so why can't Antarctica actually be losing massive amounts of ice and the resulting removal of mass cause uplifting of the underlying rock?
Ice is less dense than rock, and rock isn't perfectly elastic anyway. So if you remove ice from rock, even if you get uplift, it's much less than the thickness of ice you removed.
As even a cursory Wikipedia reading will note, ARCTIC ice is DECREASING in extent at a faster rate than ANTARCTIC is INCREASING.
When arctic ice melts, it doesn't lead to sea level rise, so as far as sea level rise is concerned, this is important, since it contradicts the doomsday scenarios of AGW activists when it comes to coastal flooding.
Those who believe anthropogenic climate change is a myth thrive on the confusion caused by nuance like this.
I'm sorry, but the problem here is that you failed to understand the significance of this finding and reduce all discussion about climate change to "true/false".
In fact, many (if not most) people who oppose action on climate change, like myself, generally believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening, but simply don't believe it has relevance to policy. I'm sorry if that "nuance" confuses you.
In fact, it changes nothing with regards to sea level rise; it's still rising
Yes, at a small rate that is of little practical significance.
It changes things for Antarctica, but I don't live there.
Antarctica and Greenland are relevant because if they aren't melting, large scale sea level rise is simply not possible, and whatever changes we are observing now must be self-limiting.
Also, thickening of the ice doesn't slow global warming.
Good! A wetter, warmer climate for the world is a good thing.
It is probably in our best interests that the climates we live in are compatible with us.
Well, then global warming should be good news, since for the past several million years, we have been living in an ice age.
And the only reason we are even doing as well as we are is because we are living during a temporary warm period during this ice age; without anthropogenic climate change, our climate would return to having much of the US and Europe covered in thick ice sheets.
And I think the obsession of European media and European governments over US surveillance serves three purposes: (1) to distract Europeans from domestic issues, (2) to make Europeans believe that compared to the US, things are pretty good, and (3) to pass legislation that forces data of European citizens to stay within Europe where it is easier for European spy agencies to get at.
Why do you assume the worst in others? Why not assume they are right, when the words allow them to be?
Contrary to what you seem to believe, discussions aren't about proving who's smarter or who has more knowledge, they are about gaining better understanding. Ambiguous statements or statements that are subject to multiple interpretations are detrimental to that. Furthermore, "the worst" assumption would not be that AmiJoJo is wrong, but that he engages in dissembling, that is, deliberately making ambiguous statements in order to derail the discussion. I don't think he does that.
In any case, AmiJoJo's statement that we have to accept the decision of "the majority where you live" is ambiguous in several ways, but it's wrong in all of the possible interpretations that I can see. First of all, it's unclear whether he means that as a descriptive or normative statement. As a normative statement, of course, it's easy to simply disagree with it and pronounce it wrong.As a descriptive statement, it's wrong because it describe no government that I know of. The US and Europe both have representative democracies, and decisions are made by majorities and supermajorities of representatives, not residents. And the decisions of representatives often differ from the preferences of majorities of residents or voters.
As much as you are in favor of re-legalizing slavery because it would make some businessmen some money, sure.
From a business point of view, slavery is inefficient; that's been understood at least since Adam Smith. Free markets, of course, include free markets in labor, and slavery is the antithesis of that, since it forcibly removes labor from its rightful owner (the slave) and hands it to a politically connected rent seeker (the slave master). The economic inefficiency of slavery was also the reason why the Southern states were in such poor shape: they couldn't compete with the North.
Slavery is something rent-seekers favor; it's no accident that the party of rent-seekers, the Democrats, supported slavery back then. So, I'm afraid you are projecting your own desires onto others.
So you're one of the laureates who inspired this video. Enjoy your cholera.
Again, you're simply projecting your own ignorance onto others. The state of Somalian beaches is, quite literally, the result of real-world socialism.
If Somalia had never experienced European colonialism, I guarantee you conditions there would be worse.
Without European colonialism, there probably wouldn't be an state called "Somalia".
Furthermore, you're implicitly contemplating a false dichotomy: European colonialism or nothing at all; there are many ways in which Europe could have interacted with, or even governed, the Somalian territories that would have had better outcomes.
Just because dictators love calling their party "Democratic People's Republic" or "Socialist party" doesn't mean it is. Yes, the military dictatorship called itself "socialist party" but it was never socialist. That was never tried.
Of course, socialism was "tried", and it failed, like it always does. You're simply deluding yourself into thinking that socialism could be anything else.
But, in any case, whether Somalia was real socialism or just real-world socialism is irrelevant; the point is that Somalia is not an example of (1) a country without government, or (2) the result of capitalism, free markets, or libertarianism.
And the fact that you have no idea of the basic government or economic system there speaks for itself.
Apparently, I have a much better idea of the past and present economic and political system there than you. And while I haven't experienced Somalia's socialism, I have experienced other forms of socialism, you know, the real-world kind.
Yeah, and North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic. They say so, so it must be true.
It is true: the term "Democratic People's Republic" refers to socialist and communist states.
Maybe you get hung up on the term "democratic", but it is used correctly according to socialist and communist theory: theoretically, those forms of government deliver "democratic" government. In practice, of course, they reliably deliver totalitarian hell holes.
Somalia was governed by the "Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party", and they took the usual path of countries run by socialists: they deteriorated economically to the point where they finally fall apart. That is the historical inevitability of what happens when socialism gets put into practice. Yes, socialism was in Somalia, and it did what socialism always does: it leads to totalitarianism and economic failure.
Somalia is the perfect example of free capitalism without regulations.
Much of Somalia is under Sharia law and there are still local governments. But to the extent that "free capitalism" exists in Somalia, it has helped improve conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
According to the CIA and the Central Bank of Somalia, despite experiencing civil unrest, Somalia has maintained a healthy informal economy, based mainly on livestock, remittance/money transfer companies and telecommunications.[3][34] Due to a dearth of formal government statistics and the recent civil war, it is difficult to gauge the size or growth of the economy. For 1994, the CIA estimated the GDP at $3.3 billion.[210] In 2001, it was estimated to be $4.1 billion.[211] By 2009, the CIA estimated that the GDP had grown to $5.731 billion, with a projected real growth rate of 2.6%.[3] According to a 2007 British Chambers of Commerce report, the private sector also grew, particularly in the service sector. Unlike the pre-civil war period when most services and the industrial sector were government-run, there has been substantial, albeit unmeasured, private investment in commercial activities
Of course it takes a while for free markets to fix socialist shitholes, so you can't expect Somalia to turn into Switzerland overnight.
Read your Constitution, all it takes is 3/4ths of the States to amend it. Once the Constitution has been changed, the Supreme Court has to make rulings in line with it.
No, that's incorrect. It takes a 2/3 supermajority of representatives in both the House and the Senate, followed by ratification in 3/4 of the states. That is not "a majority where you live", it is "a supermajority of elected representatives". Furthermore, SCOTUS doesn't just literally execute instructions from the Constitution; in fact, it has the power to invalidate amendments or even preventing them from being considered.
The discussion started with AmiMoJo's claim that "you have to accept that the majority where you live decided that [something should happen]" and accept state violence if you disagree. That statement is wrong both as a factual and as a normative statement (he is ambiguous about which he means). And it's important to point that out, because that naive belief about government and majorities is used in political arguments, when people keep claiming that this-or-that policy doesn't coincide with polls and that therefore our form of government is somehow defective. The fact that majorities often don't get what they want is an important feature of US and European democracies, not a flaw.
While I'm not saying it's a good thing, if the majority do decide that slavery is legal and somehow manage to repeal all the laws/constitutional clauses that ban it, then it's going to happen.
A majority isn't sufficient; it takes a lot more than that. In fact, in the US and Europe, some rights likely couldn't be taken away even by constitutional amendment because the various supreme courts would block it.
Note that I'm not saying you have to accept it - you can fight all you like.
What you were saying is that a majority is sufficient, and that is factually wrong. To deprive people of life, liberty, and/or property takes a lot more than simply a majority decision.
"Things that society needs." Decided by who exactly? Thats nanny state thinking, which is exactly what society doesn't need.
Observing that society has needs (i.e., the collection of needs of its members) isn't nanny state thinking. Nanny state thinking is the belief that state intervention can accurately identify and meet those needs. A free market advocate doesn't deny that there are needs or that some economic systems meet them better than others, he simply argues that those needs cannot be accurately identified by the state (or any other small organization).
The problem with using the head (guided by $$'s) to steer any course is that you often miss the real gold just by letting the wind blow you off in a different direction.
As an individual, that observation is true. But when you look at markets as a whole, for every need, there are usually some people that are significantly better than the rest at satisfying that need: they produce at lower costs, produce higher quality, etc. Those are the people that run successful businesses and accumulate money. That accumulation of resources has two consequences: money goes to people who invest it most productively, and people who aren't using their money productively are encouraged to figure out how to do better. Redistribution schemes undermine exactly those mechanisms. The more you redistribute, the more you discourage productive investment and innovation.
and lack of basic knowledge about how the government works reveal a fair bit about you as well
We weren't talking about "how the government works", we were talking about AmiMoJo's political beliefs related to majoritarianism. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, AmiMoJo lives in Great Britain, so I don't see what US government has to do with this discussion anyway.
Your ad homeinem [sic] attacks
Pointing out that AmiMoJo's arguments for majoritarianism are fascist in nature isn't an "ad hominem", it's an objective fact about his political beliefs and how they relate to fascism. If you don't understand the relationship between majoritarianism and fascism, I suggest you do some more background reading; a good starting point is the actual political programs of European fascists, historically and in present times.
The Constitution overrides the will of the majority, and the 13th Amendment [wikipedia.org] abolished slavery. The Constitution does not say that taxes are unconstitutional -- quite the opposite in fact, it explicitly grants the government the right to levy taxes.
And, in fact, there is no particular guarantee that the US Constitution is fully consistent with liberty or justice, in particular after the amendments passed during the Progressive Era. A much better question you ought to reflect on is why the Founding Fathers apparently intended to restrict this power in the first place.
I think a basic income is a good idea because it would allow us to get rid of other government programs
It's not going to happen; too many people make a living from the current convoluted welfare and benefits system.
The usual object to this idea is that no one will want to work, but I would imagine that a stipulation that you're required to do so many hours of community service every week if not working would probably help balance things out a little bit.
I think that's a much better system in principle: in return for a minimal basic income, the government requires you to work at jobs of their choosing, in a kind of civilian version of the military. The problem with such a system is, however, that it is likely going to be abused sooner or later, as the government may take over larger and larger portions of the economy.
If you remove the burden of the worry of income from people you open them up to turning their attention to working on things that they are interested in doing.
The problem is that the things people are interested in doing are not necessarily the things that society needs.
Where would we be without the free, and open source, software movements? How much more productive, creative and efficient would our technology be if more of it was written for free?
What does that have to do with basic income? I've written a lot of open source software and I've always been employed while doing it. In fact, the vast majority of open source software is sponsored by businesses.
Otherwise you have to accept that the majority where you live decided that taxes would be mandatory, and just like they decided that murder will be illegal the law will be enforced. With force if necessary.
So, according to you, if the majority decides that slavery should be legal, we should just "have to accept that"? According to you, if the majority decides that Jews should be deprived of their property, liberty, and/or life, we should just "have to accept that"? That's the way fasicst think; it reveals a lot about you.
If you don't want to pay taxes then go somewhere with no taxes (Somalia?)
Somalia is such a rotten place due to European colonialism followed by socialism. Since the fall of socialism in Somalia, conditions have actually been improving a bit. Of course, Somalia still has taxes and government, it simply doesn't have a national government within the arbitrary borders drawn by Europeans.
You are missing the other piece of the puzzle. As described in the articles I linked to, the first uses of the hashtag on twitter were verified sock puppet accounts
Since the articles (as well as yourself) misrepresented the meaning of "deflecting genuine criticism", it is clear that their authors are either dishonest or sloppy, so nothing those articles "describe" can be trusted. Furthermore, the links purporting to demonstrate sockpuppets are dead, so there is nothing to back up their charges. In addition, minorities who dare to speak out against people like you and Sarkeesian face a serious harrassment from people like you, which is why we often don't use our real names or images on the web. Finally, for the charge of "astroturfing", it really doesn't matter how a movement starts, it matters who actually participates in it, and that is a lot of minorities who disagree with Sarkeesian's message.
And no piece of the puzzle excuses your blatant misrepresentation of the facts. And the fact is that the IRC logs do not show what you claim they do, and that you blatantly misrepresented the meaning of "deflect genuine criticism". So, whatever you call the "#notyourshield" tag, it is clear that you are a liar.
and then GG released full logs in the hope that the vast amount of information would overload anyone looking at it.
Apparently, it is you who tries to manipulate people and hopes that people don't look at the logs. Here are the first "#notyourshield" mentions in your IRC logs:
Sep 02 23.40.59 #notyourshield is starting up Sep 03 00.03.15 > SJW's, stop using gamers as your shield, we are black, too. https://twitter.com/hashtag/no... Sep 03 00.03.43 if any of you are non-cis non-whites or non-males on twitter, please use #notyourshield
So, yes, you can verify quite easily that the origin of the tag is genuine and your charges of astroturfing are false.
If you scroll down a bit in either article there is a screenshot of where a 4chan anon invented #notyourshield to "deflect genuine criticism."
The quote is: [Use] "Something like #NotYourShield and demand the SJWs stop using you as a shield to deflect genuine criticism,"
What they are saying is that they invented "#notyourhsield" to stop SJWs from misusing minorities as a "shield" because SJWs are trying to "deflect" genuine criticism from themselves that way. Not only is that grammatically clear from the sentence, it also is obvious from the semantics of "shield/deflect".
You are misquoting and misrepresenting this obvious fact as if the proponents of "#notyourshield" wanted to deflect criticism from themselves. I don't know whether you are being deliberately deceptive or whether you are just a careless reader; either way, you are wrong.
I actually hadn't known about the origins of "#notyourshield" (as a minority, I just used it a few times). But thank you for digging this up because it demonstrates again how dishonest and manipulative SJWs are, while the origin of the "#notyourshield" tag is nothing more than what the tag purports to be.
It depends on who you are considerate towards. Being considerate towards a sick, suffering transgendered youngster is a good thing. Being considerate towards manipulative neo-Marxists is a bad thing.
Slashdot Mirror
You prove again that utter stupidity is indistinguishable from advanced sarcasm.
Ice is less dense than rock, and rock isn't perfectly elastic anyway. So if you remove ice from rock, even if you get uplift, it's much less than the thickness of ice you removed.
When arctic ice melts, it doesn't lead to sea level rise, so as far as sea level rise is concerned, this is important, since it contradicts the doomsday scenarios of AGW activists when it comes to coastal flooding.
I'm sorry, but the problem here is that you failed to understand the significance of this finding and reduce all discussion about climate change to "true/false".
In fact, many (if not most) people who oppose action on climate change, like myself, generally believe that anthropogenic climate change is happening, but simply don't believe it has relevance to policy. I'm sorry if that "nuance" confuses you.
Yes, at a small rate that is of little practical significance.
Antarctica and Greenland are relevant because if they aren't melting, large scale sea level rise is simply not possible, and whatever changes we are observing now must be self-limiting.
Good! A wetter, warmer climate for the world is a good thing.
Well, then global warming should be good news, since for the past several million years, we have been living in an ice age.
And the only reason we are even doing as well as we are is because we are living during a temporary warm period during this ice age; without anthropogenic climate change, our climate would return to having much of the US and Europe covered in thick ice sheets.
This.
And I think the obsession of European media and European governments over US surveillance serves three purposes: (1) to distract Europeans from domestic issues, (2) to make Europeans believe that compared to the US, things are pretty good, and (3) to pass legislation that forces data of European citizens to stay within Europe where it is easier for European spy agencies to get at.
It sounds like you need supermajority of representatives not the majority of residents. Big difference.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, discussions aren't about proving who's smarter or who has more knowledge, they are about gaining better understanding. Ambiguous statements or statements that are subject to multiple interpretations are detrimental to that. Furthermore, "the worst" assumption would not be that AmiJoJo is wrong, but that he engages in dissembling, that is, deliberately making ambiguous statements in order to derail the discussion. I don't think he does that.
In any case, AmiJoJo's statement that we have to accept the decision of "the majority where you live" is ambiguous in several ways, but it's wrong in all of the possible interpretations that I can see. First of all, it's unclear whether he means that as a descriptive or normative statement. As a normative statement, of course, it's easy to simply disagree with it and pronounce it wrong.As a descriptive statement, it's wrong because it describe no government that I know of. The US and Europe both have representative democracies, and decisions are made by majorities and supermajorities of representatives, not residents. And the decisions of representatives often differ from the preferences of majorities of residents or voters.
From a business point of view, slavery is inefficient; that's been understood at least since Adam Smith. Free markets, of course, include free markets in labor, and slavery is the antithesis of that, since it forcibly removes labor from its rightful owner (the slave) and hands it to a politically connected rent seeker (the slave master). The economic inefficiency of slavery was also the reason why the Southern states were in such poor shape: they couldn't compete with the North.
Slavery is something rent-seekers favor; it's no accident that the party of rent-seekers, the Democrats, supported slavery back then. So, I'm afraid you are projecting your own desires onto others.
Again, you're simply projecting your own ignorance onto others. The state of Somalian beaches is, quite literally, the result of real-world socialism.
Without European colonialism, there probably wouldn't be an state called "Somalia".
Furthermore, you're implicitly contemplating a false dichotomy: European colonialism or nothing at all; there are many ways in which Europe could have interacted with, or even governed, the Somalian territories that would have had better outcomes.
Of course, socialism was "tried", and it failed, like it always does. You're simply deluding yourself into thinking that socialism could be anything else.
But, in any case, whether Somalia was real socialism or just real-world socialism is irrelevant; the point is that Somalia is not an example of (1) a country without government, or (2) the result of capitalism, free markets, or libertarianism.
Apparently, I have a much better idea of the past and present economic and political system there than you. And while I haven't experienced Somalia's socialism, I have experienced other forms of socialism, you know, the real-world kind.
It is true: the term "Democratic People's Republic" refers to socialist and communist states.
Maybe you get hung up on the term "democratic", but it is used correctly according to socialist and communist theory: theoretically, those forms of government deliver "democratic" government. In practice, of course, they reliably deliver totalitarian hell holes.
Somalia was governed by the "Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party", and they took the usual path of countries run by socialists: they deteriorated economically to the point where they finally fall apart. That is the historical inevitability of what happens when socialism gets put into practice. Yes, socialism was in Somalia, and it did what socialism always does: it leads to totalitarianism and economic failure.
Much of Somalia is under Sharia law and there are still local governments. But to the extent that "free capitalism" exists in Somalia, it has helped improve conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course it takes a while for free markets to fix socialist shitholes, so you can't expect Somalia to turn into Switzerland overnight.
No, that's incorrect. It takes a 2/3 supermajority of representatives in both the House and the Senate, followed by ratification in 3/4 of the states. That is not "a majority where you live", it is "a supermajority of elected representatives". Furthermore, SCOTUS doesn't just literally execute instructions from the Constitution; in fact, it has the power to invalidate amendments or even preventing them from being considered.
The discussion started with AmiMoJo's claim that "you have to accept that the majority where you live decided that [something should happen]" and accept state violence if you disagree. That statement is wrong both as a factual and as a normative statement (he is ambiguous about which he means). And it's important to point that out, because that naive belief about government and majorities is used in political arguments, when people keep claiming that this-or-that policy doesn't coincide with polls and that therefore our form of government is somehow defective. The fact that majorities often don't get what they want is an important feature of US and European democracies, not a flaw.
The US Supreme Court would likely still rule slavery to be illegal and in violation of equal protection and other clauses.
Majorities are insufficient for passing laws that deprive citizens of fundamental rights.
No, sorry, utterly wrong. In fact, no major democracy would allow slavery to be reinstituted simply because a majority wants that to happen.
A majority isn't sufficient; it takes a lot more than that. In fact, in the US and Europe, some rights likely couldn't be taken away even by constitutional amendment because the various supreme courts would block it.
What you were saying is that a majority is sufficient, and that is factually wrong. To deprive people of life, liberty, and/or property takes a lot more than simply a majority decision.
And I think you are politically naive.
Observing that society has needs (i.e., the collection of needs of its members) isn't nanny state thinking. Nanny state thinking is the belief that state intervention can accurately identify and meet those needs. A free market advocate doesn't deny that there are needs or that some economic systems meet them better than others, he simply argues that those needs cannot be accurately identified by the state (or any other small organization).
As an individual, that observation is true. But when you look at markets as a whole, for every need, there are usually some people that are significantly better than the rest at satisfying that need: they produce at lower costs, produce higher quality, etc. Those are the people that run successful businesses and accumulate money. That accumulation of resources has two consequences: money goes to people who invest it most productively, and people who aren't using their money productively are encouraged to figure out how to do better. Redistribution schemes undermine exactly those mechanisms. The more you redistribute, the more you discourage productive investment and innovation.
We weren't talking about "how the government works", we were talking about AmiMoJo's political beliefs related to majoritarianism. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, AmiMoJo lives in Great Britain, so I don't see what US government has to do with this discussion anyway.
Pointing out that AmiMoJo's arguments for majoritarianism are fascist in nature isn't an "ad hominem", it's an objective fact about his political beliefs and how they relate to fascism. If you don't understand the relationship between majoritarianism and fascism, I suggest you do some more background reading; a good starting point is the actual political programs of European fascists, historically and in present times.
And, in fact, there is no particular guarantee that the US Constitution is fully consistent with liberty or justice, in particular after the amendments passed during the Progressive Era. A much better question you ought to reflect on is why the Founding Fathers apparently intended to restrict this power in the first place.
I can't quite tell whether you are being sarcastic or serious.
It's not going to happen; too many people make a living from the current convoluted welfare and benefits system.
I think that's a much better system in principle: in return for a minimal basic income, the government requires you to work at jobs of their choosing, in a kind of civilian version of the military. The problem with such a system is, however, that it is likely going to be abused sooner or later, as the government may take over larger and larger portions of the economy.
The problem is that the things people are interested in doing are not necessarily the things that society needs.
What does that have to do with basic income? I've written a lot of open source software and I've always been employed while doing it. In fact, the vast majority of open source software is sponsored by businesses.
So, according to you, if the majority decides that slavery should be legal, we should just "have to accept that"? According to you, if the majority decides that Jews should be deprived of their property, liberty, and/or life, we should just "have to accept that"? That's the way fasicst think; it reveals a lot about you.
Somalia is such a rotten place due to European colonialism followed by socialism. Since the fall of socialism in Somalia, conditions have actually been improving a bit. Of course, Somalia still has taxes and government, it simply doesn't have a national government within the arbitrary borders drawn by Europeans.
Since the articles (as well as yourself) misrepresented the meaning of "deflecting genuine criticism", it is clear that their authors are either dishonest or sloppy, so nothing those articles "describe" can be trusted. Furthermore, the links purporting to demonstrate sockpuppets are dead, so there is nothing to back up their charges. In addition, minorities who dare to speak out against people like you and Sarkeesian face a serious harrassment from people like you, which is why we often don't use our real names or images on the web. Finally, for the charge of "astroturfing", it really doesn't matter how a movement starts, it matters who actually participates in it, and that is a lot of minorities who disagree with Sarkeesian's message.
And no piece of the puzzle excuses your blatant misrepresentation of the facts. And the fact is that the IRC logs do not show what you claim they do, and that you blatantly misrepresented the meaning of "deflect genuine criticism". So, whatever you call the "#notyourshield" tag, it is clear that you are a liar.
Apparently, it is you who tries to manipulate people and hopes that people don't look at the logs. Here are the first "#notyourshield" mentions in your IRC logs:
Sep 02 23.40.59 #notyourshield is starting up
Sep 03 00.03.15 > SJW's, stop using gamers as your shield, we are black, too. https://twitter.com/hashtag/no...
Sep 03 00.03.43 if any of you are non-cis non-whites or non-males on twitter, please use #notyourshield
So, yes, you can verify quite easily that the origin of the tag is genuine and your charges of astroturfing are false.
The quote is: [Use] "Something like #NotYourShield and demand the SJWs stop using you as a shield to deflect genuine criticism,"
What they are saying is that they invented "#notyourhsield" to stop SJWs from misusing minorities as a "shield" because SJWs are trying to "deflect" genuine criticism from themselves that way. Not only is that grammatically clear from the sentence, it also is obvious from the semantics of "shield/deflect".
You are misquoting and misrepresenting this obvious fact as if the proponents of "#notyourshield" wanted to deflect criticism from themselves. I don't know whether you are being deliberately deceptive or whether you are just a careless reader; either way, you are wrong.
I actually hadn't known about the origins of "#notyourshield" (as a minority, I just used it a few times). But thank you for digging this up because it demonstrates again how dishonest and manipulative SJWs are, while the origin of the "#notyourshield" tag is nothing more than what the tag purports to be.
You obviously haven't been paying attention: http://www.stopbullying.gov/la...
It depends on who you are considerate towards. Being considerate towards a sick, suffering transgendered youngster is a good thing. Being considerate towards manipulative neo-Marxists is a bad thing.