alcom says...
@kingmob The right-wing conspiracy of convenience says that the data has been adjusted to heighten the urgency and panic and perpetuate their scientific fraud. This is a misunderstanding of flux adjustments that used to be made to climate models in the 90's and early in the 00's:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model#Flux_buffering

Recent improvements in modelling equations mean that they no longer rely on flux adjustments, but hearing that they had to made adjustments at all sounds sketch.

Because the "hockey-stick" model was an overshoot based on the peak in 1998, deniers tend to either:

a) Argue that the "warming hiatus" between 1998 and 2013 disproves AGW theory. This fallacy disproved itself in the last 2+ years as global surface and ocean temperatures have exceeded the 1998 record year on year.
or:
b) Attempt to discredit scientists arguing that their own funding depends on the alarming data that they publish. Far-right conservatives continue to demonize scientists as a cabal of billionaires working in concert to sway public opinion. If that was true, then the whole hiatus period sure didn't help their cause, but the graph hasn't moved.

This is sound science, and denialism is collapsing under the weight of its own bullshit. At the time of posting, NOAA said that July 2016 also marked the 15th consecutive warmest month on record for the globe. That is the longest stretch of months in a row that a global temperature record has been set in their dataset.

@kingmob The right-wing conspiracy of convenience says that the data has been adjusted to heighten the urgency and panic and perpetuate their scientific fraud. This is a misunderstanding of flux adjustments that used to be made to climate models in the 90's and early in the 00's:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model#Flux_buffering

Recent improvements in modelling equations mean that they no longer rely on flux adjustments, but hearing that they had to made adjustments at all sounds sketch.

Because the "hockey-stick" model was an overshoot based on the peak in 1998, deniers tend to either:

a) Argue that the "warming hiatus" between 1998 and 2013 disproves AGW theory. This fallacy disproved itself in the last 2+ years as global surface and ocean temperatures have exceeded the 1998 record year on year.
or:
b) Attempt to discredit scientists arguing that their own funding depends on the alarming data that they publish. Far-right conservatives continue to demonize scientists as a cabal of billionaires working in concert to sway public opinion. If that was true, then the whole hiatus period sure didn't help their cause, but the graph hasn't moved.

This is sound science, and denialism is collapsing under the weight of its own bullshit. At the time of posting, NOAA said that July 2016 also marked the 15th consecutive warmest month on record for the globe. That is the longest stretch of months in a row that a global temperature record has been set in their dataset.

I accept your appology. ;-)

I understand. I was not condoning it, I was decrying a situation where that is a reasonable response in self defense. I do not condone, nor do I wish for cops being shot/killed any more than I condone or wish for them to kill others...which is not at all, or barring that, only when absolutely necessary to save lives.

Not having sympathy for a group's pain is not the same thing as advocating more pain infliction. I understand the misunderstanding, I'm often unclear. I am not sympathetic for the losses of a group that causes 30 times the killings they receive....but I want them to kill fewer, not for more of them to be killed.

Yes, and no. You could say I 'dehumanize' them, but really I humanize them. Dehumanizing them would be elevating their position IMO...I have a terrible estimation of humanity, so dehumanizing someone is being nice. ;-)

No, I'm a LOT twisted. ;-)

Again, no I don't think more dead cops fixes anything....but I do see it as a likely outcome of this behavior....and understandable. If you honestly believe any member of a particular group is likely to attack and kill you without provocation, with recent evidence provided daily to reinforce that belief, any reasonable person would act in self defense.

As it turns out, according to his superior, you are correct....he intended to kill the autistic man. That makes the triple handcuffing even more curious, to put it mildly. They now admit he was NEVER a suspect, but have not offered any reasoning behind handcuffing him or not offering any medical attention for an unreasonable time.

Just so I'm clear, had you used '....' instead of "....." to paraphrase what you thought I was saying, I would not have taken offence at the misunderstanding. I only got upset because using quotation marks indicated I said exactly what you mistakenly thought I meant.

Whoa. I was agreeing with you. Someone else laid into you, completely misunderstanding the point you made. And since they upvoted my comment, they misunderstood that I was agreeing with you also.

Sorry for the miscommunication. Although re-reading it, I can't see where I went wrong.

But if TWO people misread it, it must be true.

@harlequinn Nothing says we only do one thing.

And the rest of us have a problem with the "I don't want congrats" line not because of bigotry or misinformation. We people who are paying attention to this narcissist see it as appalling bad taste that Donald makes this tragedy so baldly about how great he is. So soon after the event.

It is astounding to me that this needs to be explained. It is almost as if false narratives are being created here. Almost as if deliberate misdirection is being attempted.

Or maybe it is true misunderstanding, and the difference between bigotry and narcissism is truly something that can't be distinguished.

Well, now you know, right?

I was just reading about this on snopes today.
http://www.snopes.com/google-manipulate-hillary-clinton/

Here was google's response:

Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause. Claims to the contrary simply misunderstand how Autocomplete works. Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name. More generally, our autocomplete predictions are produced based on a number of factors including the popularity of search terms.

Actually, I think most Sanders supporters would say the entire primary process has been a "mockery of democracy". (although that contention starts from the misunderstanding that the primaries are supposed to be purely democratic...they aren't, the parties are private clubs not government organizations, so they're under no requirement to be democratic)
That "mockery" starting with the super delegates declaring their votes for Clinton before a single actual vote was cast, and continuing through the media pretending they don't understand that super delegates are not counted in the delegate count to "secure the nomination" and claiming that Clinton has had it secured for a while now, even though they know clearly that they are repeating a lie, because until they actually vote at the convention, super delegates can change their minds, so their "votes" aren't actually votes yet....which is why they are never counted in the pre-convention vote totals, except this time.... it's a con game that they're winning. Similar to Trump, they're banking on the American people's ignorance and gulibility, and it's working.

That said, you have a good point. Either the super delegate system is terrible and undemocratic and should be eradicated, or it's a good tool for choosing the best candidate and should continue....but many respond as if they think it all depends on who it's benefiting today and they flip flop like a mud skipper. Those people can be ignored, because their 1/2 vote for counters their 1/2 vote against, as I see it.

@Asmo
i hear ya,and i felt i kinda addressed that issue.

guess i didn't,or at least not very well.

you and i have disagreed before and after some further discussion and/or clarification it became clear we were arguing two totally separate points,but our assumptions led us to believe we were in conflict.

but we were not.

i have had the exact same thing happen with BB,but because she was willing to slug it out and respected me enough to listen.we came to a much richer understanding of each other.

same goes for newtboy.

seewhatimsayin?
i am not choosing sides here,nor am i applying my own moral metric to the discussion.i am simply pointing out that assumptions,based on our own subjective understandings,can corrupt the conversation.

which can lead to unnecessary ugliness.

and that is depressing.

words are inert.just symbols on a page until they are observed and interpreted.that interpretation is predicated upon our own understandings,which are highly subjective.this can lead to misunderstandings of a persons intent and motivation and the only way to combat this is to actually talk with one another with respect...even if we disagree.

I re-read my post, all I said was that you were doing pretty much what Bareboards predicted, ie:

"Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting. "

We are all well aware of your opinion. And as I said, you have gone well past the point of discussion and now you're just repeating the same opinion over and over again as if reading it for the umpteenth time is going to peel back scales from our eyes...

I'll quote you earlier:

I'm stating that the word "feminist" as a word is not descriptive of a movement that works for "equality", it's descriptive of a movement that puts women first.

Some of those of us that have worked for equality of the sexes for decades are somewhat insulted by that misnomer, and very insulted by those that use the name "feminist" to describe man haters (that means both the man haters themselves and those that call all feminists man haters).

A misnomer in your opinion. We heard you the first time, I'd guess almost everyone understood you the first time. Some of us just don't agree with you, and a certain member has already politely asked you not to do exactly what you're doing. You're so worried about what name is attached to the movement to accord everyone equal rights that you forgot common courtesy? \= |

ps. I particularly enjoyed the passive aggressive snipe in bold below. Only like minded people really understand you and those that disagree are obviously misunderstanding (otherwise they'd totally agree right???). You'll just have to live with the concept that the sift is not a trigger-free-safe-space-echo-chamber. ; )

@newtboy

Look, man, I've been watching you dig your grave deeper with every post. I'm not really sure what you're not getting, given the patient explanations everyone has provided. No one is saying you can't want equality for all, but to get equality for all you have to start by helping groups that are clearly NOT equal in society achieve some level of equality.

Ergo, Feminists focus on helping women achieve equality. And let's be clear, when we say equality we're talking about achieving equality with white males, because they are the ones who historically and currently hold the privledged position in Western society.

So, your whole, "But what about men?" schtick is insulting to feminists precisely because men are already better off than women in most areas. Feminists have no obligation to make men's lives--particularly white men's lives--better than they already are. This is not to say white men have no problems or that in some areas (child custody comes to mind) they aren't at a disadvantage. And there are activist groups working towards improvement in these areas. But demanding that feminists work for men's issues shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism is all about.

This reminds me of the whole recent Kit Harington flap, where Kit claimed Hollywood is "sexist" towards men and displayed a similar fundamental misunderstanding of what sexism is. His point was that male actors can be sexually objectified (he refered to being asked to take his shirt off on a photo shoot). But being occasionally objectified is no where near the same thing as the well documented actual sexism that goes on in Hollywood--vastly different paychecks for lead actressess compared to actors, the number and types of nude scenes actressess are asked to do compared to male actors, etc. No one is saying objectification (of either sex) isn't a problem but there's a much bigger problem for women (as usual) than there is for men and that's why there needs to be a group (feminists) advocating for women to tackle these larger problems before getting to the problem of Kit Harington's discomfort at disrobing for the camera.

Without wishing to bang on about it - that happens a LOT on the internet. I think it's less about tone of voice and more about people being so offended by inequality that they are over aggressive in their pursuit of equality. They attack the argument before fully understanding it or allowing it to be fully expressed.

It's a really tight line to walk and I know this because I have in the past offended respectful, honest people in my crusade which was against abuse of power and authority. I hated being mistreated by people in authority so much that I became prejudiced against people in authority. The reason I behaved like that is because of how I was treated by authority figures in my formative years and the defence mechanisms I developed because of it. And in the same way, some women who are very poorly treated by men may develop barriers, prejudices and coping mechanisms in response.

(... and that's why I make a dozen edits to my posts. Sometimes I get carried away and detract entirely from what I was trying to achieve.)

I'm not saying that's the underlying cause of the misunderstanding here, but the point I'm trying to make is that there may be good reasons why someone just said something you thought was sexist. Problems arise, I think, when we deal in absolutes; this person is definitely chauvinist because he's ignorant and rude, this person is definitely a man-hater because she is ignorant and rude - both may be unfair to the other.

"We" is those like me, that have always supported equality( for over 40 years in my case), but never liked calling that "feminism", as that word implies both separation and a bias, both of which EXCLUDE equality. There are many who think that. My mother is one, it's not just men.

You do not have to fight at all, I don't know why you seem to want to. Because someone suggests that it might be something to think about is not the same as saying 'YOU MAY NOT USE THAT TERM'! You may chose to not think about it if that is your choice, you may chose to think differently. No one is telling you how to think, I'm telling you how I think.

No one said "your wrong to use that term". I said there are reasons it's not a good name for a movement that is NOT based on a female centric, female dominant mindset. No scolding. My choice is my choice, my thoughts and reasons are mine, yours are yours, why are you so looking for me to be scolding you or telling you you're wrong? I'm not doing either.

It is only descriptive if the goals are promotion of purely female causes and rights, but not if the goals are equality....but that means they lose a LOT of people that have called themselves 'feminists' in the past, and not just men.

Um....OK....so forget equality for men then? Any time the equation is in the woman's favor, that's fine, huh? No thanks, THAT'S why we need another name. You can keep "feminism", as I think that's exactly what it describes, "equality for WOMEN, period". 'Humanist' as a concept (as I understand it) excludes that mindset of separate and pit against, it does not embrace and reinforce it.
Equality for people. Period.

Why is it that my stating my thoughts, to you, means I'm instructing you how to think, and stating you must "hew" to my definition? I certainly made no such conscious implication. May I, a man, not have an opinion without being labeled an oppressor of women?

No, clearly you don't understand my reason or goal in stating my thoughts and I feel that you have over-reacted based on that total misunderstanding.

Fine. Then I'm an equalitist. I care about equality and fairness for all people. You may separate and then choose sides, that's your right, your option, and your choice to make for yourself.
EDIT: Make that egalitarian...thank you @Babymech for pointing me to the correct term.

Enoch, no, I was not offended by the down vote, just his way of expressing his dislike, which now does make sense if he was just trying to be a smart ass. Same with me, with my smart ass remark back. Sorry that I didn't feel at all respected with his comment, that is why I presumed it as being offensive. Then his following actions proved to be spiteful. I never attacked his intelligence. I think this is a misunderstanding, but I won't tear others down to make my point.

I will check out your link, and I appreciate your comments, kindness, and advice. You rock doll!!

@WeedandWeirdness

do you identify with a video so strongly as to become offended and/or irritated if someone downvotes?

@chicchorea actually showed respect by stating this video wasn't his deal.many here don't,they just downvote.

to say that chicchorea's original comment was intended to be insulting and rude may be true,but it is a presumption,with zero evidence to support your presumption.

i took it as him being a smart ass and berating himself for lacking the discipline to make it to the end of the video before down-voting.

my claim is also a presumption,based on very little.
which of our presumptions are more valid?

you seem a decent sort,and this is just a misunderstanding.
i am with @chicchorea and @newtboy on their opinions on this band.

i would say punk has changed,but i have been digging these guys for awhile:
http://videosift.com/video/downtown-boys-americas-most-exciting-punk-band

to each their own,all based on their talents and proclivities.i look forward to your video submissions @WeedandWeirdness

i think some of these rumours were down to a misunderstanding since we often call food calories by the short hand 'calories' when we mean kilocalories.at the extreme I think someone had erroneously worked out that thermogenically speaking, eating ice cream should make you lose weight