"deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change."
You lie.
This language is designed to be vague so that anyone who "denies" climate change can be prosecuted. This is not private lawsuits; these are prosecutor-initiated government lawsuits. That is a criminal prosecution, since we are talking about corporations and not individuals.
"Must be demonstrated in the past" -- without that, Rightists will "not believe" which actually means "not accept the ravings of other human beings as reality."
If we have regressed, it has been under the last 200+ years of manic Leftism. It seems Leftism has led us to regression then. Maybe we should go with a fact-based narrative and then reject Leftism?
National Geographic Releases Climate Change Promotion 'Before the Flood' On YouTube
Promotion gets a bad name, but it is what one is doing when releasing one-sided or selectively chosen data.
I used to respect National Geographic, but after seeing one-sided political propaganda coming from them over the past few years, I throw them in the junkheap with most of the rest of media.
All you had was your good name, media. And now, that is gone.
Actual meaning: all of us believe it, and per our usual begging-the-question fallacy/passive-aggressive attack, we are going to insist you believe it too and call you a bad person if you refuse.
After years of bias, selective editing, source-policing to ensure cherry-picked data, etc. from Wikipedia editors, why would you even post a link to it?
Remember when they removed the global IQ chart because it was ideologically inconsistent for them, and then started inventing reasons why they should have done it, after the fact?
I sure do, and over the last ten years, many other events of this nature.
There is an overwhelming, if not almost universal, agreement that climate change is real. That has not been disputing in any proper and significant way for a long time. What the relevant parts of the scientific community are still haggling about is:
And that is the problem. Scientists are people. People have motivations outside of the work itself, such as getting a promotion or being socially accepted. Groups of people are more often wrong than not, and they usually have a consensus about it. In fact, history is full of these upsets.
How do you expect people to ever trust "the group"? Answer: they will not. And if bad consequences arise from that, well, the problem was that those who warned of those consequences were not trustworthy.
Many people do not trust any science with a political agenda, and when they see all of the usual suspects lining up behind it, they rightly assume it is a scam like the rest of the things these people do.
If climate science is true -- a big if -- and if it fails, it will be because of (1) who promoted it (2) how they promoted it and (3) how they did similar things in the past that ended up being corrupt, and therefore instructed their audience to avoid such things in the future.
And what is this celebrity worship? These people are good at acting, not verifying truth. They are not our leaders or moral guardians, but rather, the opposite.
So, are you ready to say the science is settled, we trust it, let's act on it and if scientists firmly disprove it we're ready to face whatever consequences the political system demands of us?
I think you need to go farther. Until people are willing to face jail time and restitution in the case that they are wrong, they are running your future on your dime.
Not to mention the long history of Leftist violence, including the French Revolution in which whole families -- men, women and children -- were sent to the guillotine, and the ensuing Napoleonic Wars which were designed to force all of Europe to be Leftist.
Ideologies do not change. They want total dominance and control. Censorship non-conforming speech is just one of the many methods they use toward that end.
Last time I checked, the government wasn't trying shut him or 4chan up/down.
Our government actively shuts down speech it does not agree with.
And in Europe, government shuts down un-PC speech all the time. The new anti-troll policies are just part of the assault; these governments also collude with social media and raid the homes of people who say the "wrong" things.
Do you trust government to define what is true, and what is not, by censoring what they perceive to be untrue or "offensive"?
While we're on the subject, what are David Duke, Jared Taylor and the rest of their KK buddies up to?
Jared Taylor continues to write at American Renaissance, which is experiencing increasing popularity as people become dissatisfied with the Establishment Narrative.
So, "no one is required to give me a platform" is, at its logical conclusion, a statement that can prevent a sufficiently offensive message from ever reaching the internet.
We live in Leftist times, under governments dedicated to equality and diversity, and therefore Leftist views are uncontroversial and for that reason, perceived as "inoffensive."
It is the same thing as someone in the Soviet Union saying that they support the Party. Well, who doesn't? Vaclav Havel makes a good point with "The Power of the Powerless" on this topic, which is that people go along with the dominant paradigm out of fear, not agreement.
"No platform" is designed (per its origins with Antifa in the 70s) to eliminate the chance for ideological non-conformists to express themselves. It is entirely enforced with fear. No sane person should support it, because it creates a compulsory hive-mind which refuses to consider that it might not be entirely right in its assumptions.
The Left has gained such control over media, academia, and government that certain ideas were entirely banished from the public eye. This left us with "cuckservatives," or neoconservatives who believed in Leftist goals through conservative methods, as the only option to the Left. That option was not an alternative, so the Alternative Right arose.
Censorship can occur through many methods. It is not merely a legal term; it means disallowing your ideological opponents from expressing necessary ideas as a way of weakening them. Doxxing people, getting them fired from their jobs, and otherwise destroying their lives is a means of censorship. This is why anonymous internet forums like 4chan came about: people wanted to talk about these taboo things.
Milo is "alt lite," according to most, in that he is from the libertarian tradition of anarchy with free markets more than the Alt Right mainstream of opposing equality. He will be fair as an owner of a free speech site, as there is nothing on record showing him ever supporting censorship or trying to censor others.
I would think it would be just fine for a beginner.
Perl is a great contemporary replacement for Applesoft BASIC: it is easy to get started in, links easily with other parts of the operating system, and is infinitely expandable.
Yes, as ShanghaiBill writes, some Perl programmers enjoy writing obfuscated code, but "some" is not equal to "all." The best Perl programmers write code that is as readable as Java, with less reliance on cramming everything into regular expressions.
The main problem for kids is a lack of code written to be read, so that they can organically absorb how it works and get started on their own projects quickly, because in my experience, all the good programmers learned their craft by getting passionate about creating something and driving themselves toward that goal.
Humans in large groups make terrible decisions because they are both risk-averse and prone to follow pleasant illusions.
Paint does not need a redesign; it needs fixes to the broken parts of its interface, and basic capabilities like smart select and layers.
Microsoft should also realize that people like it, much like Notepad, because it is a light app. Users love things that are simple, work right the first time, and are always fast because they are not bloated.
In fact, the best advice anyone could give Microsoft about Windows is to worry less about new features and more about making it like a Volkswagen bug: user serviceable, simple, well organized, and light and fast.
Anyone else remember MinWin? That is what we were all hoping for with Windows 10. It should not require an i7 to get decent performance on the desktop.
People hate authority. Most of them hate it simply because the authority they have experienced has not been just controlling, but also flagrantly stupid. Every public official is incompetent and they all want to tax you into oblivion and regulate minor details of behavior as life-changing events. Assange pushes back against authority. Even better, sometimes he nails really stupid authorities. We are all looking forward to whatever "October Surprise" he can cook up for The Establishment Candidate.
If you have a non-profit group whose goal is to save the whales, you raise money by writing about a new threat to whales every week and asking for donations afterwards.
The SPLC/ADL do the same thing, but with Nazis or anything that could possibly be argued to have one spoken to someone with a Nazi-like thought, because this is how they scare their readers into making more donations.
At this point, Nationalism -- the idea that a nation is defined by its founding ethnic group, and that it has the right to self-determination and to exclude all others -- is taboo only for European-descended people. Every other group can do it.
Now European-descended groups want the same thing because they do not want to abolish themselves and be replaced by mixed-race groups like we find in much of the world. They want Western Civilization back, and this is an important first step.
The SPLC/ADL would be smarter if they recognized that much as Zionism is Nationalism for Jews (read Theodor Herzl if you can) European-descended people have something similar for themselves. Everyone benefits if each group can have Nationalism, and preserve itself.
However, that threatens the globalist idea and its parent ideology, and so there are clumsy, ham-handed and laughably shrill attempts like demonizing Pepe which are just going to backfire on these watchdog groups.
Slashdot Mirror
Today's consensus is usually tomorrow's laughingstock.
There is also the tendency that, in groups, people react with herd behavior (panic or mania).
...anything you touch will turn to lead.
Ten million criminals, liars, grifters, con men, frauds, and shysters agree on something.
Maybe they like the science, or maybe they are doing what they usually do, which is extract money from the sheep.
Either way, they destroyed their own credibility and that is why people do not trust them.
Only fools are cowed by a large number of sources when it is clear those have been selected for their agreement with a thesis.
You lie.
This language is designed to be vague so that anyone who "denies" climate change can be prosecuted. This is not private lawsuits; these are prosecutor-initiated government lawsuits. That is a criminal prosecution, since we are talking about corporations and not individuals.
Also of note:
http://www.overlawyered.com/20...
"Must be demonstrated in the past" -- without that, Rightists will "not believe" which actually means "not accept the ravings of other human beings as reality."
If we have regressed, it has been under the last 200+ years of manic Leftism. It seems Leftism has led us to regression then. Maybe we should go with a fact-based narrative and then reject Leftism?
Take your pick: hasbara, CTR and fuzzy bears.
Promotion gets a bad name, but it is what one is doing when releasing one-sided or selectively chosen data.
I used to respect National Geographic, but after seeing one-sided political propaganda coming from them over the past few years, I throw them in the junkheap with most of the rest of media.
All you had was your good name, media. And now, that is gone.
"Settled."
As in, "Well, that's settled then."
Actual meaning: all of us believe it, and per our usual begging-the-question fallacy/passive-aggressive attack, we are going to insist you believe it too and call you a bad person if you refuse.
It's a pathology. Leftism, I mean.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
After years of bias, selective editing, source-policing to ensure cherry-picked data, etc. from Wikipedia editors, why would you even post a link to it?
Remember when they removed the global IQ chart because it was ideologically inconsistent for them, and then started inventing reasons why they should have done it, after the fact?
I sure do, and over the last ten years, many other events of this nature.
And that is the problem. Scientists are people. People have motivations outside of the work itself, such as getting a promotion or being socially accepted. Groups of people are more often wrong than not, and they usually have a consensus about it. In fact, history is full of these upsets.
In a world where a scandal like this exists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09...
How do you expect people to ever trust "the group"? Answer: they will not. And if bad consequences arise from that, well, the problem was that those who warned of those consequences were not trustworthy.
Many people do not trust any science with a political agenda, and when they see all of the usual suspects lining up behind it, they rightly assume it is a scam like the rest of the things these people do.
If climate science is true -- a big if -- and if it fails, it will be because of (1) who promoted it (2) how they promoted it and (3) how they did similar things in the past that ended up being corrupt, and therefore instructed their audience to avoid such things in the future.
And what is this celebrity worship? These people are good at acting, not verifying truth. They are not our leaders or moral guardians, but rather, the opposite.
I think you need to go farther. Until people are willing to face jail time and restitution in the case that they are wrong, they are running your future on your dime.
Strong leaders just go ahead and do that cyberstrike.
Weak leaders hint, mince and taunt, but never come to the table with force.
This is why the USA is losing prestige worldwide. We have become a wimpy bully instead of a strong, clear force.
Not to mention the long history of Leftist violence, including the French Revolution in which whole families -- men, women and children -- were sent to the guillotine, and the ensuing Napoleonic Wars which were designed to force all of Europe to be Leftist.
Ideologies do not change. They want total dominance and control. Censorship non-conforming speech is just one of the many methods they use toward that end.
Control works by an obvious mechanism: define something necessary as taboo in order to force everyone to do what the controller intends.
Right now in the West, many topics -- diversity, sexual equality, democracy, socialism -- are protected by making criticism of them taboo.
A sensible middle position is to remove the taboo, and see what is actually true, and then act on that instead of the control mechanism.
Our government actively shuts down speech it does not agree with.
And in Europe, government shuts down un-PC speech all the time. The new anti-troll policies are just part of the assault; these governments also collude with social media and raid the homes of people who say the "wrong" things.
Do you trust government to define what is true, and what is not, by censoring what they perceive to be untrue or "offensive"?
Jared Taylor continues to write at American Renaissance, which is experiencing increasing popularity as people become dissatisfied with the Establishment Narrative.
Many are independent homelands through regional and local communities.
We live in Leftist times, under governments dedicated to equality and diversity, and therefore Leftist views are uncontroversial and for that reason, perceived as "inoffensive."
It is the same thing as someone in the Soviet Union saying that they support the Party. Well, who doesn't? Vaclav Havel makes a good point with "The Power of the Powerless" on this topic, which is that people go along with the dominant paradigm out of fear, not agreement.
"No platform" is designed (per its origins with Antifa in the 70s) to eliminate the chance for ideological non-conformists to express themselves. It is entirely enforced with fear. No sane person should support it, because it creates a compulsory hive-mind which refuses to consider that it might not be entirely right in its assumptions.
The Left has gained such control over media, academia, and government that certain ideas were entirely banished from the public eye. This left us with "cuckservatives," or neoconservatives who believed in Leftist goals through conservative methods, as the only option to the Left. That option was not an alternative, so the Alternative Right arose.
Censorship can occur through many methods. It is not merely a legal term; it means disallowing your ideological opponents from expressing necessary ideas as a way of weakening them. Doxxing people, getting them fired from their jobs, and otherwise destroying their lives is a means of censorship. This is why anonymous internet forums like 4chan came about: people wanted to talk about these taboo things.
Milo is "alt lite," according to most, in that he is from the libertarian tradition of anarchy with free markets more than the Alt Right mainstream of opposing equality. He will be fair as an owner of a free speech site, as there is nothing on record showing him ever supporting censorship or trying to censor others.
Perl is a great contemporary replacement for Applesoft BASIC: it is easy to get started in, links easily with other parts of the operating system, and is infinitely expandable.
Yes, as ShanghaiBill writes, some Perl programmers enjoy writing obfuscated code, but "some" is not equal to "all." The best Perl programmers write code that is as readable as Java, with less reliance on cramming everything into regular expressions.
The main problem for kids is a lack of code written to be read, so that they can organically absorb how it works and get started on their own projects quickly, because in my experience, all the good programmers learned their craft by getting passionate about creating something and driving themselves toward that goal.
Humans in large groups make terrible decisions because they are both risk-averse and prone to follow pleasant illusions.
Paint does not need a redesign; it needs fixes to the broken parts of its interface, and basic capabilities like smart select and layers.
Microsoft should also realize that people like it, much like Notepad, because it is a light app. Users love things that are simple, work right the first time, and are always fast because they are not bloated.
In fact, the best advice anyone could give Microsoft about Windows is to worry less about new features and more about making it like a Volkswagen bug: user serviceable, simple, well organized, and light and fast.
Anyone else remember MinWin? That is what we were all hoping for with Windows 10. It should not require an i7 to get decent performance on the desktop.
People hate authority. Most of them hate it simply because the authority they have experienced has not been just controlling, but also flagrantly stupid. Every public official is incompetent and they all want to tax you into oblivion and regulate minor details of behavior as life-changing events. Assange pushes back against authority. Even better, sometimes he nails really stupid authorities. We are all looking forward to whatever "October Surprise" he can cook up for The Establishment Candidate.
Shot himself 13 times in the back. Hillary Clinton unvailable for comment and does not recall anyway.
I already saw Operation Google on internet neckbeard self-stim party Reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Google...
If you have a non-profit group whose goal is to save the whales, you raise money by writing about a new threat to whales every week and asking for donations afterwards.
The SPLC/ADL do the same thing, but with Nazis or anything that could possibly be argued to have one spoken to someone with a Nazi-like thought, because this is how they scare their readers into making more donations.
At this point, Nationalism -- the idea that a nation is defined by its founding ethnic group, and that it has the right to self-determination and to exclude all others -- is taboo only for European-descended people. Every other group can do it.
Now European-descended groups want the same thing because they do not want to abolish themselves and be replaced by mixed-race groups like we find in much of the world. They want Western Civilization back, and this is an important first step.
The SPLC/ADL would be smarter if they recognized that much as Zionism is Nationalism for Jews (read Theodor Herzl if you can) European-descended people have something similar for themselves. Everyone benefits if each group can have Nationalism, and preserve itself.
However, that threatens the globalist idea and its parent ideology, and so there are clumsy, ham-handed and laughably shrill attempts like demonizing Pepe which are just going to backfire on these watchdog groups.