Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Cheesecat wrote: "On his program, Mr. Marlow also defended Mr. Yiannopoulos, saying there was no evidence Mr. Yiannopoulos had acted as a sexual predator and that he had been a victim of a “coordinated hit” by liberal groups intent on hurting his ascent.
“There seems to be growing evidence that this was all coordinated to wait for a peak moment when Milo was red-hot,” Mr. Marlow said. “They sat on this story and they held it for maximum political damage.”
Brietbart, the people who brought us Jimmy O'Keefe's "journalism", are complaining about partisan hit jobs in biased media, huh?
As for Milo, nothing of value was lost
Never mind that it was a conservative site that dredged up that video. But yeah, a "coordinated hit" by liberal groups.
...Mr. Yiannopoulos tried to explain his comments in posts on his Facebook page, saying he was a victim of his own “British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor,”...[/url]
feth off Milo, I thought you hated "victim culture" you vacuous gobshite.
It's a real testament to the new Trump world we're living in that I'm surprised anything revealed about the Milo guy is actually torpedoing his popularity.
Yiannopoulos responded, “If you can take a dick, you can take a joke,”
That has got to be one of the most insanely sexist things I think I've ever read (and I read comments on like, 12 Anita Sarkesian videos). Yeah. That's how your argue there is no sexism or rape culture in America. Tell a woman that if she can take a dick she can take a joke.
Holy gak people listened to this cesspool...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/22 00:12:13
Yiannopoulos responded, “If you can take a dick, you can take a joke,”
That has got to be one of the most insanely sexist things I think I've ever read (and I read comments on like, 12 Anita Sarkesian videos). Yeah. That's how your argue there is no sexism or rape culture in America. Tell a woman that if she can take a dick she can take a joke.
Holy gak people listened to this cesspool...
It's also fething older than dirt... Im pretty damn sure I've seen/heard comedians use that same line in the pre-social media world.
sebster wrote: Is there a term in science for running an experiment, getting the wrong results and then pretending you never ran an experiment and carrying on regardless? That's not a rhetorical question, is there such a term?
Not that I am aware of, most bunk scientific hypotheses which are found to be unsupported by experiment will typically be changed into some new form which now predicts that specific thing but not something else which will be measured and they change again, and so on.
So they evolve over time, changing to appear like they satisfy experimental conditions but only as tacked on bits afterwards rather than as a direct consequence of the science behind the initial model, rather than just flat out ignoring them.
Where I work, the term for something similar is "dry labbing", which means you just make up the results without actually doing the lab tests.
Hmm, that works for stuff like the Laffer Curve, which appeared with claims of large amounts of research, but was never anything more than a single highly contrived graph.
But what about studies were research was done, and when the results were not what the researcher wanted they just decided to ignore the study entirely? I know this goes on, lots of dodgy labs do research for companies promising them they'll produce results 'proving' their products helps lose weight or reduce wrinkles or whatever. Just wondering if this has a name.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Was the first thing that came up on google, not an unbiased site, but they do have the full transcript of the conversation in question.
The full video has been up on Youtube for 2 years here is the 15 minute segment of the older video from Joe Rogan's channel.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Looks like we *are* going to have the "Immigrants are raping everyone in Sweden!" "debate" again after all. Fething Fox News is attacking Sweden by pretending that correlation implies causation. Why is there such a fascination with Sweden? On the one hand we're a socialist hellhole, on the other hand we're a utopia being destroyed by Muslim immigrants. Which is it going to be?
Your dirty IKEA robs my wallet and molests my diet every time I go near, YOU KNOW what you are doing with those cinnamon buns and meatballs!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Looks like we *are* going to have the "Immigrants are raping everyone in Sweden!" "debate" again after all. Fething Fox News is attacking Sweden by pretending that correlation implies causation. Why is there such a fascination with Sweden? On the one hand we're a socialist hellhole, on the other hand we're a utopia being destroyed by Muslim immigrants. Which is it going to be?
Your dirty IKEA robs my wallet and molests my diet every time I go near, YOU KNOW what you are doing with those cinnamon buns and meatballs!
Dreadclaw69 wrote: He said that fake news media was the enemy of the people.
That's quite a dishonest argument. You are right that Trump said that it was news that was the enemy of the people, but you are ignoring that in that same tweet Trump claimed fake news included the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN. So you know, any media that's been critical of him whether it is an actual news service or one that actually makes fake stories. It's pretty clear to see that Trump's conclusion is that any media which criticises him is fake news, and therefore an enemy of the people.
- Obama called out the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address in
This is also wrong. Obama said “with all due deference to separation of powers”, and then criticised a specific decision from the Supreme Court. Obama didn't criticise any member of the court, or it's process or place in US government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I'm not keeping close track, but it seems his ire is specifically focused on CNN, which to be fair is a big flaming pile of garbage, and has been since well before Trumps candidacy.
You should read the tweet that Trump made. He listed CNN as fake news, but also NYT, NBC, ABC and CBS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Interesting development regarding the refugee ban:
Huh, a christian group using religious freedom arguments to argue for their rights for actual charity, not sexual moralism. That shouldn't be as unusual as it feels.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/22 02:40:20
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: Is there a term in science for running an experiment, getting the wrong results and then pretending you never ran an experiment and carrying on regardless? That's not a rhetorical question, is there such a term?
Not that I am aware of, most bunk scientific hypotheses which are found to be unsupported by experiment will typically be changed into some new form which now predicts that specific thing but not something else which will be measured and they change again, and so on.
So they evolve over time, changing to appear like they satisfy experimental conditions but only as tacked on bits afterwards rather than as a direct consequence of the science behind the initial model, rather than just flat out ignoring them.
Where I work, the term for something similar is "dry labbing", which means you just make up the results without actually doing the lab tests.
Hmm, that works for stuff like the Laffer Curve, which appeared with claims of large amounts of research, but was never anything more than a single highly contrived graph.
But what about studies were research was done, and when the results were not what the researcher wanted they just decided to ignore the study entirely? I know this goes on, lots of dodgy labs do research for companies promising them they'll produce results 'proving' their products helps lose weight or reduce wrinkles or whatever. Just wondering if this has a name.
It doesn't really happen in the scientific sphere; rather the testing itself is rigged from the onset, and/or the data is trimmed & bent to produce the result required. Something to keep in mind is that even dodgy scientists are still scientists and relatively intelligent people; if they want a given block of data to say something they will find a way to make it do so. But generally speaking its going to be far easier to create a test that will produce the result you want rather than conducting an unbiased test and messing with the results. Or in other words: science is all about trying to prove a theory wrong, so its easier to just fail at disproving a theory than to disprove it and try to make it look like you didn't.
Scrabb wrote: It's a real testament to the new Trump world we're living in that I'm surprised anything revealed about the Milo guy is actually torpedoing his popularity.
I'm still trying to figure out how he can say something like "thick as pig gak media Jew" and not only survive, but continue to have people cheer him on. But then the line is drawn when he makes some jokes and pushes some boundaries on paedophilia.
The other part of this I'm trying to figure out is why the comments barely raised a ripple when he made them, but are now seen as outrageous enough to have him cut from CPAC and fired from Breitbart.
Is it possible that when they were out of power conservatives were happy to work with any flying rodent gak lunatic who helped build their feeling of serious but always very vague anger, but now that they are in power they are looking towards running a much tighter ship? Is this less about paedophilia somehow being the one thing you cannot make insane comments about, and is actually just the issue that prompted a cleaning of house?
I don't think this has to be a conscious act, or any kind of plot. Just a change in thinking brought about by a change in circumstance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: It doesn't really happen in the scientific sphere; rather the testing itself is rigged from the onset, and/or the data is trimmed & bent to produce the result required. Something to keep in mind is that even dodgy scientists are still scientists and relatively intelligent people; if they want a given block of data to say something they will find a way to make it do so. But generally speaking its going to be far easier to create a test that will produce the result you want rather than conducting an unbiased test and messing with the results. Or in other words: science is all about trying to prove a theory wrong, so its easier to just fail at disproving a theory than to disprove it and try to make it look like you didn't.
Interesting, thanks. Ah well, I guess there's no already existing term in science for setting up a bunch of test cases to test your theory, and then if the tests go against you just ignoring the experiments and rolling it out on a major scale anyway.
Maybe the better comparison is to engineering? Ignoring the failings of a prototype and going in to mass production anyway?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/22 03:48:13
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: In actual politics, there's still the H.R. McMaster nomination.
Appointment. He'll be joining the executive office of the president, which does need senate confirmation.
Indeed... I used the wrong term there...
But again, I served under him, and can confirm some of the stuff the NYT article I posted is very accurate. The dude is smart as hell, and is unafraid of speaking his mind. I have the feeling that, if he's confirmed, that will run afoul of Donnie's narcissism at some point. And at that point, I hope that congress does the right thing, and doesn't allow McMaster to get "fired"
Interesting choice that Trumpo is definitely NOT picking a 'yes' man here...
I've been reading up on McMaster, and he seems to be a grandslam choice, like Mattis.
I agree, every now and then Trump seems to pick a great choice. I liked Harward a lot, but McMaster is a fine choice.
I also like his new Labor Sec pick, a lot more than Pudzer. Of Course, Pudzer was absolutely horrible, so not a super high milestone there. I with Betsy had been forced to withdraw as well, but we can't get everything I suppose. She is apprently being guarded by Federal Marshals now, due to all the threats she's received.
What is the underpinning theory of the alt-right movement?
SJW-ism is motivated by two core theories; 1. That human rights demands equality for women and gay people, etc. 2. That inclusion of a diverse population makes society stronger economically and socially.
The second of these ideas has some backing from cognitive psychology, i.e. the avoidance of group-think by inclusion of dissenting voices. The first obviously is an ethical matter.
Does alt-right-ism have any similar theoretical basis?
Isnt Tila Tequila some social media... loose woman that hailed hitler? Martin Shkreli the guy who jacked up drug prices?
Who cares what they think, and why would the white house stain its halls with their prescence?
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
Crazyterran wrote: Who cares what they think, and why would the white house stain its halls with their prescence?
To clarrify: the petition is on a site where anyone can make a petition, about any stupid thing they want. So no, nobody cares what they think.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the underpinning theory of the alt-right movement?
SJW-ism is motivated by two core theories; 1. That human rights demands equality for women and gay people, etc. 2. That inclusion of a diverse population makes society stronger economically and socially.
The second of these ideas has some backing from cognitive psychology, i.e. the avoidance of group-think by inclusion of dissenting voices. The first obviously is an ethical matter.
Does alt-right-ism have any similar theoretical basis?
Be a douchebag as hard as possible?
I don't think there's a single unifying theory of the alt-right, apart from entitled, young, white male angsty whining disguised as "trolling". Maybe there more to it? However, the gist is that as long as you say something to stick it "SJW's" or "liberals", then you're just dandy, unless you talk about fething kids, apparently.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Kilkrazy wrote: What is the underpinning theory of the alt-right movement?
SJW-ism is motivated by two core theories; 1. That human rights demands equality for women and gay people, etc. 2. That inclusion of a diverse population makes society stronger economically and socially.
The second of these ideas has some backing from cognitive psychology, i.e. the avoidance of group-think by inclusion of dissenting voices. The first obviously is an ethical matter.
Does alt-right-ism have any similar theoretical basis?
From what I can tell, alot of it seems to be a backlash against their perception that white American males are blamed for almost everything, and a backlash against identity politics and modern feminism in general. This is what their young paragons on youtube are most often railing against, anyways. Youtube is the only real place I see these views expressed. I've still never bothered to venture onto Breitbart.
The core theory they seem to cite most often is that people should not be judged by the color of their skin or their gender, but on their character. They cite MLK frequently.
I'm sure Alt-Right alos means something vastly different to a different set of people...i.e. I've heard white supremacists are also lumped into the Alt-Right.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/22 11:34:42
Ivanka Trump‘s retail woes are apparently not limited to stores dropping her products. As it turns out, New York State has a warrant out against her jewelry company, Ivanka Trump Fine Jewelry, for unpaid taxes. As of January 27, the company, which is officially known as Madison Avenue Diamonds, LLC, owes $5,165.06.
That’s not the only legal issue the President’s daughter has had of late. Last year, Ivanka was sued by an Italian shoe company who claimed that she copied their design. That case is still going on in Manhattan federal court.
In 2015, a court ordered Trump’s jewelry company to pay more than $2 million in a breach of contract case after they stopped making payments to a supplier. Trump’s company had argued that the supplier, KGK Jewelry LLC, had violated the contract themselves by being a day late in returning computer design files, which let Madison Avenue Diamonds off the hook. They also claimed that KGK’s jewelry was “of substandard quality.” The judge didn’t buy it, and said Trump’s business had to pay $2,375,000 plus interest.
The website for Ivanka Trump Fine Jewelry was down as of Tuesday evening, with a message saying that its account had expired.
LawNewz.com attempted to reach out to a representative from the company for comment, but was unsuccessful.
Taxes are for little people though yeah ?
Could you not have elected the Munsters or the Addams family instead ? Least that would've been funnier.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
4000+
6000+ Order. Unity. Obedience.
Thousand Sons 4000+
