How many of those fact checking organisations would have flagged Judith Miller's Iraq pieces in the NYT as "deliberatly misleading content"? Or what about the 16 hit pieces on Sanders within 24h at Bezos' rag of a newspaper? And let's not even start about the reporting on the recent night of the long knives in Saudi Arabia ("reform", really? fuck off)...

Point is, the effort to curtail "fake news" regularly goes hand in hand with the suppression of non-establishment views while leaving the main sources of deliberate misinformation untouched. Remember PropOrNot and how Bezos' rag, amongst others, jumped on it? That list included prominent left wing/anti-war sites such as TruthOut, Counterpunch, TruthDig, ConsortiumNews, etc.

Want some examples of "misleading content" or "deliberate misinformation"? Just browse through the articles at Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting for a few minutes.

There's really only two arguments against SSM.

1: "I think the institution of marriage is pointless". Great, then don't get married, but kindly fuck off and don't tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

2: "Gay people are icky". Not actually an argument, but at least you're being honest.

On the plus side, there's every chance that this insane waste of money will actually bring an end to the current Australian government. Literally everyone I've talked to in Australia (been there for work recently) thinks this postal vote is a massive waste of taxpayer money. The vast majority are perfectly fine with SSM, and even those against SSM know that this is pointless.

OTOH, if Australia does decide that it really does decide that it wants to continue being a backward, homophobic, rock-on-fire-that-no-one-should-live-in*, well that's just more tourist dollars for NZ!

* just kidding... there are some parts of Australia that are only mildly racist!

"sensitivity is more important than truth,
feelings are more important than facts"

Bill, the fact that you think those are "feminine" values illustrates exactly why feminism is still important.

Bill Burr continues to be an unfunnny throwback to the 80s and frankly, I wish he'd just fuck off.

Louis CK, OTOH, is still a comedic genius.

But here's the thing people. Comedians are great at comedy, but they're comedians, not philosophers or sociologists.

Comedy just doesn't really work with nuanced issues. There are tonnes of jokes about Trump because he's such an obvious combination of dickhead and idiot; there really isn't anything complex about him.

But you don't see much comedy about free trade vs. anti-globalisation because it's a fucking complicated issue that has pros and cons on both sides. Comedy is about hyperbole and exaggeration.

considering what it takes to render actually photoreal CG at 4K, doing it in real time at 60 fps is at least 10+ years away. and that's extremely generous. this stuff looks awesome... for realtime renders in a video game. they're way the fuck off from photoreal.

"That's what mature people would do.."

For some reason, in my head all i can see is a posh woman sat in one of Titanic's lifeboats, which is tipping side to side as desperate, freezing people try to climb in. "If they tip the lifeboat over we'll all die, why can't they be more mature about it?"

Trump is shit for the US and for the world, but it's a bit of an own goal to blame people who Hillary Clinton & her political supporters couldn't convince that either a) the US would be significantly better off with her over Trump for it to matter or b) they individually would benefit from what she had to offer. They don't owe you votes, you have to win their support by making them believe they'll be better off.

This is more of the same shit that we've been shoveled for years - neoliberalism is the ONLY way. Compromise, grow up, be mature, *agree with us or you're to blame for what happens*. What's the end game of a political system where the blame for the result goes to anyone who didn't vote for the two largest parties?

Look, the centre can't energise people because they don't have anything hopeful or interesting to offer. If you want a message that carries well, if you want the energy and positivity to overcome trump then it HAS to come from the left. Anti-fascist protests have attracted so many thousands of people from a position of love & togetherness, largely organised by socialist women. See Kristian Hernandez for example.

You can't get people out and marching and waving signs saying "We Want More Austerity" or "We Want Tough Talk On Minimum Wage But No Real Action" - you need a message and a hope that will inspire kids from universities to come out in droves and have those difficult conversations with friends, strangers, and their families. Have them out in the streets with music & activity spreading a positive message and showing people that there IS strength and love in a community that comes together. You need something that will inspire an entire population of forgotten black communities. YOU FIGHT HATE WITH LOVE, NOT THE COMPROMISE OF THE CENTRE. You know what the compromise of the centre gets you? It gets you a man who thinks adding "on many sides, on many sides" is how you present a balanced statement, and an audience who agrees.

The chattering classes like Maher have done very well for a very long time out of neoliberalism. He's been on the TV for years talking about the results of that ideology, earning a good livelihood off it. He has a very nice suit, looks healthy and happy, probably a nice house, looking forward to pension and good healthcare. He's calling people who have sickness and exhaustion, living in rented apartments in rough areas, looking forward to the sweet release of death, immature.

So pardon me if i say fuck off Maher; stop asking people with nothing to keep compromising your way. If you want their support, compromise their way. And if you want their energy and fire, you're going to have to share control of the reins because talk is cheap. Give them a Bernie.

Sorry for the rant.

@Jinx -- Whether in "meatspace" or on the internet, I think the difference is engaging with others vs being in the echo chamber.

A lot of "engaging" with others is going to be negative. Picket line meets picket line has about as much chance of being productive as reading the comments on a controversial YouTube video.

But even if the majority of the "engagement" is that, there are going to be some patient people who connect in a positive enough way to actually enlighten and persuade. Like the former-WBC lady's new husband.

And while that positive engagement seems to have the best shot at redeeming those that can be redeemed, it also might be the best way to show the true colors of those beyond redemption. The skinhead leader guy got maced by counter-protesters twice. That gives him a semi-legitimate provocation to respond in kind or with escalating violence (bloody knuckles, broken bones, whatever). But if he isn't provided with any such provocation and still resorts to violence, people can truly see his "idealogy" for what it is.

Hence Rosa Parks responding to the bus driver in Montgomery:
Driver - "If you don't stand up, I'm going to have to call the police and have you arrested."
Parks - "You may do that."


If I was there in Charlottesville in the heat of the moment, face to face with that kind of hate and bigotry, I'd have been one of the people chanting "fuck off nazis". I'd have cheered when somebody on "my side" maced chief-skinhead in the face, if I hadn't done it myself. ...But I recognize that we could sure use more people that react like Rosa Parks did, and less like I would have.

I would be much more annoyed that you're trying to talk to me while I'm coding. "Pair Programming", that's different. But if you want to talk about the show you're binging on Netflix...fuck off, I'm in a groove here.

If this was real, the chavs deserved soaking. Anyone saying they were in the road for good reasons a) has never met one, b) can't explain why they start swearing and throwing missiles instead of the usual british thing of holding a hand up (suggesting 'sorry' and 'fuck off' in equal measure), and c) don't explain why they're on BOTH sides of the road.

Ok republicans. I didn't, and won't buy a cell phone, you cover 100% of my medical care and we'll call it even. I've done my part (I've never had a cell phone, and I'm fine with that), it's officially time to put up or fuck off.

Edit CBO report shows 14 million lose coverage instantly, and another 10 million in 10 years, with an instant jump of 15-20% in insurance rates. Not what they promised, is it?

I'm the leftest nut in the white jacket and cap speaking in tongs .

I was surprised that Trumpsters spoke in tongs and in that language were telling me to fuck off. I felt like an idiot but hey George Soros paid me for the day.

Milo got trolled hard and lost!

"Are you American?"
"No."
"Fuck off."

HAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA.

Lol. That's the funniest shit I've read all day.

Your and my definition of destroy must be very different.

It was YOUR contention that any argument "followed" rather than preceded. If you don't want to be held to a claim, don't make it. Funny, that's the same as any good atheist would argue.

I wrote "any coherent arguments". I was quite specific. His "arguments" are a rambling stream of consciousness with a few statements that don't support any ideas to form a coherent argument.

Now here's where you fucked up big time: "you Trump supporters". Get ready to eat a bag of dicks because you got that wrong. I'm not. Buy them here https://www.amazon.com/Bag-Of-Dicks-Sent-Anonymously/dp/B01GKEUY1Y

"when given a cogent argument" bwhahahahahaaha. Yeah, he's not cogent.

"against your claims" bwahahahaahahaa. What claims did I make (besides Jim Jefferies not presenting an argument)?

" you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"" Bwhahahahahaa. This doesn't cover your mistake. You made a claim. I held you to it and pointed out that even if I didn't hold you to it you'd still fail. You're the one focusing on that point.

"when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit." Bwhahahaahahaa. Except they didn't. You can say it's a cogent argument but that doesn't make it true. FFS I provided the transcript - it's right above - with no coherent/cogent arguments in it. I'll give the concession here that your standard for cogent/coherent may be lower than mine. "the excellent retort" is not excellent. It's a great example of someone with not much to say. It's verbal diarrhoea of someone who can't immediately think of a good retort.

Get over it mate. Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian who doesn't present any good arguments in this discourse. He's great at shutting down his opponents by cutting them off with vitriol and bullshit but that's about it.

Oh, and Piers Morgan is a dick. Lol, how handy, you can add him to the bag your eating.

This segment is so short that unless you go and watch the whole thing (which I haven't) you're basically making an educated guess about what they're even arguing about.

I don't know why you're so desperate for Jim to be right. Every argument against Trump and his policies is not automatically cogent, coherent, correct, etc., even if one hates him.

Lastly, Godwin's law. He loses.

PS - This is getting boring. Unless you can assure me that you're non-partisan, and follow through with it in your arguments, I'm not willing to further discuss this with a proverbial pigeon.

Ok, then, just to destroy your contention that there was no argument offered AFTER "Fuck off"..."it's a fucking Muslim ban, he said there was a Muslim ban, it's a Muslim ban." Is just one of many arguments that followed.


Jesus fucking Christ, you Trump supporters are fucking impossible to have a discussion with, because when given a cogent argument against your claims, you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"", when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit.

"Correct, "fuck off" is the retort, and proper retort when replying to a lying twat like him, the argument followed."

That preceded - not followed - "fuck off".

On top of that, it's not an argument.