Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Unfortunately...

http://www.joslin.org/info/correcting_internet_myths_about_aspartame.html

The whole "sweet taste tricks your body in to releasing insulin" is complete bunk. A simple glucose tolerance test would show if pancreatic hormone secretion was elevated due to aspartame ingestion...

Oh look!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3522147

A nutritive sweetener, aspartame (L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methylester) was administered orally to normal controls and diabetic patients in order to evaluate effects on blood glucose, lipids and pancreatic hormone secretion. An oral glucose tolerance test was also performed in the same subjects as a control study of aspartame administration. In 7 normal controls and 22 untreated diabetics, a single dose of 500 mg aspartame, equivalent to 100 g glucose in sweetness, induced no increase in blood glucose concentration. Rather, a small but significant decrease in blood glucose was noticed 2 or 3 h after administration. The decrease in blood glucose was found to be smallest in the control and became greater as the diabetes increased in severity. No significant change in blood insulin or glucagon concentration during a 3-h period was observed in either the controls or the diabetics. The second study was designed to determine the effects of 2 weeks' continuous administration of 125 mg aspartame, equal in sweetness to the mean daily consumption of sugar (20-30 g) in Japan, to 9 hospitalized diabetics with steady-state glycemic control. The glucose tolerance showed no significant change after 2 weeks' administration. Fasting, 1 h and 2 h postprandial blood glucose, blood cholesterol, triglyceride and HDL-cholesterol were also unaffected. From these and other published results, aspartame would seem to be a useful alternative nutrient sweetener for patients with diabetes mellitus.

Yes, phosphoric acid isn't great for your teeth, and yes, it's better to drink water, but the majority of the blurb against diet type low calorie sweeteners start with conspiracy theorists and nuts who believe you can cure cancer with herbal teas.

Sorry poster, no upvote for blatant misinformation.

The problem with editing and splicing videos to prove a point is that it allows conspiracy theorists, who have a decided lack of proof generally, to make wild claims and have the general public buy into them.

You know, the same general public that had to have Section 73.1217 added as an FCC rule due to a radio broadcast 77 years ago.

Yes, I was wondering when you would trot out Hooker's paper and the 'CDC whistleblower" bit. You see, in the lack of clear scientific fact, conspiracy theorists tend to grab whatever they can to prove that they are right. I'll dissect your attempt right now.

First, Hooker's paper was covering the data involving African-American children with supposed predilection towards autism. The sample size was small, the math was ludicrous, and he incorrectly analyzed a cohort study. Because of the NUMEROUS failures to appropriately conduct a true scientific study, his paper was retracted. So, when exposed to the light, his theory was decidedly lacking in content and was canned.

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/27/journal-takes-down-autism-vaccine-paper-pending-investigation/

This incompetent study was the result, allegedly, of discussions between Hooker and a senior psychologist at the CDC named William Thompson. Hooker then teamed up with Andrew Wakefield to cherry pick bits to make it sound as though Thompson were confessing to some horrible crime of data manipulation to hide this “bombshell” result reported by Wakefield. Thus was born the “CDC whistleblower".

In February 2010, the General Medical Council in the U.K. recommended that Wakefield be stripped of his license to practice medicine in the U.K. because of scientific misconduct related to his infamous 1998 case series published in The Lancet, even going so far as to refer to him as irresponsible and dishonest, and in May 2010 he was. He is a now doing everything he can to prove his theories, like possibly illegal recording of conversations, so that he can regain some credibility. The guy is a hack.

Thompson has admitted to being prone to anxiety disorders, being delusional, and has shown that he is more scared of being 'the bad guy' then doing his job. His career is pretty much finished at the CDC, because he has shown that he will waffle if confronted by angry people who can't understand science. I feel sorry for him, but he has issues.

So, now we can address your link. A congressman, not a scientist, has received information from people who have been laughed out of the scientific community for multiple reasons. He sees buzzwords and decides to get ahead of the bandwagon, calling for further investigation and research. I can, of course, show you knee-jerk reactions by multiple members of congress similar to this, like Ted Cruz calling for immediate investigation into Planned Parenthood over the recent videos. You know, the ones that were chopped and spliced together to make it sound like PP was selling aborted babies? Do you see a pattern with the chop and splice for sensationalism? I hope you do.

In other words, you don't have any scientific facts. Like all anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists, you rely on a few items that seem to tie together to form a true fact, but they don't. When confronted with this, you will say that it's all big pharma and money trails, etc. Do you not see the fallacy in that logic? It's like saying that the the earth was created 9000 years ago...because RELIGION!

Btw, if you want to place your trust in politicians trying to be scientists, I leave you with this gem from former congressman Paul Broun.

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

But what about theses conspiracy theories (as an example)
http://theantimedia.org/10-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/

Seems to me it was not long ago people were called 'conspiracy theorist', when they talked of government spying on its own people. Funny thing is it is actually WAY worse then 'conspiracy theorist' ever imagined. just sayin

painting someone as a 'conspiracy theorist' is just like how they are painting 'feminist' these days. Lumping everyone together is lame and is used to intimidate and shout people down. Many shut up for fear of being labeled by a hijacked name.

You said Eric Holder can get it (ending racism in the police) done. What else could that mean besides this one democrat heading a federal agency is expected to have abilities never exhibited by any human before him? EDIT: ...and he's expected to do this during a period of political obstructivism and discord that's halted progress on nearly every issue at hand.

Kind of. Most laws are actually written by lobbies, and voted in by our 'representatives' (that don't represent us on any side, but represent the lobbies instead). Some few states have 'ballot initiatives' that allow direct voting on issues, but I think most don't.
(As an aside, I wish we would follow what I've read was the original draft of the constitution that 11-12 of 13 colonies ratified, but was discarded in favor of the one we follow today, which said clearly that lawyers can't hold public office outside the courtroom).

Common sense says if you are non-criminal only 99% of the time, you are criminal 1%, so at least once per day if not more often. If you don't understand that, or wish to continue to ignore it, you are insane or severely learning deficient. You can't even argue against that reality, so you turn to personal insults....so by your own rules, you loose.

I'm describing personal experience and long standing repeating investigations showing the same thing. When you're theory has been proven right, you are no longer a 'conspiracy theorist'. I didn't come to my conclusion until long after it had been proven true in many many cases (not all).

Yes, easy, and you would think that would matter, sadly not. It happened here in N Cal. 3-5 years ago, white kid even. No question the kid was shot in the back, and had no weapon, but the cop claimed he 'thought' he saw a weapon and feared for his life, and that the kid had quickly turned away right as he shot, and that's pretty much where it ended. Not the first stupid unarmed kid shot here, won't be the last with that outcome.

Paragraph by paragraph:

Ok, your first paragraph doesn't make sense. Re-read what I wrote.

The vast majority of laws are written by lawyers voted into office by citizens. Your assertion is a stretch by any measure.

The only way I can be insane is by continuing to think you may be influenced by common sense. That remains to be seen.

Now you're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist. Is that you?

If a cop shoots an unarmed kid in the back, wouldn't that be very easy to prove? I think so. Perhaps your conspiracy gene is more prevalent than I thought.

That's the funny thing. We're both looking at the same thing but seeing different things. To me that's much more a wedge shape than a crow's short and straight.

But more importantly, the underside of the tail in a frame or two from an angle isn't as telltale as the up-close-and-personal HD view of the birds beak and head from multiple angles.

There's no question about how "ravenous" they are, and you're still not expressing any thoughts on those features.

You're avoiding all the clear evidence pointing to the obvious, indisputable truth, and hanging on with a death grip to the only slim, inconclusive evidence that you claim supports your unlikely theory. (Are you a 9/11 and moon landing conspiracy theorist?)

In the words of Elsa, let it go... Let it go! Can't hold it back any more. Turn away and slam the door already because here I am in the light of day. And you know what? The cold never bothered me anyway.

Don't even bother. It's like arguing with a conspiracy theorist.

I responded to your specific quote dismissing the evidence provided because of who it was provided by, not because of what was provided. But you already know that... =)

And as previously noted, your stand is essentially unassailable because you believe you are correct and refuse to acknowledge anything that undermines that belief. As Yogi has noted, all you're doing now is acting the idiot to solicit more posts that you can randomly spray vitriol at.

ie. pretty much acting like stereotypical climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists or aggressive religious types.

Which is the classic last stand of the denier, conspiracy theorist or indeed religious person, and one that is essentially unassailable.

"I believe what I believe and nothing you say or demonstrate can change it..."

You don't actually provide any counter evidence, you just put down the evidence as completely unreliable because of it's source. It's a very effective way to convince yourself that the debate is being balanced if you can knock down some of those 97% who overwhelmingly disagree with you...

The problem is that while only 3% of scientists refuse to be convinced, a very large portion of very powerful people and politicians agree with them, and have a disproportionate amount of power to stymie change. Perhaps they don't even ideologically agree, they may just not care if it effects their profits...

Either way, the debate goes round and nothing gets done. Stalling is as successful as denying...

Whether you believe or not, the most effective way to get something done is to put our environment before our profit margins anyway.

also would love to see the Disney princesses conspiracy theorists work this crossover in...

By assuming we are "close minded conspiracy theorists" simply off the basis of having a different conclusion than you, you're simply avoiding the discussion, and you still fail to make any legitimate arguments; you merely repeat the "tired and naive" talking point of how "it's not the best, but it's the best we have" to defend an unjust system.

When has that attitude ever done us good? We have such amazing technology and understanding of the universe because of the way we as a whole ultimately reject that argument and instead say "some of this works quite well, but we need a lot of work in other areas."

Personally, I'm a fan of the free market concept. I think a fair amount of those who you are so eager to write off as fools also do. The problem comes down to what our concepts of justice are. We speak fondly of "equality of opportunity," but anyone can see we have no such thing. Only when everyone has equal opportunity to pursue learning in the fields of their choice without having to give up on adding to our collective culture/knowledge because of the economic pressure of survival can we truly say people are free. So long as anyone is taking a job they hate just to scrape by at the bottom of the chain, and we exercise violence against each other to try and force our ways onto others on a massive scale, we are, in my opinion, a profoundly unjust society.

Of course, violence will never end, scheming and exploitation and all our evils will continue to plague us. We can't make a utopia. What we can do, though, is decrease the potential for abuse in our current systems. I, and many others, think that separating the means of survival and self-actualization - the things required to develop, grow, and contribute to humanity at a high level (namely, food/water/shelter, basic healthcare, and free, equal access to education) - from the rest of the market is one way to make a huge impact on that potential for abuse. Think about it: how many times do we let corporations damage our environment and abuse us simply because speaking out means losing your means of survival?

I think the rest of the market is going to have to stay the market, nobody can really say how it's fair to divide up all our resources (though I hope for an increase in democracy going forwards for things related to our environment and health). Amusingly, though you rail against anarchy, the actual ideals of anarchy fall in line with the concept of a free market (anarchy is really all about freedom of association rather than coercive structures; not a lack of order).

Don't need to "Edumacate" myself thanks. As for arguing a point? Well, with certain closed minded conspiracy theorists it is pointless. Especially with someone who sees ALL the problems wrapped neatly up in a capitalist plot. Their answer? they have none other than "overthrow those in control." Well, you don't need to look far to see what anarchy brings. Or should I spell it out for you? It brings exactly that; Anarchy, in fighting, tribalism, persecution and pain. You stick to your childish revolutionary talk and I will, with all its flaws, stick to the best there is at the minute ie, capitalism and democracy (such as it is).

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, or one of the less-grounded members of this community (you all know who you are!), and I'm not trying to make this out to be the good/bad/evil scenario, i.e. Emperor Palpatine et al. I use "government" as a collective, general term, however I felt it was apt in this context given that people strictly within the government, and maybe lobbyists to an extent, are responsible for these various decisions that have led us to this point.
No, they don't seek power for it's own sake, but the handful of objectives I listed in my last post are a sampling of what might drive an organization to pursue power fervently.

There does seem to exist a greater, definitively single-minded pursuit of lessening the civil rights of US citizens since the turn of the millennium, in an attempt to have more power over them, and while "government" at large generally fumbles over itself when it attempts to get all the parts moving together as one, I believe you can see the broader cooperation happening here. From inclusion of said US Tech companies roles, the nation-wide abuse by the police force, aggression of US border patrol agents, random TSA checkpoints on some state highways, and the statements made by the president and his staff, which only seem to serve to blow off civil concerns with one breath while granting increased power to these same entities with the next.

At this point in a country's history, it seems to me that the only thing that can change the course of an entire nation is decisive action by it's citizens on a scale that would simultaneously qualify as an act that justifies all their overreaches of power. And I don't mean in any way acts of violence, but if there were a 5-million-man-march on the capitol tomorrow to show a mass appeal for reason and demand accountability, I believe it would be used as an example of why the government is pursuing such surveillance to begin with.

Sorry this is long winded, but lastly, I wouldn't feel too bad about Obama's allegedly targeting only foreign individuals. To me that felt like damage control to appease the US populace rather than an affront to foreign nationals. They said the Exact. Same. Thing. about the Patriot Act, and that was being used to arrest US citizens for minor infractions by local law enforcement not 6-months after it was passed. Disgusting.