What exactly do you mean when you say "...it is one of the greatest threats to science in the modern era"?

Also, what are the other great threats to science and how does one boycott climate hysteria? I'm curious about your resolve and the lengths you have gone or plan to go in your boycott.

I'm boycotting climate hysteria, because it is one of the greatest threats to science in the modern era.

It became obvious that the calculations supporting the idea of nuclear winter were fudged. Same with climate change -- I'm not saying that it does not exist, just that there is a strong and pervasive incentive to maximize hysteria without regard to science or facts, which leads, eventually, to climate fatigue.

Climate change will be remembered as one of the more striking popular delusions or madnesses of crowds.

Not that funny. It became clear that nuclear winter was oversold. We're seeing the same thing with climate change right now.

Public hysteria cannot be maintained indefinitely.

The reality is that sceptics today are targeting esjews for the same reason they have every other group of harmful cultists in the past. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a community of dedicated rationalists would be mystified and angered by the sudden rise of a new anti-rational movement; especially where that movement has been directly damaging to their own, see things like elevatorgate and prominent sceptics getting banned from conventions for wrongthink.

But why should the focus be suddenly so sharply on one group of irrationalists, to the apparent neglect of the others? Because esjudaism is the fresher and more exigent threat. Everyone in the current generation who's capable of correcting their ideas about religion, ghosts, scientology and psychics has basically already done so. Whereas esjews, like their frequent allies and ideological partners the islamists, seem to be gaining ground and converts every day. There's more opportunity and more need to change minds there than elsewhere.

Controversially I'm going to claim that 'youtube sceptics' spend a lot of their time on social media. Some of them make their living through social media. I think it's possible to understand why so many of them object so strongly to the tsunami of censorship that's devastating speech on those platforms in response to social justice hysteria; to suppression of the fictional and fascist concept of 'hate speech', to the false reports and takedowns of youtube videos, to twitter's Ministry of Truth and Safety, to reddit's constant ideological purges.

Now, why are so many of these anti-esjew sceptics white males? Well for one thing because most people in the english-speaking world are white, get over it and stop screeching about diversity. More substantially because most people are idiots. Let me explain. When you have a terrible ideology, obviously you look to stupid people for converts, but when you have an explicitly bigoted ideology, one that demonises certain groups of people while advancing special privileges for others, you narrow your focus even more and direct your propaganda efforts specifically at stupid people in the classes you're pretending to represent. You don't get many jewish friends of national socialism, and you don't get many white male esjews. It's not that these people are sitting on their throne of privilege chuckling down at the poor minorities struggling up to meet them. It's that they're a bunch of retards, but the wrong kind of retards to be esjews.

So opposition to esjudaism comprises: every intelligent and moral person in the world, male and female, black and white, gay and straight; a bunch of stupid straight white men; conservatives and other defectives; actual misogynists, homophobes and racists who imagine we're on their side.

TLDR: Sturgeon's Law.

Cats and dogs.
Living together.

Mass hysteria.

Would you like to have a 2% chance of being mugged at knife-point/punched or a 1.5% chance of mugged at gunpoint? I'll go with the knife/fist as i'm in pretty good shape to run away. Thank god we have a chance of surviving our violent crimes.

A very carefully cherry-picked statistic from the journalistic equivalent of the u-bend in your toilet, the Daily Fail. If you're going to post something to support your argument, don't go for the right wing gutter press - go for something more neutral that use facts over hysteria, such as a statistics office or charity group.

Hmm.. Hysteria, as I recall, the treatment for that was regular orgasms administered by a doctor using a vibrator.

Yep:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201303/hysteria-and-the-strange-history-vibrators

1) Depends
2) WHY?!?
3) Dunno. It shrinks as girls age, possible it helps keep germs etc out before, you know, anything else might need to go there.
4) The same way as women prolly. Winky Face. I'd wager men have probably _seen_ about as much, or possibly more, hymen (Hang on, plural of hymen? Hymens?) than women given-
a) I don't imagine it's actually that easy for women to see their own hymen - feel free to correct me on this ladies.
b) Gynecology, as indeed almost all of the medical specialist areas, has been the domain of men until recently.

Oh, and I did google it and I don't regret it because of this entry on the wikipedia page:
"In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, medical researchers used the presence of the hymen, or lack thereof, as founding evidence of physical diseases such as "womb-fury", i.e. (female) hysteria. If not cured, womb-fury would, according to these early doctors, result in death."

One wonders what treatment they might have prescribed for WOOOMB-FURY!!!!

It is in some ways far more terrifying to have these type of individuals around and even the REMOTE possibility that they will implement any of their "solutions", rather than the threat ISIS poses to us.

For example, the one individual who thought it was getting to the point (which is absolutely mind-blowing since this person has a better chance of knowing a victim of one of the many gun-massacre assholes, rather than any ISIS encounter) were we needed to re-use the VERY badly implemented and all-around bad idea internment of Japanese U.S. Citizens during WWII. But, like Trump and all of his gaffs and mistakes, he's doubling down and telling everyone that this is definitely something that needs to be looked at.

I'm actually amazed these people can walk through their house at night while it's dark! The amount of phobia and absolute paranoia is amazing. It is RAMPANT amongst the republican candidates; you simply don't hear the same "type" of rhetoric from the left (not yet, anyway).

ISIS is winning without EVER setting a foot on U.S. soil and even if they HAVE, they STILL have achieved more in some ways than Al Queda did. Al Queda was only the boogyman in the closet after 9/11 (except to those of us paying attention and knew damn well who it was on that day because they already tried it once) was carried out and time went by (after all it needed to be "confirmed"; THEN they were terrifying...).

ISIS could commit to ONE crime and the amount of absolute hysteria on our news cycle and amongst our own people will probably make sure we see to it that an NEW federal organization is created to protect whatever they target; if they target a Hostess factory, we'll have a federal agency in one year to protect our precious and vital Twinkies from the harm that may come to them...

This is the craziness John is speaking of. I have NO idea what to do to make Americans dial it down to five rather than eleven for every negative event to happen, including the way they think they need to react to said event.

Hopefully, we have leaders that can react to these events in a much more balanced approach (like, well, Obama).

Downvoted for being a hype based, nonfactual, hysteria video that was put together by anti-abortionists without proper disclosure of facts.

As you can see in mysdrial's post, this has been mostly debunked. The costs being discussed are for secure shipping of biological materials that may be hazardous.

As far as her tone, she works in this field. I bet if you saw some undertakers or coroners talking shop, you would be pretty disturbed as well.

Yeah, that's true, I'm sure the burden of glutenophobics on our medical system and taxpayer dollars is right up there with hangnails and "it hurts when I do this". Tempest in a teacup. If I'm going to get pissed about something chewing up taxpayer dollars that's related to healthcare for stupid people doing stupid things, it sure isn't going to be gluten. How about, oh, I don't know, smoking. For the years 2009–2012, economic cost due to smoking is estimated to be more than $289 billion a year. This cost includes at least $133 billion in direct medical care for adults and more than $156 billion for lost productivity from premature death estimated from 2005 through 2009**.

Any stats out on the gluten hysteria and burden on health care? I think that cumulative is going to take a long time to show up on the graph, and the fad will likely have died before the next leap year.

(**US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014)

What is Mass Hysteria?

This sort of thing really isn't representative of the game. It happens and, as such, it happens too much but it's not the epidemic that it's made out to be.
It's always happened but it's only since we got a thousand slow motion any-angle replays that it's been noticed.

I don't know what 'the box' means but what the referee sees in the moment is nearly always what stands. No replays, no post-match analysis, unless the newspapers cause an almighty stink - causing justice to be dealt out based on media hysteria.

The official bodies say that this is to not undermine the referee, although I think it would be just the opposite and that FIFA and IFAB are undermining referees right now by letting TV views see all their mistakes without letting them use the same technology to avoid such mistakes. It wouldn't have taken 5 seconds for a video referee to review this and see what happened so he could relay this down to the referee who would book #7 for simulation and revoke #8's second booking.



It doesn't matter in the long run but IMHO, #7 doesn't look like a little pansy to me. He doesn't look soft, he doesn't look weak. Player #7 looks like a cynical cheat, not a softie. He's been clever and gained a significant advantage for his team.

He'd only look weak if anyone actually believed he was that hurt but no one did, he just forced the referee into making a decision (as he can't act like he didn't see it). I suspect the referee knew better, but he could only officiate on what he saw - the ball going from player A's boot into player B's face and even if player B isn't hurt that's against the rules if intentional. As play had stopped, it's rather unlikely to accidentally hit someone's face ... but not impossible, obviously.

There's plenty of tough players who I would not want to get into a fight with, but it's not as tough as ice hockey which seems to be a game for psychopaths. It's not as tough as rugby or American football on the whole, although the distinction's not as clear cut.