The focus in this is on the Podestas and maybe the Clinton Foundation. You won't find many people claiming it's Hillary's fault, so you're rebutting a claim nobody is making.
Death threats? Can you substantiate that one? Preferably by pointing to police reports?
I don't see it mentioned here where it would've been relevant, it just says "outright threatened" and apparently some loser keyed his car, though it's not clear if that was just something random.
You say that like living in the "flyover states" isn't an ethnic orientation and like some of the attacks against people aren't simply for being white or asian.
But feel free to tell me how the culture there is identical to coastal culture if you like...
Their rules are one thing. How evenly they apply them is another.
There are people who have done a lot of experiments in the form of posting some variation on "I hate black people for voting for Hillary" and "I hate white people for voting for Trump" then reporting both accounts to Twitter.
This is an ongoing investigation. When I look at the forums, I see people debating over whether certain things are real or not, bogus, irrelevant, etc. I'm more than willing to entertain the idea that it's nothing more than a lot of oddly worded emails and questionable taste in friends and art, but if it dies out it'll have to die out naturally, after exhausting leads.
Yes, there have also been a few hoaxers who have been called out for it--fake hack videos on YouTube and some other nonsense. You can find on Voat where the people there are calling out the hoaxers for presenting utter nonsense. This is a classic way to discredit an investigation and nobody can stop someone from making up fake stuff. It doesn't help that a lot of accounts, etc. got pulled off the web and only exist on archive.is now.
As for the "random websites" claim, I wish that/r/pizzagate hadn't been deleted because one of the people there had a good response to it. I have forgotten the details, but those "random photos" were things found on someone's Instagram account and the unrelated people were staff. Or something like that. I'd be able to give you a better explanation if/u/spez hadn't nuked that from orbit. All I really remember is that there were connections that they either didn't understand or cover.
This is no longer just the Podestas or a string of shops on a street that have relations to high ranking Democrats and that all have logos that coincidentally look like something the FBI labelled as known pedophile symbols and which happen to have some pretty odd tunnels beneath them that have existed for a long time.
But even stuff like that is up for debate. I mean, the tunnels have long been there (though there were photos of them doing some work in one of them for some reason I've forgotten). I think the Comet sign came from a much older store. Etc. People are now suspicious enough that they'll face scrutiny for a long, long time, even if there turns out to be nothing of substance here. I don't think it's avoidable, though it probably does suck to be them.
Google is also hiding it. You find the other "pizzagate" an obscure story I had never heard of.
Wikipedia (last I checked--it could've been edited by now!) had a disambiguation page referencing that other event and an oblique mention of a "discredited" theory.
They barely covered a couple of items of evidence in that.
Now, with as many connections as have been found, I'm sure there are more than a few bogus ones. The problem is that there's a ton of them. Now, it's very possible that it's all smoke and no fire, the problem is that you can't fairly decide that without the painful task of going through every little thing, so declaring "no, that's wrong" without actually touching most of the evidence is far less convincing to anyone who has looked into it than one might hope.
It doesn't help that Reddit, Twitter & Wikipedia all seem to want to make it simply disappear, an ironic stance as they were once the place for suppressed ideas to go. A trend that makes me wonder if we'll see a "censorship treadmill" like the euphamism treadmill, wherein new sites are constantly born to take over those that succumb to censorship at the hands of their owners.
There are lots of weird uses of language that make people suspect code words are in play, not just one or two. I mean, I'd like to write this off as a "damn you autocorrect" kind of thing, but some of them are just weird. Look here, for example:
The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related. Is it yorus? They can send it if you want. I know you're busy, so feel free not to respond if it's not yours or you don't want it.
This came up after people were already questioning whether some uses of 'cheese pizza' referred to child pornography (CP), so... yeah.
> most users regard being able to use Reddit without being harassed as a positive improvement.
You mean like the abuse coming from SRS? A sub that, essentially, exists for the sole purpose of harassing individual redditors? A sub with a history of doxxing people? I think people are more upset over the selective enforcement of the rules than about the rules themselves.
No harassment is a great thing. Just have a good definition of harassment and apply that to everyone. Not just the people you don't like.
Well, I still haven't seen any smoking guns just yet, only a lot of strange things that point in a bad direction or to bad taste in art & friends. I don't know too many Democrats these days eager to retain friendships with Republicans, let alone those who are also convicted child molesters, but it's not exactly illegal either. There's nothing illegal about saying that "traffic is really warm and really weird in light of Hastert" but people who have seen enough strange uses of language regarding what they suspect are codewords could read that in a weird way.
But by banning pizzagate, they've only made it better known. They didn't even manage to shut it down, it/r/pizzagate lives on Voat now as/v/pizzagate. Twitter users outraged that they did nothing about pedo pics someone allegedly pointed out on twitter gab.ai. Wikipedia censors all but a pitiful mention of it, so it's documented on Infogalactic.
There are still the usual problems with idiots who fake something to troll the community, though, but they're working on moderating that out. For example, I know at least one of the claims of steganography in the images appeared to be fake. There certainly wasn't any ZIP file marker in the image I found on Wikileaks, though it wasn't clear if you were supposed to use some steganography program first.
> will crack down on online harassment by banning or suspending users who target others,
I wonder if this rule will be applied to the SRS sub, which more or less exists for that very purpose? I'm guessing "no" but it's not a surprise after reading the leaked admin chat log and seeing what happened to the person who made that public.
Surely/r/Spez knows about this--when he edited all those posts, most of them were swearing at him for that very reason. And he has notifications turned off since forever (refer to the aforementioned admin log), so this would appear to be what got under his skin.
> Can you remind me where the definition of fascism includes "it's not fascism if someone else does it too"?
The point is that if you take some harmless trait like "fascists made the trains run on time" that might be true and yet which a lot of normal people might fit, your definition isn't very useful for the purpose of identifying them. Nor have you established that a lot of those traits that could fit anyone are even bad things in general. You're simply hiding your assumption--that such things as liking traditions (like, oh, say, Thanksgiving) somehow is a fascist trait and defending that by saying Umberto Eco said so. That aside, the "evidence" given for many of these items is so laughable that one doesn't have to disagree with the list at all.
Never mind that someone else (David Futrelle, as best I can tell) actually made a list of poorly-fitting claims matched to Eco's list, so if you want to appeal to his authority, you should at least give us a source where he says the same and actually work to establish his authority. Your post isn't a defense of the idea at all, but a mere rhetorical dodge, smuggling this all under Eco's name as you have displayed no ability to explain whatever logic is behind the ideas well enough to defend them on your own. By all means, feel free to display that in reply.
I note that you didn't address things like the fact that their idea of "permanent warfare" includes 3 AM tweets and that other bad traits like "disagreement is treason" don't account for where the actual violence is coming from, nor does any of it fit at all when you compare this to actual Nazi events like Kristallnacht. Not that I haven't seen comparisons to the Reichstag fire here on Slashdot, but the only violence we have evidence of anyone staging appears to have been by Democratic operatives and I've discussed that quite extensively in past comments here.
All you're doing in posting things like this is to help give people like the violent people in that video moral cover to attack people who have different political opinions. Which is something actual Nazis did, and is far more in keeping with the evils of fascism than any actions you can actually point to in that list. This is why I can point to a host of violent criminals and staged violence against Trump's supporters for daring to have the wrong opinions among the people on your side.
Which is, as we all know, one of the really evil parts of actual fascism. Isn't that why people hate fascists? Not because they loved silly traditions, but because they used violence to attack their political enemies?
Funny how that actual violence might weigh a bit more with most people than the "permanent warfare" somehow inherent in 3 AM tweets.
It occurs to me that certain weasel types might someday get rid of the DKIM keys, so here's an archive of some relevant to another important email as dumped by the same tool I linked above:
d=hillaryclinton.com; s=google; -----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY----- MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4G NADCBiQKBgQCJdAYdE2z61YpUMFqFTFJqlFom m7C4Kk97nzJmR4YZuJ8SUy9CF35UV PQzh3EMLhP+yOqEl29Ax2hA/h7vayr/f/a1 9x2jrFCwxVry+nACH1FVmIwV3b5FCN EkNeAIqjbY8K9PeTmpqNhWDbvXeKgFbIDw hWq0HP2PbySkOe4tTQIDAQAB -----END PUBLIC KEY-----
And now the lameness filter hates me. What's the best way to deal with that? This being Slashdot, we know that you just have to write a long, unfocused rant about nonsense and copy paste it a few times. Apologies for the spam, but Slashdot thinks the DKIM keys above are someone posting ASCII art or whatever. Go figure? Also I had to add a few spaces inside the keys. Sorry, just remove those please.
Might as well give a quick lesson about DKIM to anyone who wants it. It's far more relevant than all this political nonsense anyhow:)
To find the Google key that signed the message, just click the message and then 'view source' which will show you this DKIM header: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=08N7TAGRcCUnWsH1b+s0pSHDjHMlUZ7FyGhNbvfAvoE=;
b=ZwBMDZQD7udVLR8S0lQfgJIuEyK1pt9iZs7g8efiCz/1Fxerox/kgyfAnRM4x1kfdm
T72+p5NL4rd6CAKj0PRIeL5//6rgF0vMI2Wl8zsKcQgibPICvz3mbYgAddCmUiFmZkiJ
jac24XjA/oCGdt1zHiJa9ovgXNFeTSr1Puk+CNaGXtz/hKriSQxI07qvd4RgGeBeBkXw
lsvqZsTjoUcfTVcrNt1HkxyDrXvOIcnT2AfwvqVubJiRH/eu+DPg2xLUydvXE4ahd+Xj
igfUe71VMbGIJejk8SplVhjnrjTXEnNHx4t3wiel4AskrDs4Bs9GP+WRPfNPqwRcXjEo
uW+g==
Now use any online DKIM key checker you want to look up the key using gmail.com as the domain and 20120113 as the selector, as you can see in the signature above: d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
That gives this result, which I might as well archive for posterity. I mean, Google could take down that DNS record someday, leaving people unable to authenticate the message. Here's the PEM version of the relevant key as dumped by the tool I linked above.
-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY----- MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA1Kd87/UeJjenpabgbFwh +eBCsSTrqmwIYYvywlbhbqoo2DymndFkbjOVIPIldNs/m40KF+yzMn1skyoxcTUG CQs8g3FgD2Ap3ZB5DekAo5wMmk4wimDO+U8QzI3SD07y2+07wlNWwIt8svnxgdxG kVbbhzY8i+RQ9DpSVpPbF7ykQxtKXkv/ahW3KjViiAH+ghvvIhkx4xYSIc9oSwVm Al5OctMEeWUwg8Istjqz8BZeTWbf41fbNhte7Y+YqZOwq1Sd0DbvYAD9NOZK9vlf uac0598HY+vtSBczUiKERHv1yRbcaQtZFh5wtiRrN04BLUTD21MycBX5jYchHjPY/wIDAQAB -----END PUBLIC KEY-----
If you read what the GP said until the end you'd have found something that completely undermines your entire rant:
By the way, I don't want Trump either. But there are simply SO MANY ways we've diverged from the original purpose of the EC that now claiming we should return half-assed to about 1/10th of the original purpose without actually paying attention the rest or the fact that we haven't subscribed to that original purpose for two centuries... it's just a TERRIBLE idea.
Slashdot Mirror
The focus in this is on the Podestas and maybe the Clinton Foundation. You won't find many people claiming it's Hillary's fault, so you're rebutting a claim nobody is making.
Death threats? Can you substantiate that one? Preferably by pointing to police reports?
I don't see it mentioned here where it would've been relevant, it just says "outright threatened" and apparently some loser keyed his car, though it's not clear if that was just something random.
Because it's a well-known sub that has been there for years with a long, storied history of doing things other subs can't do?
It's not like it's some obscure sub nobody knows about.
Also, I should mention that it's amusing to see how many downvotes I'm attracting.
There sure are a lot of uncomfortable people eager to bury this. Google, Twitter, Reddit, ...
There's already Gab.ai
You say that like living in the "flyover states" isn't an ethnic orientation and like some of the attacks against people aren't simply for being white or asian.
But feel free to tell me how the culture there is identical to coastal culture if you like...
Oh, looks like they updated it and they're finally removing these.
About time...
You mean like this report?
It's interesting to see what sort of content the owners do and do not approve of.
And for those of you who guess it, isn't it funny that you're able to predict this outcome?
Does that feel right to you? Do you think that decent people ever feel good about seeing someone pre-judged based on the color of their skin?
Their rules are one thing. How evenly they apply them is another.
There are people who have done a lot of experiments in the form of posting some variation on "I hate black people for voting for Hillary" and "I hate white people for voting for Trump" then reporting both accounts to Twitter.
Guess which kind of hatred they refused to ban?
This is an ongoing investigation. When I look at the forums, I see people debating over whether certain things are real or not, bogus, irrelevant, etc. I'm more than willing to entertain the idea that it's nothing more than a lot of oddly worded emails and questionable taste in friends and art, but if it dies out it'll have to die out naturally, after exhausting leads.
Yes, there have also been a few hoaxers who have been called out for it--fake hack videos on YouTube and some other nonsense. You can find on Voat where the people there are calling out the hoaxers for presenting utter nonsense. This is a classic way to discredit an investigation and nobody can stop someone from making up fake stuff. It doesn't help that a lot of accounts, etc. got pulled off the web and only exist on archive.is now.
As for the "random websites" claim, I wish that /r/pizzagate hadn't been deleted because one of the people there had a good response to it. I have forgotten the details, but those "random photos" were things found on someone's Instagram account and the unrelated people were staff. Or something like that. I'd be able to give you a better explanation if /u/spez hadn't nuked that from orbit. All I really remember is that there were connections that they either didn't understand or cover.
This is no longer just the Podestas or a string of shops on a street that have relations to high ranking Democrats and that all have logos that coincidentally look like something the FBI labelled as known pedophile symbols and which happen to have some pretty odd tunnels beneath them that have existed for a long time.
But even stuff like that is up for debate. I mean, the tunnels have long been there (though there were photos of them doing some work in one of them for some reason I've forgotten). I think the Comet sign came from a much older store. Etc. People are now suspicious enough that they'll face scrutiny for a long, long time, even if there turns out to be nothing of substance here. I don't think it's avoidable, though it probably does suck to be them.
Google is also hiding it. You find the other "pizzagate" an obscure story I had never heard of.
Wikipedia (last I checked--it could've been edited by now!) had a disambiguation page referencing that other event and an oblique mention of a "discredited" theory.
They barely covered a couple of items of evidence in that.
Now, with as many connections as have been found, I'm sure there are more than a few bogus ones. The problem is that there's a ton of them. Now, it's very possible that it's all smoke and no fire, the problem is that you can't fairly decide that without the painful task of going through every little thing, so declaring "no, that's wrong" without actually touching most of the evidence is far less convincing to anyone who has looked into it than one might hope.
It doesn't help that Reddit, Twitter & Wikipedia all seem to want to make it simply disappear, an ironic stance as they were once the place for suppressed ideas to go. A trend that makes me wonder if we'll see a "censorship treadmill" like the euphamism treadmill, wherein new sites are constantly born to take over those that succumb to censorship at the hands of their owners.
Anyhow, for anyone keeping tabs:
Reddit's /r/pizzagate -> Voat's /v/pizzagate
Wikipedia -> Infogalactic
Twitter -> Gab.ai
Actually, there are very few links to Hillary and you're taking that out of a quote the GP post is disagreeing with.
Wikipedia won't cover this one, it's on Infogalactic: https://infogalactic.com/info/Pizzagate
Voat is getting so much traffic the servers keep crumbling under the load.
There are lots of weird uses of language that make people suspect code words are in play, not just one or two. I mean, I'd like to write this off as a "damn you autocorrect" kind of thing, but some of them are just weird. Look here, for example:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32795
This came up after people were already questioning whether some uses of 'cheese pizza' referred to child pornography (CP), so... yeah.
It doesn't help that they're proud of some very weird art that looks to be posed like one of Dhamer's victims.
> most users regard being able to use Reddit without being harassed as a positive improvement.
You mean like the abuse coming from SRS? A sub that, essentially, exists for the sole purpose of harassing individual redditors? A sub with a history of doxxing people? I think people are more upset over the selective enforcement of the rules than about the rules themselves.
No harassment is a great thing. Just have a good definition of harassment and apply that to everyone. Not just the people you don't like.
Sorry, that should be /u/Spez.
Though I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he had his own subreddit, honestly.
Well, I still haven't seen any smoking guns just yet, only a lot of strange things that point in a bad direction or to bad taste in art & friends. I don't know too many Democrats these days eager to retain friendships with Republicans, let alone those who are also convicted child molesters, but it's not exactly illegal either. There's nothing illegal about saying that "traffic is really warm and really weird in light of Hastert" but people who have seen enough strange uses of language regarding what they suspect are codewords could read that in a weird way.
But by banning pizzagate, they've only made it better known. They didn't even manage to shut it down, it /r/pizzagate lives on Voat now as /v/pizzagate. Twitter users outraged that they did nothing about pedo pics someone allegedly pointed out on twitter gab.ai. Wikipedia censors all but a pitiful mention of it, so it's documented on Infogalactic.
There are still the usual problems with idiots who fake something to troll the community, though, but they're working on moderating that out. For example, I know at least one of the claims of steganography in the images appeared to be fake. There certainly wasn't any ZIP file marker in the image I found on Wikileaks, though it wasn't clear if you were supposed to use some steganography program first.
> will crack down on online harassment by banning or suspending users who target others,
I wonder if this rule will be applied to the SRS sub, which more or less exists for that very purpose? I'm guessing "no" but it's not a surprise after reading the leaked admin chat log and seeing what happened to the person who made that public.
I'm also guessing they won't explain why the anti-pedo sub /r/pizzagate got moved to /v/pizzagate, but why they're happy to keep subs like /r/pedochat /r/pedofriends, etc. Just look at this image just shows a picture of Reddit's description of /r/Pedochat which is a private NSFW sub for "pedos and friends of pedos" for an example.
Surely /r/Spez knows about this--when he edited all those posts, most of them were swearing at him for that very reason. And he has notifications turned off since forever (refer to the aforementioned admin log), so this would appear to be what got under his skin.
You don't understand! 3AM tweets are a sign of fascism. It's all spelled out right here under the "permanent warfare" section!
One day you're Tweeting at 3AM, and BAM! The next thing you know, you're ignoring the Treaty of Versailles, then invading Poland.
Don't say that nobody warned you!
> Can you remind me where the definition of fascism includes "it's not fascism if someone else does it too"?
The point is that if you take some harmless trait like "fascists made the trains run on time" that might be true and yet which a lot of normal people might fit, your definition isn't very useful for the purpose of identifying them. Nor have you established that a lot of those traits that could fit anyone are even bad things in general. You're simply hiding your assumption--that such things as liking traditions (like, oh, say, Thanksgiving) somehow is a fascist trait and defending that by saying Umberto Eco said so. That aside, the "evidence" given for many of these items is so laughable that one doesn't have to disagree with the list at all.
Never mind that someone else (David Futrelle, as best I can tell) actually made a list of poorly-fitting claims matched to Eco's list, so if you want to appeal to his authority, you should at least give us a source where he says the same and actually work to establish his authority. Your post isn't a defense of the idea at all, but a mere rhetorical dodge, smuggling this all under Eco's name as you have displayed no ability to explain whatever logic is behind the ideas well enough to defend them on your own. By all means, feel free to display that in reply.
I note that you didn't address things like the fact that their idea of "permanent warfare" includes 3 AM tweets and that other bad traits like "disagreement is treason" don't account for where the actual violence is coming from, nor does any of it fit at all when you compare this to actual Nazi events like Kristallnacht. Not that I haven't seen comparisons to the Reichstag fire here on Slashdot, but the only violence we have evidence of anyone staging appears to have been by Democratic operatives and I've discussed that quite extensively in past comments here.
All you're doing in posting things like this is to help give people like the violent people in that video moral cover to attack people who have different political opinions. Which is something actual Nazis did, and is far more in keeping with the evils of fascism than any actions you can actually point to in that list. This is why I can point to a host of violent criminals and staged violence against Trump's supporters for daring to have the wrong opinions among the people on your side.
Which is, as we all know, one of the really evil parts of actual fascism. Isn't that why people hate fascists? Not because they loved silly traditions, but because they used violence to attack their political enemies?
Funny how that actual violence might weigh a bit more with most people than the "permanent warfare" somehow inherent in 3 AM tweets.
It occurs to me that certain weasel types might someday get rid of the DKIM keys, so here's an archive of some relevant to another important email as dumped by the same tool I linked above:
d=hillaryclinton.com; s=google;
-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4G NADCBiQKBgQCJdAYdE2z61YpUMFqFTFJqlFom
m7C4Kk97nzJmR4YZuJ8SUy9CF35UV PQzh3EMLhP+yOqEl29Ax2hA/h7vayr/f/a1
9x2jrFCwxVry+nACH1FVmIwV3b5FCN EkNeAIqjbY8K9PeTmpqNhWDbvXeKgFbIDw
hWq0HP2PbySkOe4tTQIDAQAB
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----
And now the lameness filter hates me. What's the best way to deal with that? This being Slashdot, we know that you just have to write a long, unfocused rant about nonsense and copy paste it a few times. Apologies for the spam, but Slashdot thinks the DKIM keys above are someone posting ASCII art or whatever. Go figure? Also I had to add a few spaces inside the keys. Sorry, just remove those please.
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCA Q8AMIIBCgKCAQEAnOv6+Txyz+SEc7mT719Q
QtOj6g2MjpErYUGVrRGGc7f5rmE1cR P1lhwx8PVoHOiuRzyok7IqjvAub9kk9fBo
E9uXJB1QaRdMnKz7W/UhWemK5TE UgW1xT5qtBfUIpFRL34h6FbHbeysb4szi7aTg
erxI15o73cP5BoPVkQj4BQKkfTQYGN H03J5Db9uMqW/NNJ8fKCLKWO5C1e+NQ1lD
6uwFCjJ6PWFmAIeUu9+LfYW89Tz1N nwtSkFC96Oky1cmnlBf4dhZ/Up/FMZmB9l7
TA6gLEu6JijlDrNmx1o50WADPjjN4rG ELLt3VuXn09y2piBPlZPU2SIiDQC0qX0J
WQIDAQAB
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----
Might as well give a quick lesson about DKIM to anyone who wants it. It's far more relevant than all this political nonsense anyhow :)
To find the Google key that signed the message, just click the message and then 'view source' which will show you this DKIM header:
:content-type;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
bh=08N7TAGRcCUnWsH1b+s0pSHDjHMlUZ7FyGhNbvfAvoE=;
b=ZwBMDZQD7udVLR8S0lQfgJIuEyK1pt9iZs7g8efiCz/1Fxerox/kgyfAnRM4x1kfdm
T72+p5NL4rd6CAKj0PRIeL5//6rgF0vMI2Wl8zsKcQgibPICvz3mbYgAddCmUiFmZkiJ
jac24XjA/oCGdt1zHiJa9ovgXNFeTSr1Puk+CNaGXtz/hKriSQxI07qvd4RgGeBeBkXw
lsvqZsTjoUcfTVcrNt1HkxyDrXvOIcnT2AfwvqVubJiRH/eu+DPg2xLUydvXE4ahd+Xj
igfUe71VMbGIJejk8SplVhjnrjTXEnNHx4t3wiel4AskrDs4Bs9GP+WRPfNPqwRcXjEo
uW+g==
Now use any online DKIM key checker you want to look up the key using gmail.com as the domain and 20120113 as the selector, as you can see in the signature above: d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
That gives this result, which I might as well archive for posterity. I mean, Google could take down that DNS record someday, leaving people unable to authenticate the message. Here's the PEM version of the relevant key as dumped by the tool I linked above.
-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----
MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEA1Kd87/UeJjenpabgbFwh
+eBCsSTrqmwIYYvywlbhbqoo2DymndFkbjOVIPIldNs/m40KF+yzMn1skyoxcTUG
CQs8g3FgD2Ap3ZB5DekAo5wMmk4wimDO+U8QzI3SD07y2+07wlNWwIt8svnxgdxG
kVbbhzY8i+RQ9DpSVpPbF7ykQxtKXkv/ahW3KjViiAH+ghvvIhkx4xYSIc9oSwVm
Al5OctMEeWUwg8Istjqz8BZeTWbf41fbNhte7Y+YqZOwq1Sd0DbvYAD9NOZK9vlf
uac0598HY+vtSBczUiKERHv1yRbcaQtZFh5wtiRrN04BLUTD21MycBX5jYchHjPY
-----END PUBLIC KEY-----
If you read what the GP said until the end you'd have found something that completely undermines your entire rant: