fantasy. So they replace Tony Stark in the Iron Man comics with a black girl and sales tank. The white males reading Iron Man didn't identify with the black girl, and it seems black girls don't identify with Iron Man, at least not enough to go buy comic books.
So you've decided against a show...JUST because it doesn't have someone who looks like you in the Captains chair?
I said I'd watch it. But my prediction is I won't enjoy it as much as I would have if the characters were people I could more easily identify with, so my interest may wane. And that not enough people who do identify with the people they put in the captain's chair will identify with sci-fi space exploration stuff. The ratings will suffer and the show will go off the air. Nobody will get what they want. We'll then get articles from HuffPo about how the show failed because people like me are evil racist sexists.
I don't know why I'm required to like something that's been changed to no longer be something I identify with. Very few white rappers are successful. We don't go yelling at black people that they're somehow wrong or "special snowflakes" because while they like lots of black rappers, they don't like many white rappers.
I'll give the show a shot, sure. But I'm expecting them to do the same thing they did with comic books and female ghostbusters and all that kind of stuff. Race/gender swap the characters, lazy and shitty writing, and then lots of snarky asides about how white men like me are assholes. Finding enjoyment in that seems masochistic, and I'm not a masochist.
There's more money in making shows for EVERYONE
That has not been the case with regards to comic book sales. They replaced Thor with a woman, Tony Stark with a black girl, Captain Britain with a muslim woman, Hulk with a Korean guy, and book sales are absolutely in the toilet. They kept the traditional characters for the movies and it's the most profitable movie franchise of all time. SJWism costs money, it doesn't make it.