Talking to a conspiracy theorist about either the moon landing or the flat earth theory is exasperating. They discredit a scientific theory on the slightest technicality in your brief retelling of it, but if you baulk at their vague one-sentence alternative you're brainwashed.

You can tell them about the retroreflectors, or the satellite images we have of the landing site. You can tell them about sundials, the phases of the moon or constellations.

They don't care - anything can be faked and their definition of "proof" boils down to seeing it with their own naked eye.

It's totally impractical to take everyone up in a Red Bull balloon to see the curvature of the Earth for themselves. Presumably you'd have to take everyone up twice at two locations to show that the circular horizon is not an edge. Or kill two birds with one stone and take them to the moon landing site and back again because nothing less will suffice.

Because if I take them to the most advanced telescope in the world and focus it on the moon landing site - the image could be faked. You could show them how the telescope works, but each component could produce a faked output. The only way they would accept the telescope information is if they built it themselves from raw materials - oh you used a standard electronic device such as a basic motor? Illuminati dude, that thing can produce EM waves that fake the image. You're going to use a Macbook to read the USB output? Are you a shill?

Literally nothing is good enough but they are all, without exception, too fucking lazy to go and prove it to themselves from first principles.

Which is called "getting a degree in physics", where you are also taught to question every step, AKA being "brainwashed".

I have also linked this in the description, so people don't have to read the comments to find this link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/6/1534962/-The-daunting-and-powerful-statement-a-Stanford-victim-reads-to-her-rapist-in-court-goes-viral

Here is part of the full statement that was excised for time -- part of where she responds to the defendant's statement, point by point:

You said, Being drunk I just couldn’t make the best decisions and neither could she.

Alcohol is not an excuse. Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost fully naked. Having too much to drink was an amateur mistake that I admit to, but it is not criminal. Everyone in this room has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much, or knows someone close to them who has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much. Regretting drinking is not the same as regretting sexual assault. We were both drunk, the difference is I did not take off your pants and underwear, touch you inappropriately, and run away. That’s the difference.

You said, If I wanted to get to know her, I should have asked for her number, rather than asking her to go back to my room.

I’m not mad because you didn’t ask for my number. Even if you did know me, I would not want be in this situation. My own boyfriend knows me, but if he asked to finger me behind a dumpster, I would slap him. No girl wants to be in this situation. Nobody. I don’t care if you know their phone number or not.

You said, I stupidly thought it was okay for me to do what everyone around me was doing, which was drinking. I was wrong.

Again, you were not wrong for drinking. Everyone around you was not sexually assaulting me. You were wrong for doing what nobody else was doing, which was pushing your erect dick in your pants against my naked, defenseless body concealed in a dark area, where partygoers could no longer see or protect me, and own my sister could not find me. Sipping fireball is not your crime. Peeling off and discarding my underwear like a candy wrapper to insert your finger into my body, is where you went wrong. Why am I still explaining this.

So her male costars circled around her while she was naked in her bathroom and unloaded on her...

...nothing wrong with that.

First up, "directionless YT rambling".... agree so much. This show really needs an editor. "concise" is not a bad word, guys!

As for the rest of the comment, much as I don't like it personally, employers have a right to set a reasonable standard of dress, especially if your job is public facing. So yeah, if she turned up to present the weather topless or something, I think they could reasonably ask her to cover up.

Personally, I think people in general need to get the fuck over our collective hangup about nudity (and especially the idea that strangers of the same gender can see you naked, but those of a different gender can't, i.e. changing rooms etc).

But that's not the way the world works at the moment.

They are almost always relieved or suspended, at least while the investigation is in process. Once the initial furor blows over, they are either quietly put back on duty or sometimes fired. Since most departments don't bother to blacklist them, they will simply find another place to be a cop.

Just like the two cops who killed the kid with the fake airsoft gun (Tamir Rice) both had prior incidents that, in any normal job would have prevented them from working in that field ever again. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tamir_Rice and read the background of the officers. Both had incidents that should have made them unsuitable for duty, but they both were able to continue working and then were let off the hook by a grand jury after the shoo...murder of Rice. Since they were acquitted, the wonderful police unions mean they get to stay cops.

Now you tell me another field of employment that gets away with this. You might say the military, but generally if you screw up badly they will make you go away. There might be a cover up, but you are going to be kicked out, court martialed, or put in a dead end place where you will never advance out of nor have authority to make any important decisions. Politics is close, but if you aren't super high up in the food chain you will pay for it as well. Police, though, they will walk 99% of the time. Even the officer who shot the teen here in Austin that was wandering around naked and threatening people, he was only fired and this town is one of the most liberal towns in the USA. We've already established that a lot of police forces don't even bother checking with previous employers, so I expect he will be able to go someplace else and be a cop again.

The most fun thing? This has been going on for decades, hell, probably a couple of centuries. Only since the advent of video recording technology that was easily portable have we been shown the true nature of the beast. But, and forgive me as I can't find the exact quote, someone said something along the lines of that the majority of the public will forget anything in six weeks. Over and over we seem to prove that as we keep letting these people get away with impunity.

Regarding the video: "rape letter", "polling a distant second" - so who is perpetuating stereotypes here?

This american thing of not accepting nakedness (because pedophiles exist?!) is weird. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being naked, being seen naked, seeing someone naked or photographing your kids playing naked in the swimming pool. Naked children do not cause pedophilic behaviour. Naked people are in principle not offensive.

Accusing someone of being a pedophile is horrible. Even Trump probably is not a pedophile.

Does he have to be naked for the demo?

Apologies, I got carried away... wall of text incoming.

@RedSky

I agree, monetary policy at low rates has very little to offer in terms of economic stimulus. Then again, the focus almost solely on monetary policy is part of the problem. Fiscal policy can have a massive impact, both directly (government purchases of goods and services) and indirectly (increase in automatic stabilizers). But for that you either need to be in control of your central bank, so that you can engage in Overt Monetary Financing ("printing" money). Or you need the blessing of the private banks, which is particularly true for a Vollgeld system.

The budget is the core of a parliamentary democracy, and to be at the whim of the folks at Deutsche Bank, HSBC or Credit Suisse -- no, thank you very much. We saw how that played out in Greece.

Anyway, the central bank can do miraculous things: if it provides funds to the democratically elected body in charge of the budget, aka parliament/the government. Trying to "motivate" the private banks to stock up on cheap reserves to stimulate lending is just a sign of ideology.

The great Michal Kalecki, in his essay The Political Aspects of Full Employment, summarized the general issue of government spending quite clearly. The industrial leaders stand in opposition to government spending aimed at full employment for three distinct reasons: a) dislike of government interference in the problem of employment as such; b) dislike of the direction of government spending (public investment and subsidizing consumption); c) dislike of the social and political changes resulting from the maintenance of full employment.

I'd say control over your currency is too great a tool to leave it in the hands of unelected managers. Clement Attlee knew very well why he had to nationalize the Bank of England in '46.

Back to the issue of inflation, I'd like to make two points. First, how big a role should inflation really play when talking policy. Second, what's the influence of a central bank on inflation.

Where does it come from, this focus on inflation. People usually talk about government spending when discussing inflation. Private spending is rarely brought up, even though it can be just as inflationary. So let's ignore private spending for a moment and talk purely government spending: should a deficit/surplus not be judged primarily by how well it helps us achieve our macroeconomic goals? Or more clearly, why should we sacrifice full employment or our general welfare on the altar of inflation? Yes, that's over the top. But so is the angst of inflation.

I'd say let's stick with Abba Lerner's concept of functional finance and judge deficits/surpluses purely by how well they help us achieve our macroeconomic goals. Besides, the US has run massive deficits during the GFC, so much in fact, that a great number of monetarists saw hyperinflation just around the corner. Still waiting for it. Same for Japan. Massive deficits... and deflation.

As long as spending, both private and government, doesn't push the economy beyond its limits (full employment, real resources, production capacity), out-of-control inflation just doesn't materialize. Plus, suppressing inflation is actually one thing central banks can do quite well. Unlike causing inflation, which both Japan and the EU are showcases off. Draghi can dance naked on the table, monetary policy (QE, mainly) won't push inflation upwards.

Which brings me to the second point: what's inflation, what's the cause of inflation, how can central banks manipulate it.

CPI is often used as a measure of inflation, but I prefer the GDP deflator. CPI doesn't account for externalities that you cannot influence, whatever you do. Prime case: the price of oil. Monetary policy of the Bank of Sweden has no influence on the price of oil. The GDP inflator, however, accounts for every economic activity within your currency zone -- much more useful.

General theory says, this measure of inflation goes up when demand surpasses supply. And vice versa. The primary factor of demand is domestic purchasing power, therefore wages. If you suppress wages, you suppress inflation. If you push wages, you push inflation. More specifically, you can see a direct correlation between unit labour costs and the GDP deflator in every country at any time. Here's a general graph for multiple countries, and the St. Louis FED provides a beauty for the US.

That's why it's easy for central banks to combat inflation, but almost impossible to fight deflation.

I just thought I´d drop by and mention the above was written a couple of days before the whole Cologne New Years Eve clusterf**k. Now women in Cologne (and some other places in Europe) are asked by authorities to keep an arms length away from men and dress and behave reasonably. These instructions have in turn led to several street performances by naked "artists" so we might yet win the cultural war.

i love this guy.he is sooo pissed and is an absolute rage machine,but i was curious your take on this situation.
is this guy making valid points?
i know that an influx of 1 million refugees in a country with 60 million has to have changed the demographics of germany substantially,but since i am not there and naked ape does have a point in regards to media tap-dancing around the harsh realities.

so i would love your input on this dudes rage induced rant:
http://videosift.com/video/naked-ape-rages-against-the-syrian-refugee-crisis-in-germany