You're right with me up to the point we reach the kinds of censorship you happen to support.

What's the penalty for incurring the ire of the social justice elite? Well, only that you'll be branded a sexist or whatever by the entire gaming media, perhaps have your Twitter account banned or your videos taken down from YouTube, or maybe you'll just be arrested on false charges of harassment. It's a storm that a strong individual might weather, but from which any company will steer away automatically. Of course it's censorship.

Games are being censored (they came for the japanese bikini simulators and I said nothing...); social media is being censored: Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Wikipedia and any number of even less reputable sites are being censored - all in response to social justice histrionics. This crybaby, zero-offence, closed-minded, closed-mouthed malaise is damaging to our culture: damaging to art, to academia, to journalism. And if you acknowledge the need for open expression, you will oppose it.

"There is more than one way to burn a book," wrote Ray Bradbury of interest groups taking offence, "...each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever." You don't recognise any of this?

Yes, 'critics just don't have the talent to create' is a tired old fallacy and I regret echoing it, but there I was thinking particularly of the likes of Wu and Quinn: loathsome reptiles and degenerates whose own creative efforts are so miserably inept that to garner sales, patreon donations, and fraudulently positive reviews they resort to pretending themselves the brave minority voices raised against the misogynistic, LGBT-phobic, uni-racial establishment - in an industry that has never actually had any of those problems.

As for Anita Sarkeesian; that liar, mountebank, fascist collaborator, and 21st century Jack Thompson; that professional victim and demagogue who harnesses manufactured outrage for profit; or in the most generous possible light, that half-educated nincompoop who somehow rode a tide of hysterical activists-without-a-cause to a broadcast platform for her worthless, narcissistic rambling:
It isn't the fact of her fuck-witted critique to which the gaming community so righteously objects but the baffling inaccuracies and outright slanders therein, her self-promotion via false claims of harassment, her attacks on artistic expression and internet freedom.

And these are exactly the kind of sub-intellectual trash who will presume, against all standards of rectitude and conscience, to instruct their betters on what kind of jokes they're allowed to tell.

You never cede an inch to these fucking people. That's how you get Mary Whitehouse, or the Comics Code Authority, or McCarthy, or the FCC, the BBFC, the OFLC, the IWF.

Greece accumulated debt in a foreign currency (Euro). Had they been using a free-floating currency with Greece as the sovereign issuer, it would have been much less of a problem. But that's a different discussion.

You brought up retirement benefits. These benefits have been a major talking point over here in mercantilistic Germany. Unfortunatly, a lot of inaccuracies crept into the debate over time. A closer look reveals that it's not as black and white as it is made out to be. One point at a time...

The effective retirement age, if we look at OECD stats, is basically the same for men in Greece and Germany. The age of 56 is often thrown around as the expected average retirement age for workers in Greece, but that's only for the totally messed up public sector. The average for the private sector is significantly higher, as the OECD numbers indicate.

Yet the size of retirement benefits is even more controversial. There are, in fact, some very dubious practices going on in Greece, which result in rediculous retirement benefits for a select group of people, even at very young ages. Decades of nepotism, that's what it produces. But even so, pension expenditure as a % of GDP was not significantly higher in Greece before the GFC than in Germany. When Greek GDP collapsed, expenditures as a % increased, naturally. Some have gotten absurd benefits, but the majority got a pittance. And as if that wasn't bad enough, Greece doesn't have a social safety net, unlike Germany. There is no welfare. Many people have to take early retirement at reduced benefits to have any income at all.
So I'll say it's bad in Germany. Last decade's changes to our retirement system have a metric fuckton of people (~40% of workers) heading straight into poverty when they retire. It's social security for them, and nothing else. Still, it's bliss compared to what the plebs in Greece now ended up with.

However, even all those beautiful OECD stats have to be taken with a grain of salt. Germany has a working bureaucracy. Everything is documented. Greece is a mess. Therefore, all comparisons are guesstimates at best.

Finally, as long as the Greek economy produces enough goods and services, it is for them to decide how to distribute their wealth. If they want a lavish retirement system, so be it. Our governments opted to create a true underclass of the working poor, and gutted a retirement system that made it through two world wars unscathed. If German retirees want to bitch about their benefits, it should be aimed squarely at our governments and their intentional deconstruction of our social welfare state.

@ChaosEngine

First world fuckin'.. PROOOBLEMs.

That's my new song. I made it to remind everyone that.

OMFG complaining about the inaccuracy of a parody is pedantic as fuuuck.

But I mean.. that's what the Sift is all about, it seems.

@NaMeCaF I enjoyed the vid. Even tho I already knew about the situation from @EMPIRE's Factual Gamer vid.

But you probably have a problem with all the facts in that vid too. Not factual, enough.

"The performance from the Valve & Bethesda guys IN REAL TIME was WAAAY more factual" right?

there are a few inaccuracies in this video but over-all..makes a pretty strong point.
our fore-fathers did not exactly agree on the size,powers and authority the federal government should have,quite the opposite see:the federalist papers.

so the statement that the original intent was for a small centralized government is inaccurate.

but the argument over the bill of rights is fairly accurate.
hence the terms "inalienable and god-given".

i think the term indoctrination is used appropriately here.
2nd graders should not be introduced to such ideologies and most certainly not in this fashion.get em while they are young!..reprehensible.

this is ideology vs reality.
this is power vs powerlessness.
this is power abusing young minds to create a submissive and unquestioning attitude towards authority.

while the ideology may be comforting and even noble..it is a delusion when compared to the reality.

a citizen must KNOW their rights in order to fight for them.because power will ALWAYS attempt to curb or outright take those rights away and if they are able to do that (and they HAVE in many cases) then those rights are..in fact..privileges.

the "free speech zones" example is perfect.that was from st louis RNC in 2004 (i think..im recalling from memory).see? they didnt "take" away your right to free speech,they just made you do it -------> over there.

which affectively neutralized any dissent,but hey..you still had your right to free speech,just neutered and ineffectual.

to even call this educational is an insult to teachers.
its indoctrination..pure and simple.

The Gist:

Guy in business suit looking thoughtfully out of window.
(Doubtful anyone who designs fine consumer goods, *actually designs consumer goods*, wears a suit). Maybe its supposed to be you! You avant-garde millionaire, you!

Person sketching watch designs. This is probably semi-close to reality, though they don’t show the hundreds of designs the visual designer creates that are dismissed at whim by the aforementioned, assumed (but inevitable even if not shown) suits.

People fiddling with plastic representations of what one would assume as the model for said watch design. Maybe realistic, though with the caveat that two people are sitting there going over said physical design, in any serious discussion concerning the actual physics of the end product. I can *not* imagine that nearly the entirety of this process today, both visual and mechanical design, are not done digitally.

Okay, there’s some CG. Because CG is the next step, rather than the first, least expensive step in any design process today. Who wants to quickly model everything in a matter of hours when you can fabricate expensive, physical material for iterative testing?

Holy shit, was that guy just looking at a wood cutout? I can’t even think of a shitty, sarcastic/realistic remark about that one. I might have misunderstood that shot.

Alright, now we’re machining shit. You can’t really fake that with a few grand for marketing. That’s the real stuff. (1.5m in)

No, they don’t sand/polish things by hand during the fabrication phase. That’s entirely too inaccurate and subjective to the assembler to leave up to human hands. (But hey: it’s a 2.5 million dollar piece of metal, so lets make those buyers feel good about their money spent).

Oh look: gemstones! (???) That's kingly.

More faux machining that is veritably inferior to quality mechanical assembly.

Oh shit, someone just turned a nob!

3.5 minutes in, and we see some actual hand-polished work that is legitimately viable to perform by hand.

Hey lets sand those nodules off the finished pieces, and micro-inspect those printed markings, because nothing about us says “accuracy” without a fallible human to do it. Also: what are they printing shit on there for? Was it pushing the price to $3mil to engrave the timestamps on the faces? That better be the highest quality electroplated coating, but even then I can't imagine that's superior than a tactile, physical representation.

Now they’re hand-engraving the sculpted ornamentation, but it’s one more point I can gladly give them because those kinds of human touches let you know at least some sort of artisan was involved. I can appreciate that, though realizing what I just said causes me to reflect on the inaccuracies of mass-production, and why we would take one over the other…

More microscopes. (Because if one notch is off, it’s back to the furnace for you!)

Awe shit, payday. A guy in a suit looking confident is walking towards your building!

Finally, the gear assembly. It certainly looks fantastic, photographically speaking. I can’t help but notice that all that detail is lost to hundreds of textural indentations or are due to stylized alternating polish/grinding. However, I’m confident that spending $2.5mil on this product would get me the absolute, most accurate, unnoticeable details (hand-made!) within a micro-millimeter of accuracy. Those indentations are like chrome on a street-racer in the 90’s: the more you have, the greater they perform.

@~8min, I’m pretty sure no one works like that at their desk. That posture would kill you in a month.

They know you can’t spin the head of a watch while it’s on your wrist, right?

Awe! It’s got 5 ringtones! That’s way more than any other watch I’ve even heard of! Except everything that doesn’t cost $2.5mil.


If I can take anything away from this that’s even remotely positive, it’s that at least millionaire shitheads are now being just as suckered as the rest of the consumer base. Let me sell ONE of those watches, and I would have enough money to overtake their business within a year, except for that I don't have the greed, dishonesty, and overall lack of morals that it would take to set up a quality factory, and trick such dickheads into buying (even superior BS) products.

...again with paltry deflection, inaccuracies,...aren't you a felon?

Speaks to character, perspective, the whole long list.

Your video, 15 Inaccuracies Found in Common Science Ilustrations, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Don't correct my inaccuracy with another one. Iran is NOT a democracy, it is an Islamic theocracy. My referencing Ahmadinejad as a 'dictator' was only used in the same sense that folks use when referring to Bush, Cheney or Obama as 'dictators'. None of them came to power through a coup or by birth right, and each stepped down in normal course.

Calling Iran a democracy though is just wrong, and is about as accurate as referring to America as a dictatorship, In Iran the presidential candidates must ALL be approved by the Islamic council or nobody gets to even try to vote for them. The highest position of power in the country is not the President, but the Supreme Leader who is appointed by a small group of Islamic 'experts'. There is no room in the Iranian system for the election of an non-Muslim, or even a Sunni muslim, to even attempt to hold the position of President let alone Supreme Leader.

God this guy is a blow hard...IT'S A MOVIE NOT A DOCUMENTARY! When I watch science fiction (Star Wars and Star Trek). I'm not getting annoyed by all of the inaccuracies that would be clear science or engineering problems. These kinds of video's annoy the hell out of me, since they ruin movies that are genuinely good!

There just isn't anything particularly interesting about it. It has the same over-stylization as Snyder's other films, combined with a few metric tons of historical inaccuracy and a few pinches right-wing jingoism.

While there are some inaccuracies, sadly, most of it was dead on and absolutely disgusting. Wtf is wrong with society.

@NetRunner, you just pulled apart my sentences into pieces that make no sense. That's not how productive conversation works. Go back and (re)read my comment; I think you'll find that it's internally consistent.


Edit:

The part that you pulled out of context, namely this:

"I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none."

... was referring to the article you linked to. I'm calling the article inaccurate and biased, not you. Please don't remove my comments from their contexts and misinterpret them—and invite others to do the same.


Second edit:

And, of course, you've removed my original claim of bias in the article from its original context, in which I make clear precisely which points I think are biased and not fact-checked:>> ^aurens:

From your equally informative link: "Ron Paul’s racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage — not to mention having authored the racist 'Ron Paul Papers.'"
Anti-immigrant? Against gay marriage? The author of the "Ron Paul Papers"? I'll leave you to fact-check that stuff. In the meantime, though, you might want to consider reading some more rigorously vetted news sites.
Oh, and those photos appearing as "evidence" of their claims? That's just priceless! Even you must admit it's amateurish.

>> ^aurens:

I was making no judgment of Sam Seder's accusation, nor did I ever call it baseless; >> ^aurens:
When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this.

I didn't make a judgment about Sam Seder's accusation, I only made a judgment about Sam Seder's accusation.

>> ^aurens:
When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this. In reposting his video without any additional information, you did not do this. That, to me, is worthy of criticism; it suggests a certain kind of opportunism which I find unhelpful on lots of levels.
...
I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none.

>> ^aurens:

NetRunner, you're doing it again. "Disparage the poster"? "Attacking the messenger"? Suggesting that I called you "dishonest" and "slanderous"? I never accused you of dishonesty, nor did I accuse you of slander, nor have I "attacked" you. And I certainly don't think my comments were disparaging.

Definition of slander: "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report"

I'm not accusing you of slander, I just think you're presenting a malicious, false, defamatory report.


Definition of disparage: "to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of"

I'm not disparaging you, I'm just accusing you of slander, opportunism, and generally being unhelpful.

I'm not personally attacking you, I just was calling you out by name and saying your moral character leaves a lot to be desired.

>> ^NetRunner:

Sure [...]


"So to unpack that, you think Sam Seder is spreading a baseless accusation, and that I deserve to be scolded for repeating it by posting the video. My response was to ask why you were directing your ire at me personally, while giving you the additional details you ostensibly wanted."

Glad you cleared that up (and there's your first—and very telling—misinterpretation).

I was making no judgment of Sam Seder's accusation, nor did I ever call it baseless; I think it remains to be seen whether or not it has merit. I was, however, making a judgment of the *presentation* of his accusation. When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this. In reposting his video without any additional information, you did not do this. That, to me, is worthy of criticism; it suggests a certain kind of opportunism which I find unhelpful on lots of levels.


I responded to the "lack of detail" comment by providing a link which includes the actual e-mail that Anonymous found.

Yes, and I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none. One of the reasons, I assume, is that they're looking to confirm some of these accusations, the confirmation of sources being a foundation of trusted journalism.


IMPORTANT: NetRunner, you're doing it again. "Disparage the poster"? "Attacking the messenger"? Suggesting that I called you "dishonest" and "slanderous"? I never accused you of dishonesty, nor did I accuse you of slander, nor have I "attacked" you. And I certainly don't think my comments were disparaging.


It's hard to deal with people saying nasty things about your hero, but this whole strategy of attacking the messenger doesn't change anything.

Who said Ron Paul is my "hero"? I certainly haven't. This from one of my replies to dystopianfuturetoday:

"Ron Paul doesn't have me in some trance-like state of manipulation. I didn't vote for him in the last election, and I don't plan to vote for him this time around. There are *lots* of things about his platform that I outright disagree with, and there are a handful of things that I disagree with so fundamentally (his positions on abortion, climate change, evolution, his religiosity, among others) that I often question why I even bother keeping up with his politics. (The reason: because there are lots of his positions that I *do* agree with, in particular positions that no one else seems even to address.) But this whole racism thing really just peeves me. I mean, for magical Christ's sake, if he's a racist, and if he's in cahoots with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then I, more than anyone else, want to read some credible, vetted news stories on the matter, so I can put the issue to bed once and for all. But instead, I keep seeing videos like this one which purport, rather dramatically, so "expose" him in all his shameful glory ... only to be disappointed by the content of the video."

Hardly sounds like hero-worship to me.


Have you read the e-mail yet? Do you have an opinion on the evidence Anonymous uncovered?

I read some of them. In short, I'm skeptical when I see attribution tags like "Here Are Some Emails From Kelso Regarding Racists Working For Ron Paul’s Campaign" and "Here Is An Email From Someone In Ron Paul’s Campaign To Kelso." Who are these supposed campaign workers? How are they connected to Ron Paul? Are they low-level campaigners who work independently of him? Are they his trusted advisors? All of these things matter in the interpretation of this situation. As of now, I've seen no articles that provide enough context to the e-mails, or enough detail about the senders and recipients of the e-mails, to make a judgment one way or the other.

Gingrich is calling for the video to be corrected --

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/politics/gingrich-calls-for-withdrawal-of-ad-against-romney-and-bain.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23

Mr. Gingrich’s comments on Friday came after a host of news reports disputed the film’s accuracy, including The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column, which gave it the worst possible rating of “Four Pinocchios.”

The video, “King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” is riddled with inaccuracies, half-truths and omissions, according to a review of corporate documents and interviews with industry analysts.