You keep talking about the press, but then you mention Gawker and Nick Denton. Make up your mind, which one is the piece about?
There are hundreds of news organizations in the US alone that have been pressured by moneyed interests, why choose Gawker? They were the least ethical trash rag you could ever find, and both the writing and ethics quality of the US press went up by a small but significant percentage the day Hulkster gave them the final bodyslam.
Here's the deal - Hulk Hogan went after them because they published (and refused to take down) his *private* recording of him doing his friend's wife (with his friend in the room...watching). Peter Thiel funded the case because Gawker had earlier decided to out Thiel as a homosexual, something he didn't want publicly known. Both of these things are pretty gross by human standards, and the "press" is supposed to follow certain ethical guidelines if the Society of Professional Journalists is to be believed (https://www.spj.org/)
All in all, killing Gawker and all it's vile subsidiaries (which unfortunately didn't happen) was of big help to the free press since it then had one black sheep flock less to tarnish its reputation, and there was more space left for real, actual, objective, journalism to use.
So in summary - The free press is critical to a functional society, and Gawker's demise improved the life of everyone on the planet by a small percentage (except for dickwolves Nick Denton and Sam "Bring back bullying" Biddle)
Just out of curiosity, how much do you get paid to spout these lies?
How many rubles does Uncle Putin hand you? Or do you get paid directly in bread and vodka? Doesn't it bother you that your daily work consists of making the world a worse place?
Let's try the same analogy, but with bridges this time.
Do you know who camps on someone else's bridge, demanding a toll in order to let travellers through? A filthy troll. That's what these ISPs want to do (and Ajit Paid is happy to take the money), and that's what I hope you get modded down as (because there is for some reason no -1 paid internet shill).
Or you could read the TFS and see that PornHub doesn't send any information about what the user viewed.
Let me help you -
"Also to be clear, Pornhub does not log or store any of your personal information, this is just a check to see if users are over 18. On [Vkontakte's] end, all they will see is see the request from that user, they will not know what that user browsed on Pornhub."
CNN ratings, which were already low have dropped even lower
You are simply denying facts.
CNN has most watched second quarter on record, from June 27th, 2017 / Now in the Top 10 in all categories for cable networks. http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn....
Flagrantly false equivalency. There are no media outlets, including Fox, who threaten to dox SNL writers, comedians, and staff for writing skits. There are no media outlets, including Fox, who threaten to dox writers, comedians, or staff for writing new skits.
That's because they can't. SNL "dox" themselves every show by putting their real names in the credits. That's pretty much what separates trolling from satire or whatever you want you call the SNL thing. Hell, one might even consider that SNL gets treated with more respect because they do have the balls to stand up for their skits.
The outrage here has nothing to do with the "comedy", it is all about the reaction of CNN staff who by their own admission blackmailed a person because CNN didn't like the comedy.
No, most of the outrage is due to a moron with a vast herd of followers retweeting the thing. Without that, nothing would have come it. CNN wouldn't need to make a point since nobodies accuse them of fraudulent behavior all the time. But since the MOTUS decided to step in, CNN couldn't ignore it.
Second, there was no blackmail. Forcing someone to take responsibility for what they shout is the role of a parent, and is an important lesson for growing up. Is it blackmail to threaten legal action against someone that commits a crime? Is it blackmail to threaten your child with no dessert if he keeps peeing on the sofa? Given how you see this as blackmail, I'm inclined to distrust your political neutrality.
If this was Fox threatening a person for creating a 20 second meme, my reaction would be the same. I am extremely doubtful that you would say the same thing.
Let's not kid ourselves, were it Fox you would be trying to downplay the whole thing as self-defense. As for me, you don't have wonder. I'm no more fond of the Guardian or the Verge posting slanted articles than Fox.
That's totally irrelevant. Unless you say it out loud with your mouth, it's not slander. If you're going to try to be pedantic, at least know what the word means.
It's only irrelevant if you do not grasp complicated words like 'context'. As for being pedantic, that could be easily defined as "needing to differentiate between slander and libel even when the meaning is the same". You're shooting yourself in the foot here...
Slander and defamation are names of legal torts. To say we're not discussing law here is absurd and to miss your point you would need to have one to begin with, rather than an argument from ignorance using words you have failed to understand. The fact that you resort to "crayon-filled" insults shows that you are most likely just trolling, though, so I bid you good day.
And where do you think those names came from? They are also words unassociated with legalese, and have been so for longer than the existence of any libel *laws*. Why do you think there is a *laws* at the end there? Because libel itself is also a word outside of legalese. In short, you are no lawyer, and you do not grasp the basics of the terminology.
On an unrelated tangent, do you spend a lot of time on/pol/?
Wow, even for a trumpanzee you are bottom of the barrel uneducated. Do you know what the moral of the Caesar play is? That political murder never brings about the change you want to see. The play tells you that you shouldn't murder Trump because that will only make things worse (in this case hasten the demise of Rome).
Kathy Griffin got fired for that sketch, so clearly it wasn't OK. Did you not read the followup on that story?
You picked the two dumbest examples possible, both showing the opposite of what you thought. Trumpanzees, man...
Twitter is somewhere between written and spoken in formality, so both slander and libel seem reasonable. These are the wonders you can perform if you actually understand the language and setting.
Also, you should use a legal dictionary when talking about law.
No, I don't need to use a legal dictionary since my post does not bring any legal arguments or intentions. The notion that my post had to be legally provable exists only in your crayon-filled mind.
Last, I don't care in the slightest about whether some "first amendment" lawyers think fake news is provably false or not. You are under some childish assumption that only that which is legally provable can be right.
You have managed to completely miss any and every point by a continent or more. Well done.
Accusing CNN of fraudulent news is the exact definition of slander, or libel if you prefer. It is directly damaging to the company to be accused of not truthfully doing the job for which they charge.
Definition of slander
make false and damaging statements about (someone). "they were accused of slandering the head of state"
Of course they should hold him to his words. He slandered them brutally and they're under no obligation to spare his feelings. This is a classic case of talk shit get hit except CNN are trying to be better people and not stoop to the level of the trumpanzee.
I'm guessing there's a lot of embarrassing stuff he doesn't want investigated by CNN (assuming he's your run-of-the-mill/b/tard).
Title says "Tesla Factory Reportedly Described As a 'Predator Zone' By Female Employees", but the first sentence says "Tesla's Fremont factory was described by a female employee...". So which one is it? Plural is quite different from singular.
Then, there's the story (I'm not even gonna touch the Verge crap, we all know it's an identity politics rag at this point). Let's see.
The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day was “be bold for change” in the fight for a “more gender inclusive world” – but some at Tesla had a different plan for the day.
Five seconds in, and we already know the author is an "I know what's best for everyone" type keyboard warrior. This does not bode well for objectivity.
It was an opportunity for women to discover essential oils. A “health and wellness group” at the electric car company invited female staff members to an 8 March “lunch ‘n learn” about oils and how they can help improve people’s “health and happiness”, according to emails seen by the Guardian, which reveal that the proposed event was quickly met with vocal criticism.
Starting off great with some outrage that women were offered a 'lunch 'n learn' about oils. It's a well known fact that women don't like such things, that's why there's no market for female skin care products or wellness products. But hey, don't let a multi-billion dollar market get in the way of your feminism, you know what's best for everyone. Stay strong.
Tesla postponed the oils session. The company organized a town hall meeting on diversity for that day, which included six male executives and one woman, according to multiple attendees.
Note that there weren't 7 women executives attending, which is how a correctly diversified workplace should look. If they're all black, that's even more diverse. Diversity means fewer dicks in well-paid positions (but screw coal mining and construction, those places are dangerous!). Also note that this point is according to multiple attendees, but doesn't mention if Vandermeyden is included.
At the crowded meeting at the Fremont factory, women took the microphone one-by-one and shared stories of sexual harassment, mistreatment by male managers, unfair promotion decisions and more, sources said.
Now suddenly, "sources said". It's no longer Vandermeyden? The author doesn't mention other people coming forward here...
Vandermeyden, who attended the meeting, thought the outpouring of comments validated her own story.
Oh, I guess we're back to Vandermeyden.
Testimony from the town hall – along with internal emails from Musk, and Vandermeyden’s first interview since her termination – paint a picture of a company that has struggled to respond to mounting complaints about gender discrimination and has aggressively attempted to discredit a woman who publicly criticized it.
Testimony from the Town Hall... according to Vandermeyden? This is starting to sound very fishy. Almost as if there's only a single source for the "sky is falling" claims.
Musk was not at the meeting, which was attended by roughly 70-100 people, and featured comments from more than 20 women, according to Vandermeyden and another attendee.
Ahh, so there it is. Vandermeyden and another attendee. Wait, why is the other attendee only mentioned now? Does that mean that the other attendee only validated this one thing? That there were "more than 20" women attending?
One woman described parts of the factory as a “predator zone” for harassment. When the moderator asked women in the room if they had ever been catcalled, a significant number of women raised their hands, according to Vander
A friend of mine started on a sociology major, and found out the hard way that dissent (in the form of opinion or cold hard facts) is not appreciated, as opposed to almost all other departments where fresh points of view are welcomed.
I know of 5 people (just in my own social circles) that quit their academic pursuits simply because the sociology departments weren't interested in research, they in fact became angry and threatening when presented with actual corroborated conclusions. These areas have become remarkably anti-intellectual and venomous, which is also why the language used has become so technical (you can't say men are to blame for everything, you have to say toxic masculinity etc).
Wow, are you seriously telling me that people who love money over everything else in the world would behave immorally? Noooo way.
That does not sound like the money-grubbers we have all come to respect and love (Bank of America, Fannie-Mae, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Freddie Mac)
Sociology these days are unfortunately often just a word to make your opinions sound better. Why else would we have sociology branches in feminist theory or gender theory with insane studies like this? ( http://journals.sagepub.com/do... )
Well done. Just like the overly enthusiastic parents that name their child "Jonn", or "Sarra", or "Madilene", you have now ensured that you will have to spell out the damn name every time you talk about it. And that "exclamation mark underscore" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
Nothing insightful to contribute, just wanted to say that I hope it works out for him. People like this are the ones that make the world a more amicable, and slightly better, place.
If you're wondering what the opposite of a DMCA-wielding media conglomerate looks like - this guy is it.
In fact, if you take a hindu to a physical therapy program and ask him what he just did, he'll say 'yoga'. If you take a physiotherapist to a yoga session and ask her what she just did, she'll say 'physical therapy' (assuming you avoid the weird stoner-stuff about energy and one-with-the-universe cringe that comes after). I've been doing physical therapy for quite a while now (back problems), and I can't see any difference between physical therapy, stretching, and yoga. They all revolve around moderate exertion of muscle groups that we don't normally exercise in our day-to-day lives.
Of course, there is also the usual virtue signalling bullshit included here.
That's important, say the researchers, because chronic back pain -- which affects about 10% of U.S. adults -- has a greater impact on minorities and people of lower socioeconomic status.
I would like to see the study that concludes that my life is 'more' fine with backpain than anyone else's. Is it less important to be able to play with your kids if you aren't the appropriate minority? Do you not benefit from long walks if you are rich? Are active hobbies only relevant if they prevent you from a life of crime?
If there isn't a study on this, then these researchers are regurgitating intellectually dishonest narratives (something which is usually consigned to the social "sciences"). I really hope this isn't part of a trend, since internal medicine is a field that must be harshly structured around logical thought and cold hard data.
"They go from being outgoing, energetic, interested in the world and happy, to reclusive. They want to spend all their time in their room. They lose interest in outside activities."
Slashdot Mirror
You keep talking about the press, but then you mention Gawker and Nick Denton. Make up your mind, which one is the piece about?
There are hundreds of news organizations in the US alone that have been pressured by moneyed interests, why choose Gawker? They were the least ethical trash rag you could ever find, and both the writing and ethics quality of the US press went up by a small but significant percentage the day Hulkster gave them the final bodyslam.
Here's the deal - ...watching). Peter Thiel funded the case because Gawker had earlier decided to out Thiel as a homosexual, something he didn't want publicly known. Both of these things are pretty gross by human standards, and the "press" is supposed to follow certain ethical guidelines if the Society of Professional Journalists is to be believed (https://www.spj.org/)
Hulk Hogan went after them because they published (and refused to take down) his *private* recording of him doing his friend's wife (with his friend in the room
All in all, killing Gawker and all it's vile subsidiaries (which unfortunately didn't happen) was of big help to the free press since it then had one black sheep flock less to tarnish its reputation, and there was more space left for real, actual, objective, journalism to use.
So in summary - The free press is critical to a functional society, and Gawker's demise improved the life of everyone on the planet by a small percentage (except for dickwolves Nick Denton and Sam "Bring back bullying" Biddle)
Don't worry about it. It was only added so people won't focus on the part where he says "Russia invaded Crimea is a lie".
lies about Russia invading Crimea
Haha, paid shill.
Just out of curiosity, how much do you get paid to spout these lies?
How many rubles does Uncle Putin hand you? Or do you get paid directly in bread and vodka?
Doesn't it bother you that your daily work consists of making the world a worse place?
Let's try the same analogy, but with bridges this time.
Do you know who camps on someone else's bridge, demanding a toll in order to let travellers through? A filthy troll. That's what these ISPs want to do (and Ajit Paid is happy to take the money), and that's what I hope you get modded down as (because there is for some reason no -1 paid internet shill).
Or you could read the TFS and see that PornHub doesn't send any information about what the user viewed.
Let me help you -
"Also to be clear, Pornhub does not log or store any of your personal information, this is just a check to see if users are over 18. On [Vkontakte's] end, all they will see is see the request from that user, they will not know what that user browsed on Pornhub."
Lies, beget lies, which beget lies.
CNN ratings, which were already low have dropped even lower
You are simply denying facts.
CNN has most watched second quarter on record, from June 27th, 2017 / Now in the Top 10 in all categories for cable networks.
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn....
Trump's claim that CNN ratings are down is 'pants on fire'.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
This is post is just bizarre. Why didn't you fact check first? Don't you understand how your credibility depends on not posting outright falsehoods?
Flagrantly false equivalency. There are no media outlets, including Fox, who threaten to dox SNL writers, comedians, and staff for writing skits. There are no media outlets, including Fox, who threaten to dox writers, comedians, or staff for writing new skits.
That's because they can't. SNL "dox" themselves every show by putting their real names in the credits. That's pretty much what separates trolling from satire or whatever you want you call the SNL thing. Hell, one might even consider that SNL gets treated with more respect because they do have the balls to stand up for their skits.
The outrage here has nothing to do with the "comedy", it is all about the reaction of CNN staff who by their own admission blackmailed a person because CNN didn't like the comedy.
No, most of the outrage is due to a moron with a vast herd of followers retweeting the thing. Without that, nothing would have come it. CNN wouldn't need to make a point since nobodies accuse them of fraudulent behavior all the time. But since the MOTUS decided to step in, CNN couldn't ignore it.
Second, there was no blackmail. Forcing someone to take responsibility for what they shout is the role of a parent, and is an important lesson for growing up.
Is it blackmail to threaten legal action against someone that commits a crime? Is it blackmail to threaten your child with no dessert if he keeps peeing on the sofa? Given how you see this as blackmail, I'm inclined to distrust your political neutrality.
If this was Fox threatening a person for creating a 20 second meme, my reaction would be the same. I am extremely doubtful that you would say the same thing.
Let's not kid ourselves, were it Fox you would be trying to downplay the whole thing as self-defense.
As for me, you don't have wonder. I'm no more fond of the Guardian or the Verge posting slanted articles than Fox.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
That's totally irrelevant. Unless you say it out loud with your mouth, it's not slander. If you're going to try to be pedantic, at least know what the word means.
It's only irrelevant if you do not grasp complicated words like 'context'. As for being pedantic, that could be easily defined as "needing to differentiate between slander and libel even when the meaning is the same". You're shooting yourself in the foot here...
Slander and defamation are names of legal torts. To say we're not discussing law here is absurd and to miss your point you would need to have one to begin with, rather than an argument from ignorance using words you have failed to understand. The fact that you resort to "crayon-filled" insults shows that you are most likely just trolling, though, so I bid you good day.
And where do you think those names came from? They are also words unassociated with legalese, and have been so for longer than the existence of any libel *laws*. Why do you think there is a *laws* at the end there? Because libel itself is also a word outside of legalese.
In short, you are no lawyer, and you do not grasp the basics of the terminology.
On an unrelated tangent, do you spend a lot of time on /pol/?
Yes, they do. And they get shit for it ever so often. They do however have the balls to do it with their names in the credits.
What's your point?
Wow, even for a trumpanzee you are bottom of the barrel uneducated. Do you know what the moral of the Caesar play is? That political murder never brings about the change you want to see. The play tells you that you shouldn't murder Trump because that will only make things worse (in this case hasten the demise of Rome).
Kathy Griffin got fired for that sketch, so clearly it wasn't OK. Did you not read the followup on that story?
You picked the two dumbest examples possible, both showing the opposite of what you thought.
Trumpanzees, man...
Twitter is somewhere between written and spoken in formality, so both slander and libel seem reasonable. These are the wonders you can perform if you actually understand the language and setting.
Also, you should use a legal dictionary when talking about law.
No, I don't need to use a legal dictionary since my post does not bring any legal arguments or intentions. The notion that my post had to be legally provable exists only in your crayon-filled mind.
Last, I don't care in the slightest about whether some "first amendment" lawyers think fake news is provably false or not. You are under some childish assumption that only that which is legally provable can be right.
You have managed to completely miss any and every point by a continent or more. Well done.
Accusing CNN of fraudulent news is the exact definition of slander, or libel if you prefer. It is directly damaging to the company to be accused of not truthfully doing the job for which they charge.
Definition of slander
make false and damaging statements about (someone).
"they were accused of slandering the head of state"
What did you think it meant?
Of course they should hold him to his words. He slandered them brutally and they're under no obligation to spare his feelings. This is a classic case of talk shit get hit except CNN are trying to be better people and not stoop to the level of the trumpanzee.
I'm guessing there's a lot of embarrassing stuff he doesn't want investigated by CNN (assuming he's your run-of-the-mill /b/tard).
Yikes, so much wrong with this.
Title says "Tesla Factory Reportedly Described As a 'Predator Zone' By Female Employees", but the first sentence says "Tesla's Fremont factory was described by a female employee...". So which one is it? Plural is quite different from singular.
Then, there's the story (I'm not even gonna touch the Verge crap, we all know it's an identity politics rag at this point). Let's see.
The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day was “be bold for change” in the fight for a “more gender inclusive world” – but some at Tesla had a different plan for the day.
Five seconds in, and we already know the author is an "I know what's best for everyone" type keyboard warrior. This does not bode well for objectivity.
It was an opportunity for women to discover essential oils. A “health and wellness group” at the electric car company invited female staff members to an 8 March “lunch ‘n learn” about oils and how they can help improve people’s “health and happiness”, according to emails seen by the Guardian, which reveal that the proposed event was quickly met with vocal criticism.
Starting off great with some outrage that women were offered a 'lunch 'n learn' about oils. It's a well known fact that women don't like such things, that's why there's no market for female skin care products or wellness products. But hey, don't let a multi-billion dollar market get in the way of your feminism, you know what's best for everyone. Stay strong.
Tesla postponed the oils session. The company organized a town hall meeting on diversity for that day, which included six male executives and one woman, according to multiple attendees.
Note that there weren't 7 women executives attending, which is how a correctly diversified workplace should look. If they're all black, that's even more diverse. Diversity means fewer dicks in well-paid positions (but screw coal mining and construction, those places are dangerous!). Also note that this point is according to multiple attendees, but doesn't mention if Vandermeyden is included.
At the crowded meeting at the Fremont factory, women took the microphone one-by-one and shared stories of sexual harassment, mistreatment by male managers, unfair promotion decisions and more, sources said.
Now suddenly, "sources said". It's no longer Vandermeyden? The author doesn't mention other people coming forward here...
Vandermeyden, who attended the meeting, thought the outpouring of comments validated her own story.
Oh, I guess we're back to Vandermeyden.
Testimony from the town hall – along with internal emails from Musk, and Vandermeyden’s first interview since her termination – paint a picture of a company that has struggled to respond to mounting complaints about gender discrimination and has aggressively attempted to discredit a woman who publicly criticized it .
Testimony from the Town Hall... according to Vandermeyden? This is starting to sound very fishy. Almost as if there's only a single source for the "sky is falling" claims.
Musk was not at the meeting, which was attended by roughly 70-100 people, and featured comments from more than 20 women, according to Vandermeyden and another attendee.
Ahh, so there it is. Vandermeyden and another attendee. Wait, why is the other attendee only mentioned now? Does that mean that the other attendee only validated this one thing? That there were "more than 20" women attending?
One woman described parts of the factory as a “predator zone” for harassment. When the moderator asked women in the room if they had ever been catcalled, a significant number of women raised their hands, according to Vander
A friend of mine started on a sociology major, and found out the hard way that dissent (in the form of opinion or cold hard facts) is not appreciated, as opposed to almost all other departments where fresh points of view are welcomed.
I know of 5 people (just in my own social circles) that quit their academic pursuits simply because the sociology departments weren't interested in research, they in fact became angry and threatening when presented with actual corroborated conclusions. These areas have become remarkably anti-intellectual and venomous, which is also why the language used has become so technical (you can't say men are to blame for everything, you have to say toxic masculinity etc).
Wow, are you seriously telling me that people who love money over everything else in the world would behave immorally? Noooo way.
That does not sound like the money-grubbers we have all come to respect and love (Bank of America, Fannie-Mae, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Freddie Mac)
Sociology these days are unfortunately often just a word to make your opinions sound better. Why else would we have sociology branches in feminist theory or gender theory with insane studies like this? ( http://journals.sagepub.com/do... )
Well done.
Just like the overly enthusiastic parents that name their child "Jonn", or "Sarra", or "Madilene", you have now ensured that you will have to spell out the damn name every time you talk about it. And that "exclamation mark underscore" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
Nothing insightful to contribute, just wanted to say that I hope it works out for him. People like this are the ones that make the world a more amicable, and slightly better, place.
If you're wondering what the opposite of a DMCA-wielding media conglomerate looks like - this guy is it.
I can't, his phone was re-possessed.
All of this sounds about right.
In fact, if you take a hindu to a physical therapy program and ask him what he just did, he'll say 'yoga'. If you take a physiotherapist to a yoga session and ask her what she just did, she'll say 'physical therapy' (assuming you avoid the weird stoner-stuff about energy and one-with-the-universe cringe that comes after). I've been doing physical therapy for quite a while now (back problems), and I can't see any difference between physical therapy, stretching, and yoga. They all revolve around moderate exertion of muscle groups that we don't normally exercise in our day-to-day lives.
Of course, there is also the usual virtue signalling bullshit included here.
That's important, say the researchers, because chronic back pain -- which affects about 10% of U.S. adults -- has a greater impact on minorities and people of lower socioeconomic status.
I would like to see the study that concludes that my life is 'more' fine with backpain than anyone else's. Is it less important to be able to play with your kids if you aren't the appropriate minority? Do you not benefit from long walks if you are rich? Are active hobbies only relevant if they prevent you from a life of crime?
If there isn't a study on this, then these researchers are regurgitating intellectually dishonest narratives (something which is usually consigned to the social "sciences"). I really hope this isn't part of a trend, since internal medicine is a field that must be harshly structured around logical thought and cold hard data.
I don't know about you but my wife doesn't feel supported at all when I bring home the cache.
"They go from being outgoing, energetic, interested in the world and happy, to reclusive. They want to spend all their time in their room. They lose interest in outside activities."
Sure they haven't just discovered porn?
I don't think interacting with the kids at a kindergarten for 10 minutes will have the outcome you think it will.