Give Me a Urinal or Give Me Death!

Guest_440911e7 · #9181

Have to say I look forward to antifa stalemating these pigs by wearing niqab to the next bash the fash.

#9182

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:<snip>
I never knew Mark Steyn before this interview. There was one sentence in there that set off my loon alarm and sure enough, a bit of research later, alarm confirmed. Swivel-eyed global warming hoax believer bitching about how climate science is being corrupted by left wing ideologues <snip>.

Well... except that climate science actually is corrupted by left wing ideologues...

#9183

John D wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:<snip>
I never knew Mark Steyn before this interview. There was one sentence in there that set off my loon alarm and sure enough, a bit of research later, alarm confirmed. Swivel-eyed global warming hoax believer bitching about how climate science is being corrupted by left wing ideologues <snip>.
Well... except that climate science actually is corrupted by left wing ideologues...

How so?

#9184

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
John D wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:<snip>
I never knew Mark Steyn before this interview. There was one sentence in there that set off my loon alarm and sure enough, a bit of research later, alarm confirmed. Swivel-eyed global warming hoax believer bitching about how climate science is being corrupted by left wing ideologues <snip>.
Well... except that climate science actually is corrupted by left wing ideologues...
How so?

If we really want to go down this rabbit hole we should probably start a separate thread! Haha!

#9185

Not this shit again.

#9186

Bill O'Reilly is gone, will be replaced by Amanda Marcotte.

#9187

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:How so?

https://media.giphy.com/media/numQCFBcLdsAg/giphy.gif

#9188

Yikes. Yet another ex-evangelical proving that you can take the apostate out of fundamentalism, but you can't take the fundamentalism out of the apostate.

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thes ... 3263622190

Christ, why can't these people skip A/S and head straight to PETA?

#9189

free thoughtpolice wrote:Bill O'Reilly is gone, will be replaced by Amanda Marcotte.

Is this fake news? Well, when it will continue to be anyway. :lol:

#9190

Kirbmarc wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:Bill O'Reilly is gone, will be replaced by Amanda Marcotte.
Is this fake news? Well, when it will continue to be anyway. :lol:

Substantially true, like the global warming thing. :P

#9191

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... 591fbb4c78

#9192

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
pro-boxing-fan wrote: Not for the palm as far as i know but fingers yes. Gloves are solely made and used to protect your hand.
Not always.
The attachment maxresdefault.jpg is no longer available

Street-fighters got to get serious.

rollerball.jpg: (14.4 KiB) Downloaded 285 times

#9193

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:Bill O'Reilly is gone, will be replaced by Amanda Marcotte.
Is this fake news? Well, when it will continue to be anyway. :lol:
Substantially true, like the global warming thing. :P

Well Marcotte will carry on O'Reilly's professional standards, accuracy and levels of critical thinking.

#9194

Kirbmarc wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:
Kirbmarc wrote:
Is this fake news? Well, when it will continue to be anyway. :lol:
Substantially true, like the global warming thing. :P
Well Marcotte will carry on O'Reilly's professional standards, accuracy and levels of critical thinking.

Only if she ups her game...

#9195

#9196

deLurch wrote: Examples of which? Media, businesses & normal people getting attacked? Or examples of real KKK/white supremacists/neo-nazis/white nationalists?

Nevermind. I misread you as saying because there are so few actually white supremacists that when they go out you only see them bashing people with cameras, breaking storefront windows, etc...

#9197

Shatterface wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:How so?

https://media.giphy.com/media/numQCFBcLdsAg/giphy.gif

Stand down. I wasn't intending to have a discussion. Was interested in the off chance of cataloging a new angle of attack on GW.

#9198

deLurch wrote:

1.65 billion - 140 million =
one billion five hundred ten million

#9199

I was justlooking for an excuse to use that gif.

I've been rewatching Twin Peaks before the new series starts. Just two more eps and Fire Walk With Me to go.

#9200

I notice a group of alt-righters, promoted by Cernovich, are IDing Antifa members by matching up clothes, markings, shoes, etc. to other footage taken earlier/later in the day, and then doxing them.

The Antifa mob have also been doing this.

Somebody is gonna get killed one of these days because they were doxed, either by Antifa, or the alt-right.

#9201

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
I never knew Mark Steyn before this interview. There was one sentence in there that set off my loon alarm and sure enough, a bit of research later, alarm confirmed. Swivel-eyed global warming hoax believer bitching about how climate science is being corrupted by left wing ideologues and determined in the courts because a court decided he really had defamed Michael Mann. Aneris is half right in that Steyn's ilk are getting exposure from the free speech war, but they are careful not to push their more extreme views away from home so I don't see the harm. Besides, people are not generally so weak minded that they will absorb ideology from someone on the strength of him having interviewed Peterson.

There's definitely a portion of the current campaigners for free speech who are on the right, and even far enough on the right that many traditional left liberals would not feel comfortable accepting them as fellow travellers. (Although some might argue that these are not normal circumstances).

Mark Steyn would probably be one of these - and so would Ezra Levant who co-founded Rebel Media. Vox Dei also comes to mind.

Whatever you think of them (they seem to be old school right wing reactionaries to me) it's worth knowing who they are, what they want, and how they are arguing for it.

#9202

A US college lecturer has been placed on paid leave after tweeting that President Donald Trump should be hanged.

Fresno State University in central California said in a statement that Lars Maischak had "agreed upon a voluntary leave of absence".

He tweeted on 18 February: "To save American democracy, Trump must hang. The sooner and the higher, the better."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39644255

Mr Maischak is not the first critic of the president to test the limits of free speech.

The rapper Snoop Dogg fired a toy gun at a Donald Trump character in a recent music video.

Mr Trump tweeted: "Can you imagine what the outcry would be if @SnoopDogg, failing career and all, had aimed and fired the gun at President Obama? Jail time!"

At the women's march in Washington in January, Madonna said she had "thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House".

Newt Gingrich, a prominent Republican and supporter of Mr Trump, said the singer was part of "an emerging left-wing fascism".

#9203

John D wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:<snip>
I never knew Mark Steyn before this interview. There was one sentence in there that set off my loon alarm and sure enough, a bit of research later, alarm confirmed. Swivel-eyed global warming hoax believer bitching about how climate science is being corrupted by left wing ideologues <snip>.
Well... except that climate science actually is corrupted by left wing ideologues...

Physics is a left wing ideology? Who knew?

#9204

Service Dog wrote:snip tits

1.65 billion - 140 million =
one billion five hundred ten million

one billion five hundred ten million bottles on the wall ...

#9205

MarcusAu wrote:There's definitely a portion of the current campaigners for free speech who are on the right, and even far enough on the right that many traditional left liberals would not feel comfortable accepting them as fellow travellers. (Although some might argue that these are not normal circumstances).

I think wanting ideological purity is a problem. I'm happy to work with Christians (and Muslims) that believe in secularism, for example. Happy to work with a climate change sceptic on free speech.

#9206

I'm wary that many on the right who find themselves in the pro-free speech camp by present necessity are fairweather fans (much as many nominal liberals have turned out to be).

I'm reminded of Matt's statements regarding the A/S community being too quick to take ex-fundies and thrust them into highly visible roles within the A/S community. Yes, they're saying all the right things now. How about in a few years?

#9207

Sunder wrote:I'm reminded of Matt's statements regarding the A/S community being too quick to take ex-fundies and thrust them into highly visible roles within the A/S community. Yes, they're saying all the right things now. How about in a few years?

Well more importantly, they just when through an extremely significant change in world view and lifestyle. I think they needed time to adjust and make sense of themselves, the world and how they fit into it without religion. More of a personal concern for those individuals well being.

As a side note, it wasn't any ex-fundie that decimated the the atheist/skeptic communities but feminism.

#9208

Keating wrote:
MarcusAu wrote:There's definitely a portion of the current campaigners for free speech who are on the right, and even far enough on the right that many traditional left liberals would not feel comfortable accepting them as fellow travellers. (Although some might argue that these are not normal circumstances).
I think wanting ideological purity is a problem. I'm happy to work with Christians (and Muslims) that believe in secularism, for example. Happy to work with a climate change sceptic on free speech.

Maybe. But would you work with the Nilotic Hamitic Tutsis from Abyssinia?

#teamhutu

#9209

Sunder wrote:I'm wary that many on the right who find themselves in the pro-free speech camp by present necessity are fairweather fans (much as many nominal liberals have turned out to be).

I'm reminded of Matt's statements regarding the A/S community being too quick to take ex-fundies and thrust them into highly visible roles within the A/S community. Yes, they're saying all the right things now. How about in a few years?

That's a reasonable concern, but you have to work with the material you have. As Keating wrote above purity tests aren't really productive. I'd be willing to support Anita Sarkeesian if she had the stones to make a few videos tackling "Islamic laws vs. Women" instead of faffing about inconsequential and harmless shit like video game characters with short skirts and big tits. Similarly I'm willing to support people who are pro-free-speech, at least as long they stay that way.

#9210

Sunder wrote:I'm wary that many on the right who find themselves in the pro-free speech camp by present necessity are fairweather fans (much as many nominal liberals have turned out to be).

I'm reminded of Matt's statements regarding the A/S community being too quick to take ex-fundies and thrust them into highly visible roles within the A/S community. Yes, they're saying all the right things now. How about in a few years?

That's a reasonable concern, but you have to work with the material you have. As Keating wrote above purity tests aren't really productive. I'd be willing to support Anita Sarkeesian if she had the stones to make a few videos tackling "Islamic laws vs. Women" instead of faffing about inconsequential and harmless shit like video game characters with short skirts and big tits. Similarly I'm willing to support people who are pro-free-speech, at least as long they stay that way.

#9211

Thing is, there's already a handy bunch of people I can point to whom I agree with on some domestic policy issues but whom I would never, ever agree to work with on furtherance of ANY issue. They're called Freethought Blogs.

And yes I absolutely hate the purity test mentality where someone either conforms to your every belief or they're dogshit, but I no more endorse the opposite tact of making it a virtue to ally yourself with anyone on the furtherance of a single issue regardless of any other myriad conflicting opinions. Alliances should be built on pragmatism.

#9212

An article by Rita Panahi on how Assad is a monster but the alternative is worse

In Libya, after the fall of Gaddafi, there's a thriving market for slaves. That's a scary reminder of what happens after violent regime changes in the MENA countries.

Rita Panahi wrote:The Syrian conflict has been marked by repeated human rights abuses by all sides, including the supposedly “moderate rebels” the US and her allies have backed directly and indirectly.

The rebels are adept at propaganda but often get caught out by their own keenness to document their exploits.

Is beheading a child begging for his life somehow less abhorrent than using a chemical weapon to kill innocent children?

Why does one inspire global revulsion and immediate action from the US while the other receives scant coverage?

Surely the mass torture and slaughter of men, women and children is also a “line-crossing” offence.

The killing of 80 children on the weekend by suicide bombers has received a fraction of the coverage in the Western media of the chemical attack.

Anti-government forces killed more than 120 innocent people being evacuated from al-Foua
and Kfraya into government-controlled areas.

Those killed were Shiites who are considered infidels by many of the Sunni rebel groups including the al-Qaeda-affiliated Fatah al-Sham Front.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a monster but the grim reality is that the alternative in Syria will be even worse.

Indeed.

#9213

[quote="deLurch"]Not that I like Richard Spencer in any way possible as he is a self admitted White Nationalist who wants an all-white US, but at least the police are finally doing something right with Antifa there.

They all have to show their faces to the police camera in order to go in.

Notice how the fat girl immediately drops her metal flag pole as it is now useless since the police can not identify her if she uses it to attack anyone.[/quote]

It gets better. Right as the video ends you can see one cop calling her back to pick it up!

#9214

Kirbmarc wrote:An article by Rita Panahi on how Assad is a monster but the alternative is worse

In Libya, after the fall of Gaddafi, there's a thriving market for slaves. That's a scary reminder of what happens after violent regime changes in the MENA countries.

Rita Panahi wrote:The Syrian conflict has been marked by repeated human rights abuses by all sides, including the supposedly “moderate rebels” the US and her allies have backed directly and indirectly.

The rebels are adept at propaganda but often get caught out by their own keenness to document their exploits.

Is beheading a child begging for his life somehow less abhorrent than using a chemical weapon to kill innocent children?

Why does one inspire global revulsion and immediate action from the US while the other receives scant coverage?

Surely the mass torture and slaughter of men, women and children is also a “line-crossing” offence.

The killing of 80 children on the weekend by suicide bombers has received a fraction of the coverage in the Western media of the chemical attack.

Anti-government forces killed more than 120 innocent people being evacuated from al-Foua
and Kfraya into government-controlled areas.

Those killed were Shiites who are considered infidels by many of the Sunni rebel groups including the al-Qaeda-affiliated Fatah al-Sham Front.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a monster but the grim reality is that the alternative in Syria will be even worse.
Indeed.

How many people killed in Libya since the overthrow of Qaddafi? 400,000? Percentage of population displaced? 60%? The number of slaves taken versus the ones taken in Syria and the numbers of political prisoners.
You bet if Assad was removed without a a replacement that could hold the government and military together the about 60% Sunni majority would start genocide/ethnic cleansing on the 20% Alawite and others.
As it is about 20% are doing ethnic cleansing to 60% of the population.
The alternative in Syria could be worse, but I think that it isn't a sure thing.

#9215

Sunder wrote:I'm wary that many on the right who find themselves in the pro-free speech camp by present necessity are fairweather fans (much as many nominal liberals have turned out to be).

I'm reminded of Matt's statements regarding the A/S community being too quick to take ex-fundies and thrust them into highly visible roles within the A/S community. Yes, they're saying all the right things now. How about in a few years?

Remember that Teresa McBain, or whatever her name was? I think she threw some shade at EllenBeth Wachs, then ingratiated herself with some of the SJW brigade, but then promptly fucked back off into Christianity. I reckon she realised the SJWs are actually evidence that Hell exists, and re-found her faith.

:lol: :lol:

#9216

CommanderTuvok wrote:I notice a group of alt-righters, promoted by Cernovich, are IDing Antifa members by matching up clothes, markings, shoes, etc. to other footage taken earlier/later in the day, and then doxing them.

The Antifa mob have also been doing this.

Somebody is gonna get killed one of these days because they were doxed, either by Antifa, or the alt-right.

A plague on both their houses!

#9217

Lol.

Even former members of the Westboro Baptist Church can't comprehend the fascist, anti-liberal nature of college students, today.

#9218

Can't be said enough: Why would you interrupt your opponent when they're making a mistake? In the case of WBC and other loons, their message persuades virtually no one and dissuades a whole lot more. You let them speak because they're doing your job for you. They're flaunting their ugliness far better than silencing them and assuring people they really are ugly, honest, ever could.

Guest_84d94f98 · #9219

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Yikes. Yet another ex-evangelical proving that you can take the apostate out of fundamentalism, but you can't take the fundamentalism out of the apostate.

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thes ... 3263622190

Christ, why can't these people skip A/S and head straight to PETA?

<Ex-fundie Advocate>
How many people are really going to see that blog? While the author of that blog post may not be doing the athiest/skeptic community any favors, they act of writing down his thoughts and emotions, engaging with others, discussing and debating them may just be the type of process he needs to go through in order to help him find his stable ground and adjust to his new reality.

Our buddy Jordan Peterson certainly sings the virtues of writing down one's thoughts, engaging in discussion and debate.
https://youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos

-Soylent

#9220

KiwiInOz wrote:
John D wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:<snip>
I never knew Mark Steyn before this interview. There was one sentence in there that set off my loon alarm and sure enough, a bit of research later, alarm confirmed. Swivel-eyed global warming hoax believer bitching about how climate science is being corrupted by left wing ideologues <snip>.
Well... except that climate science actually is corrupted by left wing ideologues...
Physics is a left wing ideology? Who knew?

No, but feigning certainty in the face of deeply complex, not particularly well understood non-linear physics, and always feigning certainty in a particular direction, definitely could have an ideological bias.

#9221

Sunder wrote:Can't be said enough: Why would you interrupt your opponent when they're making a mistake? In the case of WBC and other loons, their message persuades virtually no one and dissuades a whole lot more. You let them speak because they're doing your job for you. They're flaunting their ugliness far better than silencing them and assuring people they really are ugly, honest, ever could.

I've never understood trying to silence people. It never works, is usually counterproductive, spreading your opponent's message far and wide. Give people enough rope and they'll hang themselves. When has this stifling approach ever worked? But people insist that letting other people talk equates to endorsing what that person says, an argument that should only work with elementary school children.

#9222

jugheadnaut wrote:snip

No, but feigning certainty in the face of deeply complex, not particularly well understood non-linear physics, and always feigning certainty in a particular direction, definitely could have an ideological bias.

Eppure si riscalda.

#9223

I actually agree with what you are saying, with a caveat. We make crucial decisions everyday with respect to the behaviour or drivers of complex systems, with even less information and wider bounds of uncertainty (bounds of possibility) than currently provided by climate science.

#9224

deLurch wrote:
Sunder wrote:I'm reminded of Matt's statements regarding the A/S community being too quick to take ex-fundies and thrust them into highly visible roles within the A/S community. Yes, they're saying all the right things now. How about in a few years?
Well more importantly, they just when through an extremely significant change in world view and lifestyle. I think they needed time to adjust and make sense of themselves, the world and how they fit into it without religion. More of a personal concern for those individuals well being.

As a side note, it wasn't any ex-fundie that decimated the the atheist/skeptic communities but feminism.

Correct. They also destroyed Occupy Toronto and Vancouver. Do a search and include misogny and you will see how they did it.

When their targets (mostly white males) walked after being attacked by the feminists it was all over.

#9225

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
Sunder wrote:Can't be said enough: Why would you interrupt your opponent when they're making a mistake? In the case of WBC and other loons, their message persuades virtually no one and dissuades a whole lot more. You let them speak because they're doing your job for you. They're flaunting their ugliness far better than silencing them and assuring people they really are ugly, honest, ever could.
I've never understood trying to silence people. It never works, is usually counterproductive, spreading your opponent's message far and wide. Give people enough rope and they'll hang themselves. When has this stifling approach ever worked? But people insist that letting other people talk equates to endorsing what that person says, an argument that should only work with elementary school children.

Depends on the environment and your goals.

PZ has a highly successful echo chamber, devoid of all pain.

Dunning turned off comments on skeptoid.com because 1000 word articles were being overwhelmed with hundreds of pieces of crap.

And then you have the other extreme.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy ... 00-h300-nc

#9226

Agreed, vuvuzelas are pretty extreme.

#9227

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Agreed, vuvuzelas are pretty extreme.

Your fault for endorsing soccer and pretending it's football.

#9228

KiwiInOz wrote:I actually agree with what you are saying, with a caveat. We make crucial decisions everyday with respect to the behaviour or drivers of complex systems, with even less information and wider bounds of uncertainty (bounds of possibility) than currently provided by climate science.

I didn't argue, or even imply, that no decisions should be made until there is perfect certainty. My only point was to counter your implication that climate science was just pure physics, so there was no room for ideological bias in it. There definitely is, and I don't think there's any question climate science has been hampered by crusaderism and consequent group-think, as has certainly happened in the past in the ecological sciences.

I should also point out that the level of uncertainty in climate science results isn't small at all. On the most important global warming metric for policy makers, the climate sensitivity, the uncertainty is gigantic (IPCC AR5 put the high confidence range at 1.5-4.5 deg C per [CO2] doubling), which makes it very difficult to make policy decisions at this point. My own preferred policy is a carbon tax that could mirror known carbon emissions externalities, perhaps starting relatively low for now but moving up if the higher end of the sensitivity range gets more likely. But with so many Chicken Little's and Casandra's among politicians and activists, who falsely believe they have the imprimatur of science, I'm very concerned that this would just open the door to scientifically and economically unjustified levels of taxation and do more harm than good. So for now, I'm reluctantly OK with doing nothing and waiting for higher quality information to come in.

#9229

The 'weaponized autists' at reddit have identified the bike lock thug, some people say he teaches at SFSU but he appears to be teaching at Diablo Valley Collegesince 2015:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C91KHmmXkAELKS0.jpg:large

#9230

jugheadnaut wrote:
KiwiInOz wrote:I actually agree with what you are saying, with a caveat. We make crucial decisions everyday with respect to the behaviour or drivers of complex systems, with even less information and wider bounds of uncertainty (bounds of possibility) than currently provided by climate science.
I didn't argue, or even imply, that no decisions should be made until there is perfect certainty. My only point was to counter your implication that climate science was just pure physics, so there was no room for ideological bias in it. There definitely is, and I don't think there's any question climate science has been hampered by crusaderism and consequent group-think, as has certainly happened in the past in the ecological sciences.

I should also point out that the level of uncertainty in climate science results isn't small at all. On the most important global warming metric for policy makers, the climate sensitivity, the uncertainty is gigantic (IPCC AR5 put the high confidence range at 1.5-4.5 deg C per [CO2] doubling), which makes it very difficult to make policy decisions at this point. My own preferred policy is a carbon tax that could mirror known carbon emissions externalities, perhaps starting relatively low for now but moving up if the higher end of the sensitivity range gets more likely. But with so many Chicken Little's and Casandra's among politicians and activists, who falsely believe they have the imprimatur of science, I'm very concerned that this would just open the door to scientifically and economically unjustified levels of taxation and do more harm than good. So for now, I'm reluctantly OK with doing nothing and waiting for higher quality information to come in.

I didn't say that you were arguing or implying that no decisions should be made, etc. I was merely seguing into an interest area of mine, i.e. complexity science, risk, and decision making.

[pedant] Climate (science) is pure physics (interacting of course with chemistry and ecology). It's the interpretation of data, conflicting agendas, and policy response options that provide the space for ideology. [/pedant]

From my perspective, the focus on climate sensitivity for policy development is misleading, and leads to a lot of fiddling while Rome burns. We have already passed thresholds where the rate of emissions grossly exceed the rate of sequestration, consequently increasing the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere. (Releasing millions of years worth of sequestered atmospheric carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere over 200 years will do that to a planet.) By the time we have narrowed the uncertainty it is/will be too late to stop that particular runaway train.

A carbon tax or a price on carbon would speed up the development and uptake of new technologies (by making them more favourable to the market) and hasten the demise of old technologies (by making them less favourable to the market). Mind you, technology change is happening despite global government inertia, as people start putting their dollars where their values are (I've moved my investments out of whale oil). Whether or not this will happen fast enough to slow the rate of emissions is debatable.

I'm not ok with doing nothing and waiting. I see the impact of the warming climate already hitting agriculture in Australia, community livelihoods/water security in south east Asia, and posing increased operational risk for critical infrastructure in south east Asia (all areas that I have worked on).

#9231

MacGruberKnows wrote:The 'weaponized autists' at reddit have identified the bike lock thug, some people say he teaches at SFSU but he appears to be teaching at Diablo Valley Collegesince 2015:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C91KHmmXkAELKS0.jpg:large

Weren't the Clantons the bad guys in the gunfight at OK Corral ?

#9232

Has Beccy gained employment with Uber security? Ironically she sees in others what the rest of us see in her.

http://i.imgur.com/HFz4nF6.png

http://i.imgur.com/kKlCCA2.png

#9233

School Sucks Podcast #427, a Conspir-a-thon episode, delves into Hollywood as a subject of Conspiracy Theories.

I'm one hour in & the topic is silent film star Fatty Arbuckle being ruined when a loose woman with serious health problems died in his company. Arbuckle was exonerated in 3 trials. But movies were a threat to print media empires, so newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst used his newspapers to make Arbuckle appear guilty.

Will H. Hays, (former chair of the Republican National Committee, US Postmaster General) President of the Motion Picture Association of America, was tasked with cleaning-up Hollywood's image, so he banned Arbuckle from movies for life, despite the exoneration. Hays was later known for the Hays Code-- the guidelines for self-censorship of Hollywood movies.

In 1940, when Orson Welles made Citizen Kane-- the unflattering story based on Hearst-- Hearst attempted to destroy Welles by planting a nude under-aged girl in his hotel room, with news photographers waiting to pounce. Only a tip-off spared Welles walking-in to the trap.

Today's print & television news empires throw their weight behind flimsy wars & flimsy politicians. They fearmonger, sensationalize, & serve celebrity gossip as news. They are no better than Hearst.

Why is it so hard to believe they would conspire against new media, such as YouTube, to marginalize independent YouTuber pundits-- and prioritize old media corporate YouTube channels?

There is precedent.

#9234

shoutinghorse wrote:Has Beccy gained employment with Uber security? Ironically she sees in others what the rest of us see in her.

http://i.imgur.com/HFz4nF6.png

http://i.imgur.com/kKlCCA2.png

I don't understand this at all, it is however clear that Becky is being a cunt.

Again.

#9235

If my memory of Kenneth Anger's Hollywood Babylon serves....

...Weren't they selling commemorative wine bottles to cash in on the Arbuckle trial?

...One explanation of Heart's feelings towards Wells - is that he thought that Citizen Kane amounted to the most expensive dirty joke in cinematic (and perhaps world) history. Rosebud + Marion Davies + favourite body part....well you do the math.

Guest_84d94f98 · #9236

Here is your chance to shine and get revenge on us for all the Trump talk Phil.

Tell us what you will expect to happen in the upcoming election:
https://theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/ ... ntial-race

-Soylent

#9237

PS I'm not so sure that old media is conspiring against the new.

The formula appears to be outrage = clicks = $.

Also, if the market is not growing then there is a limit to the number of advertiser dollars - so if they can decrease someone else's share - there is more for them.

They can either be true believers (ie think that the youtube community is really full of anti-semites, racists and sexists) or cynical to be motivated in this way.

No conspiring necessary.

#9238

Service Dog wrote:School Sucks Podcast #427, a Conspir-a-thon episode, delves into Hollywood as a subject of Conspiracy Theories.

I'm one hour in & the topic is silent film star Fatty Arbuckle being ruined when a loose woman with serious health problems died in his company. Arbuckle was exonerated in 3 trials. But movies were a threat to print media empires, so newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst used his newspapers to make Arbuckle appear guilty.

Will H. Hays, (former chair of the Republican National Committee, US Postmaster General) President of the Motion Picture Association of America, was tasked with cleaning-up Hollywood's image, so he banned Arbuckle from movies for life, despite the exoneration. Hays was later known for the Hays Code-- the guidelines for self-censorship of Hollywood movies.

In 1940, when Orson Welles made Citizen Kane-- the unflattering story based on Hearst-- Hearst attempted to destroy Welles by planting a nude under-aged girl in his hotel room, with news photographers waiting to pounce. Only a tip-off spared Welles walking-in to the trap.

Today's print & television news empires throw their weight behind flimsy wars & flimsy politicians. They fearmonger, sensationalize, & serve celebrity gossip as news. They are no better than Hearst.

Why is it so hard to believe they would conspire against new media, such as YouTube, to marginalize independent YouTuber pundits-- and prioritize old media corporate YouTube channels?

There is precedent.

Nice bit of info there SD. The treatment of Arbuckle is such a sad story and just proves how Machiavellian the press have always been, Arbuckle was such an easy target for them too, he was supposedly a fairly shy man with a big heart who was very popular with his peers. I remember reading somewhere that although Chaplin backed him privately and indeed gave one interview showing his support the Hollywood money men warned him off, telling Chaplin his continued support could ruin him too. Buster Keaton & Harold Lloyd gave him work as a writer under the pseudonym William Goodrich but his career as a screen star was ruined.

#9239

MarcusAu wrote:PS I'm not so sure that old media is conspiring against the new.

The formula appears to be outrage = clicks = $.

Also, if the market is not growing then there is a limit to the number of advertiser dollars - so if they can decrease someone else's share - there is more for them.

They can either be true believers (ie think that the youtube community is really full of anti-semites, racists and sexists) or cynical to be motivated in this way.

No conspiring necessary.

There's also the issue of propagating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about the internet, which isn't a conspiracy but a common point of view among the "mainstream" public opinion. Stephen Colbert illustrated this very well when he interviewed Anita Sarkeesian. His jokes were flatly delivered cliches about gamers being unattractive, resentful virgins living in their parents' basements. Most non-gamers see gamers along those lines, a fact which people like Sarkeesian exploit very well.

To most "normal" people the Internet IS a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Most people believe feminists when they say that people harass them all the time because the common cultural perception is that the internet is a place full of hatred, profanity, perverts and porn. Politicians of all stripes and cultural figures who adhere to all philosophies and religions have contributed to these stereotypes, which are exaggerations, not complete inventions anyway. Anytime a religious leader rails against internet porn, or a conservative politician elicits paranoia about child predators on the internet they also feed into the feminist/SJW narrative. Feminists are natural allies of social conservatives and religious leaders on this issue.

#9240

Guest_84d94f98 wrote:Here is your chance to shine and get revenge on us for all the Trump talk Phil.

Tell us what you will expect to happen in the upcoming election:
https://theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/ ... ntial-race

-Soylent

I haven't read the article, but Le Pen will not get elected. Macron, maybe. Fillon, not so sure with all the baggage that has been outed lately. Melenchon, I hope not.

Don't care much, to be honest. They're all the same jerkwads.

And here I wanted to save my 11000th for something worthwhile. Swing and a miss, I suppose.