My issue is with the statement "The left will tolerate you. The right will punish you." I'm saying that my experience is the opposite: people on the left are much more frequently bigoted and intolerant towards people who "deviate from their idea of normal" than people on the right.
That is, Democrats and Hillary supporters in my experience frequently become defensive, abusive and insulting when I tell them that I don't like their candidate, whereas Republicans and Trump/Cruz/Bush supporters generally just say "I understand your view, even if I disagree with it" when I tell them that I don't like their candidate.
You can be a gay vegetarian immigrant atheist and still be right wing.
Well, I'm neither. I'm a classical liberal, which means I'm socially liberal and in favor of free markets and small government. That view used to be tolerated in the Democratic party, but not anymore.
It's well-documented by the victims themselves, who are posting evidence of the crimes on social media.
And it's well documented that a lot of those "crimes" are, in fact, fake: they are either fabricated, self-inflicted, or perpetrated by anti-Trump protesters.
Clearly, there were hate crimes before Trump's election, and there are hate crimes after Trump's election. Nobody knows whether there is a "post-election hate-crime-wave" due to Trump supporters.
You are a liar, please go away
You are being dishonest by equating increased news reports of vandalism with an actual hate crime wave.
I think you misunderstand: I'm saying that the reason that you "don't see any evidence" is entirely a problem with you. I can't fix your mental problems for you.
So every single Conservative is happy, friendly and welcoming, while all Liberals are hateful, spiteful and evil?
Do you have trouble with terms like "generally" and "frequently"?
Here's a tip for you, there's loonies on all sides of the fence. Your chosen team doesn't have a monopoly on virtue.
(1) I'm on neither political team.
(2) The fact that both parties have large numbers of deplorables doesn't mean that they are interchangeable in every respect.
(3) Howitzer86 claimed that "The left will tolerate you. The right will punish you." I'm pointing out that my experience is the opposite: I have found the left to be much more frequently to be nasty, bigoted, and intolerant of people who they disagree with than the right.
Awww, how cute! Your little homophobic mind thinks that that amounts to some kind of clever response!
Actually, the Koch brothers are straight. But they were pretty nice looking in their youth, and as smart, socially liberal, MIT-educated engineers they would have been a good catch.
You have not made an argument that sending out these notification is consistent with their political biases or their economic self-interest.
Really? You don't understand how "liberal journalists have their accounts hacked by 'state actors'" plays into Clinton's confabulation of "the DNC got hacked by 'state actors' in order to hand Trump the election"? I suggest you just reflect on that a bit more.
Coler is a soft-spoken 40-year-old with a wife and two kids. He says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right. “The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction,” Coler says.
That is, a left-wing agitator produces large amounts of right wing bullshit online and then left-wing media use that to support their view that there is a massive problem with fake news and "alt-right" views.
This is similar to to the fake post-election hate-crime-wave that we are supposedly experiencing, and to the death threats people fake on Twitter. The left wing outrage machinery is largely fed by self-created fake stories.
You can objectively come to this conclusion by deviating from their idea of normal. The left will tolerate you. The right will punish you.
When I tell people that, as a gay immigrant, I didn't support Clinton and have left the Democratic party, I am frequently subjected to abuse and insults by leftists, being called anything from a shill to a self-hating faggot. Question left-wing dogma on gun control, affirmative action, abortion, or climate change, and the abuse gets even worse.
I have experienced nothing comparable from US conservatives, libertarians, Christians, or independents, even as an openly gay, vegetarian atheist; their attitude is generally "not quite what we believe, but how nice for you"; the worst they'll do is hand you a Bible.
True: while progressives and fascists are politically and historically closely related, fascists are clearly worse than progressives.
And, there is no evidence of any "leftist" conspiracy outside of your padded room.
Correct, there is no "leftist conspiracy", any more than there is a conspiracy of bankers, oil companies, or GMO producers. Rather, it is everybody acting out of self-interest. It just happens to be the case that the self-interest of journalists and media doesn't coincide with the truth or the interests of the public at large.
Fake news galvanized Hillary Clinton supporters, and sullied her enemies.
Right now, they are subjecting us to an endless stream of baseless accusations of "white nationalism" and "anti-Semitism" against their political enemies. I'm not even going to bother listing the never ending stream of fake stories coming out of left-leaning media, including Quartz, a publication pushing advertising at rich lefties (the target audience for Teslas, hence no surprise why they are defending him).
As for Musk, of course, he is a major crony capitalist; his business wouldn't exist without massive government support. If you think you are justified being pissed off at Wall Street or Exxon, you are just as justified being pissed off at Musk's businesses.
Do you believe that Google has the data and competence to analyse that data to identify patterns that can distinguish (with high confidence) the difference between a state actor and a hacking/private group?
No, they do not have the data to distinguish between the two.
Your argument then seems to be that Google has lied to some users (either about an attack existing at all, or about the source of an attack) to ingratiate themselves with the Democrats. There are a number of (non-political) reasons that Google might inform users of the possibility of state-sponsored attacks. Your suggestion that this might be politically motivated is, frankly, silly.
I didn't say that their message was "politically motivated" or that they "lied", both of which would require conscious deception or that the statement is absolutely false. The problem with the statement is that it is being made against the background of a Democratic conspiracy theory in which Putin has supposedly been aiding Trump to win the election, and against that background, it is irresponsible to make such a statement. A politically neutral and responsible company would have worded their statement more carefully; but Google and Facebook are more than 90% Democratic and they benefit from good relations with the Democrats, so they simply have no interest in being careful in what they say in order to avoid giving the impression that they are providing support for Democratic conspiracy theories.
Unfortunately, the Russia-hacked-us meme is spreading fast on social media and among disaffected Clinton voters. "It's just ignorance," said the cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr
That's just double-plus-unpossible! We all know that people who vote Democratic are inerrant in all matters scientific and factual! I read it in the NYT and the WP!
Same tactic from an AC immediately after the sockpuppet is criticised for it. Do you guys follow a flowchat? It must be a lot like working in a callcentre, no?
Actually, we're all part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy! You should see the kinds of monthly checks we receive from the Koch Brothers!
Rather than argue by providing a reason for why Google would do this in poor faith you simply smear them and insinuate some form of collusion.
I didn't "insinuate" anything. It's an established fact that Facebook and Google, as well as their owners, are strong supporters of the Democrats, and I'm pointing out that these "notices" are consistent with their political biases and economic self-interest. I'm also pointing out that it should be clear that Google has no objective basis on which to determine whether a hack is perpetrated by a "state actor" or not.
Maybe the purported state-sponsored hackers are not so much interested in what the likes of Krugman or Olbermann write, but in what the people they are corresponding with are writing?
As I was saying "[if they had] significant insider information, they wouldn't be constantly wrong".
What have Krugman or Olbermann ever written that suggests that Podesta, Clinton, or anybody else has shared anything more substantial than vegan cookie recipes with these guys?
I can't imagine why anybody would bother to hack Krugman's or Olbermann's accounts. It's not like you could expose them to be Democratic party hacks, we already know that they are. And if they actually knew much about politics or economics or had significant insider information, they wouldn't be constantly wrong. Trump and the Republicans don't consider these "liberals" adversaries, they consider them a gift from heaven: they couldn't hope for better caricatures of the Democrats and progressives.
but it's highly unlikely that they would send such notifications without having a pretty high confidence factor in it
Really? Why? Do you think Google or Facebook are any more credible than Exxon or Monsanto? These are big corporations; they will say whatever furthers their agenda. As long as it's legal, that's their right, but that doesn't mean that you need to turn into a gullible fool.
There is almost no cost associated with them for blaming "state-sponsored actors" wrongly: it's not a claim that they can be held legally responsible for, there is no possibility of libel charges, and it doesn't even hurt them in terms of public opinion or trust. At most they'll look a bit overly cautious.
But there is a lot of benefit associated with making such a claim regardless of evidence: both companies are heavily in bed with the Democrats, and this kind of notice ingratiates them to the Democratic party establishment.
The anonymous nature also opens up opportunities for frank discussion, potentially paving the way for independents, conservatives, and libertarians to post without left-wing hooligans doxing them or threatening them with violence, as they so frequently do -- something that tech giants like Facebook and Google don't particularly like because it contravenes the political and corporate interests of their founders
There were no buggy whip makers in Idiocracy either, as far as I remember.
You're right: my analogy was not particularly good. Buggy whip makers may be obsolete, but when their product was in demand, they were actually skilled craftsmen that provided a useful product. Such skill wouldn't exist in the world of Idiocracy. Journalists, on the other hand, neither need a lot of craftsmanship or skill, and they probably played a large role in the downfall of society in Idiocracy. And while 99.999% of all professions were not, in fact, visible in Idiocracy, it seems likely that they had journalists just like they had doctors, lawyers, and presidents, given that Idiocracy was largely a funhouse mirror of late 20th century society.
Yes, it's getting warmer. Yes, the arctic sea ice is melting. Why is this on Slashdot every f*cking season? This is not news that matters or news for nerds.
The New York Times ran a strong opinion piece that talks about one critical reason why everyone should quit social media: your career is dependent on it. The other argues that by spending time on social media and sharing our thoughts, we are demeaning the value of our work, our ideas.
Translation: if people post news and commentary to social media for free, the NYT is out of business.
Journalists, get used to it: you are as obsolete as buggy whip makers.
Had the Left won, hard to imagine their extremist supporters racing around in Priuses, flying rainbow flags, yelling 'Death to Whitey!' at every Caucasian they meet, and burning down the occasional Cabelas.
Of course not: the left is running amok because the left lost. They are beating up people, screaming at anybody they suspect of being Trump supporters, destroying property, and smearing Swastikas and hate speech all over the place.
And I'm not inclined to place all the "blame" on uneducated people believing the bullshit
Educated people have their own set of bullshit they believe in, such as critical race theory, Keynesian economics, or the efficacy of the Paris accords. The real problem is not that people believe bullshit, everybody does that. The problem is that people want to spread the cost for the bullshit they believe to others. If you believe in something, use your own time and money to work for it, bear the consequences, yourself, and don't try to force others to join your folie a millions.
Slashdot Mirror
My issue is with the statement "The left will tolerate you. The right will punish you." I'm saying that my experience is the opposite: people on the left are much more frequently bigoted and intolerant towards people who "deviate from their idea of normal" than people on the right.
That is, Democrats and Hillary supporters in my experience frequently become defensive, abusive and insulting when I tell them that I don't like their candidate, whereas Republicans and Trump/Cruz/Bush supporters generally just say "I understand your view, even if I disagree with it" when I tell them that I don't like their candidate.
Well, I'm neither. I'm a classical liberal, which means I'm socially liberal and in favor of free markets and small government. That view used to be tolerated in the Democratic party, but not anymore.
And it's well documented that a lot of those "crimes" are, in fact, fake: they are either fabricated, self-inflicted, or perpetrated by anti-Trump protesters.
Clearly, there were hate crimes before Trump's election, and there are hate crimes after Trump's election. Nobody knows whether there is a "post-election hate-crime-wave" due to Trump supporters.
You are being dishonest by equating increased news reports of vandalism with an actual hate crime wave.
I think you misunderstand: I'm saying that the reason that you "don't see any evidence" is entirely a problem with you. I can't fix your mental problems for you.
Do you have trouble with terms like "generally" and "frequently"?
(1) I'm on neither political team.
(2) The fact that both parties have large numbers of deplorables doesn't mean that they are interchangeable in every respect.
(3) Howitzer86 claimed that "The left will tolerate you. The right will punish you." I'm pointing out that my experience is the opposite: I have found the left to be much more frequently to be nasty, bigoted, and intolerant of people who they disagree with than the right.
Awww, how cute! Your little homophobic mind thinks that that amounts to some kind of clever response!
Actually, the Koch brothers are straight. But they were pretty nice looking in their youth, and as smart, socially liberal, MIT-educated engineers they would have been a good catch.
Really? You don't understand how "liberal journalists have their accounts hacked by 'state actors'" plays into Clinton's confabulation of "the DNC got hacked by 'state actors' in order to hand Trump the election"? I suggest you just reflect on that a bit more.
In case you missed it, NPR tracked down a major source of fake news
That is, a left-wing agitator produces large amounts of right wing bullshit online and then left-wing media use that to support their view that there is a massive problem with fake news and "alt-right" views.
This is similar to to the fake post-election hate-crime-wave that we are supposedly experiencing, and to the death threats people fake on Twitter. The left wing outrage machinery is largely fed by self-created fake stories.
When I tell people that, as a gay immigrant, I didn't support Clinton and have left the Democratic party, I am frequently subjected to abuse and insults by leftists, being called anything from a shill to a self-hating faggot. Question left-wing dogma on gun control, affirmative action, abortion, or climate change, and the abuse gets even worse.
I have experienced nothing comparable from US conservatives, libertarians, Christians, or independents, even as an openly gay, vegetarian atheist; their attitude is generally "not quite what we believe, but how nice for you"; the worst they'll do is hand you a Bible.
True: while progressives and fascists are politically and historically closely related, fascists are clearly worse than progressives.
Correct, there is no "leftist conspiracy", any more than there is a conspiracy of bankers, oil companies, or GMO producers. Rather, it is everybody acting out of self-interest. It just happens to be the case that the self-interest of journalists and media doesn't coincide with the truth or the interests of the public at large.
With equal justification, you could write:
Right now, they are subjecting us to an endless stream of baseless accusations of "white nationalism" and "anti-Semitism" against their political enemies. I'm not even going to bother listing the never ending stream of fake stories coming out of left-leaning media, including Quartz, a publication pushing advertising at rich lefties (the target audience for Teslas, hence no surprise why they are defending him).
As for Musk, of course, he is a major crony capitalist; his business wouldn't exist without massive government support. If you think you are justified being pissed off at Wall Street or Exxon, you are just as justified being pissed off at Musk's businesses.
No, they do not have the data to distinguish between the two.
I didn't say that their message was "politically motivated" or that they "lied", both of which would require conscious deception or that the statement is absolutely false. The problem with the statement is that it is being made against the background of a Democratic conspiracy theory in which Putin has supposedly been aiding Trump to win the election, and against that background, it is irresponsible to make such a statement. A politically neutral and responsible company would have worded their statement more carefully; but Google and Facebook are more than 90% Democratic and they benefit from good relations with the Democrats, so they simply have no interest in being careful in what they say in order to avoid giving the impression that they are providing support for Democratic conspiracy theories.
That's just double-plus-unpossible! We all know that people who vote Democratic are inerrant in all matters scientific and factual! I read it in the NYT and the WP!
Actually, we're all part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy! You should see the kinds of monthly checks we receive from the Koch Brothers!
I didn't "insinuate" anything. It's an established fact that Facebook and Google, as well as their owners, are strong supporters of the Democrats, and I'm pointing out that these "notices" are consistent with their political biases and economic self-interest. I'm also pointing out that it should be clear that Google has no objective basis on which to determine whether a hack is perpetrated by a "state actor" or not.
Do some reading.
As I was saying "[if they had] significant insider information, they wouldn't be constantly wrong".
What have Krugman or Olbermann ever written that suggests that Podesta, Clinton, or anybody else has shared anything more substantial than vegan cookie recipes with these guys?
I can't imagine why anybody would bother to hack Krugman's or Olbermann's accounts. It's not like you could expose them to be Democratic party hacks, we already know that they are. And if they actually knew much about politics or economics or had significant insider information, they wouldn't be constantly wrong. Trump and the Republicans don't consider these "liberals" adversaries, they consider them a gift from heaven: they couldn't hope for better caricatures of the Democrats and progressives.
Really? Why? Do you think Google or Facebook are any more credible than Exxon or Monsanto? These are big corporations; they will say whatever furthers their agenda. As long as it's legal, that's their right, but that doesn't mean that you need to turn into a gullible fool.
There is almost no cost associated with them for blaming "state-sponsored actors" wrongly: it's not a claim that they can be held legally responsible for, there is no possibility of libel charges, and it doesn't even hurt them in terms of public opinion or trust. At most they'll look a bit overly cautious.
But there is a lot of benefit associated with making such a claim regardless of evidence: both companies are heavily in bed with the Democrats, and this kind of notice ingratiates them to the Democratic party establishment.
Let's translate this, shall we?
It is getting warmer. Ice melts. Obviously, this is going to happen. Is that so hard to understand? Why is this news?
You're right: my analogy was not particularly good. Buggy whip makers may be obsolete, but when their product was in demand, they were actually skilled craftsmen that provided a useful product. Such skill wouldn't exist in the world of Idiocracy. Journalists, on the other hand, neither need a lot of craftsmanship or skill, and they probably played a large role in the downfall of society in Idiocracy. And while 99.999% of all professions were not, in fact, visible in Idiocracy, it seems likely that they had journalists just like they had doctors, lawyers, and presidents, given that Idiocracy was largely a funhouse mirror of late 20th century society.
Yes, it's getting warmer. Yes, the arctic sea ice is melting. Why is this on Slashdot every f*cking season? This is not news that matters or news for nerds.
Translation: if people post news and commentary to social media for free, the NYT is out of business.
Journalists, get used to it: you are as obsolete as buggy whip makers.
The awful UI of Windows 10 with the lack of WIndows compatibility of Ubuntu.
(Seriously, I think the main reason people choose to run Windows 10 these days is for the games and some legacy apps.)
Of course not: the left is running amok because the left lost. They are beating up people, screaming at anybody they suspect of being Trump supporters, destroying property, and smearing Swastikas and hate speech all over the place.
Educated people have their own set of bullshit they believe in, such as critical race theory, Keynesian economics, or the efficacy of the Paris accords. The real problem is not that people believe bullshit, everybody does that. The problem is that people want to spread the cost for the bullshit they believe to others. If you believe in something, use your own time and money to work for it, bear the consequences, yourself, and don't try to force others to join your folie a millions.