Comment Re:Faraday cage (Score 4, Funny) 218
Parent is correct. I can confirm 5G does not penetrate my aluminum hat.
Parent is correct. I can confirm 5G does not penetrate my aluminum hat.
The kind of folks who run Facebook couldn't care less which side won.
Oh really?
"Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg told Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta in June 2015 that she wants Clinton to "win badly" and that she is there to "help" as best she can, a leaked email reveals.
"Thank you -- means a lot to me that you reached out. And I like that you are praying for Dave. I have to believe in heaven now. And I still want HRC to win badly. I am still here to help as I can. She came over and was magical with my kids," Sandberg sent to Podesta in response to an email of his wishing condolences following the death of her husband.
In another email contained in the WikiLeaks release, this one from August, Sandberg asks Podesta if he'd be willing to meet with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
She wrote that Zuckerberg "is particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about. He wants to meet folks who can inform his understanding about effective political operations to advance public policy goals on social oriented objectives (like immigration, education or basic scientific research)."
Sandberg has donated tens of thousands to Democrats. In 2016 alone, the Facebook executive donated $270,800 alone to Democratic candidates and party committee, that includes $2,700 to Clinton."
It makes two dubious claims. Firstly that if you read "the liberal media" you would think there wasn't a problem, which supposes that the mainstream media is liberal (LOL) and that it isn't reporting these issues.
How is it you can screw up responding to something you are directly quoting? It doesn't say, "mainstream media is liberal" (though I would argue it generally is), it says, "If you only listen to the liberal media".
And no, the media does not pay nearly the amount of attention to problems with Muslim migration versus hijab hoaxes or "refugees". To even suggest there is a Muslim problem or a problem endemic within Islam invites the knee-jerk reflex of "Islamophobe".
Secondly it says "problems with Muslim immigration", but has failed to establish that there is a specific problem with Muslims that is not common to any other group of people or the population in general. I recall that the same claims were made about non-Muslims from India, about people from the Caribbean, and about Jews long before Muslims became the big threat.
You have failed to establish that there is another group with a similar level of problems. I don't recall mass sexual assaults on New Years Eve from any other immigrant group. It's overwhelmingly Muslim grooming gangs that are a problem in the UK, not any other group. It's Muslims running over people in Christmas markets, not any other group.
But again, to even talk about these issues gets you labeled an "Islamophobe".
Things like the prison stats are not proof that there is a "Muslim problem", because they don't account for socio-economic status either. When you look at that it becomes more apparent that there is a poverty problem.
It's a Muslim problem. You can ask why there is such poverty among this population, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a Muslim problem. Of course, that raises another issue for liberals to answer, as all this immigration was supposed to beneficial.
The source you found was the one I mentioned, which notes that the only official statistic is 27%, and to get to 50% you would have to assume that half of the Muslims in prison were afraid to openly celebrate Ramadan.
"Prof Khosrovkhavar suggests that this could be an underestimate, because some Muslims will fear being ânotedâ(TM) by the intelligence services."
Regardless, even you limited yourself to 27%, the figure is multiples of what their population percentage is.
You will doubtless want a reference for the 66% figure being wrong, even though you could just google it and the first result would be what you are asking for. I'm not getting into that game.
Yes, I generally expect people to provide citations when they make explicit claims, or to do so when asked, especially when claiming somebody else is factually wrong. That's not a "game", that's basic protocol in logical debate.
However, I noticed that the Rebel article does not have a citation, so I went looking for myself. Presumably the article you're think of is this one, where it says:
"I emailed Prof Khosrovkhavar, who rejects the 70% figure altogether and says that he reckons a true figure is 'around half' - 40%-50%. But (he stressed) these are just estimates, because the French government does not record these things.
The closest thing to an official figure is the number of French inmates who registered for Ramadan -- 18,300 out of a total prison population of 67,700, or 27%, back in 2013 according to Agence France Presse. Prof Khosrovkhavar suggests that this could be an underestimate, because some Muslims will fear being 'noted' by the intelligence services. A Brookings Institution report says that "Muslims are greatly overrepresented in prisons and within the eighteen- to twenty-four--year-old age group in particular: they make up only 8.5 percent of that age cohort in France, yet 39.9 percent of all prisoners in the cohort." Nobody seems to know for sure.
This, obviously, is not to suggest that France doesn't have a serious problem with integrating Muslim men (in England and Wales, 15% of the prison population is Muslim from a total population of 5%). But the enormous 70% figure is false, and should not be used â" no matter how many reputable-seeming outlets have been taken in by it."
And so the premise of the Rebel article is still valid:
"If you only listen to the liberal media, you're most likely under the impression that there are no problems with Muslim immigration in Europe. However, I'd argue that one of the biggest problems in Europe is immigration, especially from Africa and the Middle East."
Yes, myself. Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative in any general sense.
Your description of the Rebel was over the top. You said they think, "all Muslims living in the west are a problem". They have valid concerns with Islam. You seek to dismiss them without addressing them.
And as I also said, ignore the idiots who bandy that word around, they can't change what it really means.
Like who, the SPLC, an organization with a lot of sway in mainstream circles? There is no serious critique of Islam that isn't labeled an "Islamphobe" by mainstream people who aren't considered "idiots". It's a thoughtless term invented to precisely shut down criticism of Islam.
Despite the fact that I've just told you it does't mean that and I don't use it that way.
What you and others say when challenged versus how it's actually used is a whole 'nother ballgame. Have you backed up your claims about what the Rebel says regarding "all Muslims"? Did you acknowledge how the SPLC had to pay out millions for their smears against an ex-Muslim? Did you cite one example of a critic of Islam that wasn't called an "Islamophobe"?
Okay, clearly it's not worth continuing this because no matter what I say you will just ignore it and assume I'm this imaginary SJW.
Clearly you're running away, because unlike you, I've responded to all your arguments and don't rely on labels alone.
Can you not see that your mind is so closed you can't even respond to what people are saying to you, only what you imagine they must think?
Can you not look in a mirror?
I mean the widely accepted meaning of the word in the English language. Like if you look it up in a dictionary, or what most people would understand if someone used it.
I'm talking about how people use the word, including people like you and organizations like the SPLC.
Perhaps, but people keep telling me I'm a leftist Nazi SJW too.
That you're a social "justice" idiot isn't debatable. I wouldn't use the word "Nazi", though, that's a favorite smear of the left. But it isn't just the label, you get arguments in response to your positions. When the word "Islamophobe" is tossed around, it's to shortcut arguments, get people deplatformed, fired, etc.
France has the largest proportion of Muslims in Europe and the most pessimistic projections suggest that it will reach a whopping 14% by 2050.
And still there's a need for "diversity barriers" for Christmas markets. Still there are murders against cartoonist that "blasphemy" Islam. Still there are people run over with trucks, mass murdered with bombs, assault rifles, and stabbed to death.
But don't worry, they'll bring in more! And not just Muslims, they're also going to bring in the poorest people in Africa. Everything will be great!
Funny how you ignored all the problems I outlined. Funny how you ignore how a hardcore minority can have an outsized influence.
And at least from what Iâ(TM)ve read, "conservatives" arenât being deplatformed. Offensive speech is.
Must be that unbiased and trustworthy media you read. Funny how "offensive" speech on the right is censored much more than the left:
"In the spirit of accountability and transparency: recently we failed our intended impartiality. Our algorithms were unfairly filtering 600,000 accounts, including some members of Congress, from our search auto-complete and latest results. We fixed it. But how did it happen?"
That was Dorsey's statement before he was set to testify before Congress. Funny timing, that. What he doesn't mention is that the members of Congress that were shadowbanned were all Republicans.
And as a reminder, these are privately owned sites.
It's an oligarchy in charge of what passes for the online public square. The FCC can regulate it.
They can't reliably determine your age, sex, religious orientation, or party.
Snort. It's trivially easy to put people into buckets based on what they post and their profiles.
It's the internet. Just like the other sites, start your own competing service.
Right, start your own Twatter, and have your mobile app banned from the duopoly of Apple iPhone and Google Android. So make your own cell phone. And have your DNS yanked, so make your own DNS. And have your ISP yanked, so make your own ISP. And have your hosting service yanked, so make your own hosting service. And have your payment processor yanked, so make one of those too.
So much freedom!
Nothing, but that's not what islamophobia is. We don't call opposition to aspects of the Islamic faith islamophobia, because we recognize that it's legitimate
Who is "we"? And which critics of Islam have you deemed to not be "Islamophic"? Would it be the ex-Muslim that the SPLC gave a multi-million dollar settlement to after he sued them for smearing him as an "Islamophobe"?
Islamophobia is a general hatred of or bias against Muslims, regardless of their individual beliefs and values.
That's a lie. Anybody that criticizes Islam gets labeled "Islamophic", even when they go out of their way to only critique the religion and violent acts, and explicitly acknowledge it's not "all Muslims".
Rebel Media takes the view that Muslims are "invading" the west with the goal of "Islamifying" it, and that all Muslims living in the west are a problem.
I can almost guarantee you'll never find a statement out of Rebel Media to that effect. It's not "all Muslims", it's the mass migration. If we had a magic wand that could determine the intent of individuals, we'd use it. But we don't.
When did Europe start needing "diversity barriers" to protect their Christmas markets? When did Sweden start having grenade attacks? When did New Years Eve in Cologne become a place for mass sexual assault and gang rape? When did we have to start censoring ourselves about Islam for fear of inciting violent reprisals?
"The process of settlement is a 'Civilization-Jihadist Process' with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers..."
They're talking about useful idiots like you.
Your link confirms that the video is misleading by virtue of the timing being screwed up.
No it doesn't. It only talks about compression artifacts and having fewer frames. While that may give the appearance of movement being faster, there's no evidence it was deliberately sped up, and that wasn't the point of the video.
So even if we accept that the change was the result of the format shift (which seems unlikely because it's uneven, most of it is at the correct speed except for the moment when his arm comes down)
That's your own fantasy. Again, from lefty BuzzFeed: "There's no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up"
that still leaves the fact that the result is misleading and was used to make a false allegation.
No, it was CNN that lied. Rather than admit that, you and the rest of the lying media are trying to reframe the narrative.
Here's the true sequence of events:
Sarah Sanders: "President Trump believes in a free press and expects and welcomes tough questions of him and his Administration. We will, however, never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern..."
CNN producer Allie Malloy: "This is a complete lie. The woman grabbed Jim's arm repeatedly. He never once touched her. In fact at one point @Acosta tells her politely "pardon me, mam" as she's yanking on his arm."
Paul Joseph Watson: ""He never once touched her." That is a complete lie. He clearly did. Is whatever you're paid by CNN really worth making a total fool out of yourself for the world to see?"
And he posts the video in question. Then you clowns turn it into a "doctored" video conspiracy theory instead of acknowledging what the story was really about: CNN lying and Acosta being a douche that refused to give up the mic after asking several questions and having them answered, including using his arm to block the young intern from retaking the mic. He only gives up the mic after Trump looks like he's signaling to security to haul his ass out of there. It's the White House Press Conference, not the "Jim Acosta Show".
Anybody can watch the full exchange and see what happened.
Perhaps? What is even slightly in question with the statement you're replying to?
That they were merely "visiting a conflict area". There's plenty of evidence that they went over their to fight via social media posts, interviews with reporters, etc. Trudeau has chosen the hugs and monitor approach, rather than aggressively prosecuting. Trudeau has also foolishly invited them into his country in the first place, pretending that there's nothing wrong with Islam.
If you are still maintaining that the video was not doctored then you are lying and trying to gaslight us. You are quite simply dishonest.
Thanks for demonstrating just how dishonest the media is. Either you were fooled by their phony narrative, or you are lying yourself. The video was not sped up. It was not doctored. Here's the lefty BuzzFeed:
"There's no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up -- but the change in format, from a high-quality video to a low-quality GIF, turns the question of whether it was "doctored" into a semantic debate."
"Watson, however, categorically denies doctoring the video. He told BuzzFeed News that the video was "not edited - it's just zoomed in." He also explained that he took the original footage directly from a GIF posted to the Twitter account of the website the Daily Wire.
"Fact is, Daily Wire put up a gif, I download a gif, zoomed in saved it again as an mt2 file - then converted it to an mp4," Watson said over direct message. "Digitally it's gonna look a tiny bit different after processing and zooming in, but I did not in any way deliberately 'speed up' or 'distort' the video. That's just horse shit.""
Acosta lied when he said he did not put his hands on the intern. Why isn't the media talking about that, instead of trying to reframe the narrative?
You lied when you said Acosta was banned for asking tough questions. He was banned for not giving up the mic and physically preventing a young, female intern from retrieving the mic.
Why don't you and the rest of the "reputable" media acknowledge that Acosta was out of line for refusing to allow the next reporter to ask questions, and acting like he has a right to ask as many questions as he wants?
Not only is the number itself not sourced anywhere in the article
True enough, but it's easily sourced elsewhere with a quick search:
"Nearly 180 Canadians are known to have travelled overseas to join extremist groups. About 60 have returned to Canada, according to government figures released in 2016."
Because in a nation with laws, you need evidence of a crime to prosecute someone. The author seems to be suggesting that simply visiting a conflict area is enough to serve as a basis for prosecution, which it isn't.
Perhaps. On the other hand, Trudeau hasn't shown any backbone when it comes to confronting Islam -- quite the opposite.
This is not a news article of any sort, it's a blog/opinion piece by an outlet that clearly has an agenda and doesn't provide basic facts about the situation but simply throws out assertions.
I agree, it was not a good article. On the other hand, The Rebel has done plenty of in-depth reporting not covered by other outlets. And there's plenty of shit put out by the mainstream that doesn't pass muster.
He means attacking reputable media organizations, claiming they are part of some leftist conspiracy, calling them fake news and banning their staff from the White House for trying to get answers to difficult questions.
Thanks for demonstrating the "reputable" bias. CNN's Acosta was banned because he kept asking new questions after Trump told him he was moving on to the next reporter. When a female intern tried to get the mic from Acosta, he blocked her with his arm and continued asking questions.
Acosta lied, and said he did not put his hands on her. Then a bunch of "trusted" news sources claimed that a video showing Acosta physically blocking the woman was "doctored" and "sped up", but it was neither. It was converted from a GIF and zoomed in to show the physical interaction.
Those are your "reputable" sources. Spin doctors that embellish a narrative.
Citing Wikipedia is considered an attack, now
When it's used to smear the messenger instead of debating the content of the article, then yes.
Are we supposed to trust the word of all sources equally?
No, of course not, and that's the crux of the issue. Wikipedia has a set of "trusted" sources. When this set is heavily biased in one manner, Wikipedia will also be biased. These same "trusted" sources will go out of their way to smear anybody that goes against their bias.
After all, your own links accuse CBC of bias - wouldn't you agree it's helpful to know where this alleged "news" is coming from?
Sure, but that alone cannot be a proxy for truth.
How about when those sources are clearly just opinion pieces that don't bother with details like "evidence" to prop up their rants?
The stories contain facts and links. What facts stated there do you dispute? As for opinion, it's obvious where the opinion lies in the "trustworthy" news sources in how they report and what they choose to report.
Huh... it's good to know about the sources people cite.
Notice that you didn't dispute anything the articles had to say. Instead, you attacked the messenger.
Your files are now being encrypted and thrown into the bit bucket. EOF
