Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:*Dons asbestos suit* (Score 1) 1238

The amount of actual evidence out there that Sarkeesian has been willing to lie about threats is zero

Please present it. I don't think you can.

How is someone supposed to present evidence of no evidence? The OP cannot find any existing evidence that Sarkeesian has lied or is willing to lie about threats. I suppose they could present their search result pages, but that doesn't actually prove anything.

As for evidence of the threats, here's a post she made on twitter highlighting an example of a specific threat

She could have created that account and posts herself. I haven't seen a police report to back up the claim that she "notified authorities". She has previously been caught lifting someone else's art for use in her money-making efforts, as well as trolling 4-chan then claiming she didn't know anything about 4-chan. In short, she is not a credible figure.

Comment: Re: Her work (Score 0) 1238

I personally have been somewhat critical of Sarkeesian, but hearing this really makes me feel bad.

Well, then it looks like her marketing campaign (because that's what this is) seems to be working. The YouTube comments don't look like anything worse than you can find on many YouTube videos - it has to be the most inane set of commenters anywhere on the Internet. The set of threats from the one Twitter account certainly justifies calling the authorities, but there is no evidence it is a real person and not part of her marketing campaign.

Comment: Re:Memes = Politics? (Score 1) 126

by Curunir_wolf (#47774179) Attached to: Indiana University Researchers Get $1 Million Grant To Study Memes

You might be able to argue that "Death panels" was "engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns" (Sarah Palin is credited with coining the term), but definitely not "Obamacare" (the media promoted that one),

A quick glance around the internets suggests that it was promoted by the Romney campaign, including his self, but has a history going back reps calling single-payer health care "Hillarycare". So no, definitely "Obamacare" as well.

No doubt Romney's campaign used the term, but it was in widespread use long before then. Everything that I've read indicates that Hillary's primary campaign actually coined the term, so you might have a point that it was a campaign that promoted, but both of those were presidential campaigns, not "shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns."

Comment: Re:Memes = Politics? (Score 1) 126

by Curunir_wolf (#47773921) Attached to: Indiana University Researchers Get $1 Million Grant To Study Memes

Death panels. Obamacare. Birthers. The memes don't have to be jokes.

You might be able to argue that "Death panels" was "engineered by the shady machinery of high-profile congressional campaigns" (Sarah Palin is credited with coining the term), but definitely not "Obamacare" (the media promoted that one), or "Birthers", which was certainly an organic meme, to describe people questioning Obama's origins. It's also a form of the "something-ers" form of describing a group (deniers, anti-vacciners, etc.), which as I recall sprang out of calling the 9/11 conspiracy theorists "truthers".

Comment: Re:Interesting slam of Judith Curry (Score 1) 544

by Curunir_wolf (#47773633) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

Actually, some of them (such as Joshua Halpern a.k.a. ‘Eli Rabett’) are paid directly by taxpayer funding to blog on places like realclimate.org. So, yes, there is a financial motivation.

As far as "well what's wrong with that if they are telling the truth", that always seems to be the go-to, but it apparently is only acceptable to trot out this defense for alarmists, and never for skeptics like Watt. The minor and late-to-the-game contribution from Heritage that alarmists use to beat Watt over the head with is nothing but a red herring and ad hominem used to distract from debate on the real issues anyway, and it pales in comparison to Peter Gleick's fraud and forging of documents to discredit his opponents.

Be that as it may, you seem to be under the impression that these guys have some interest in "truth" or "honesty", and that is simply not the case. As Gleick demonstrated, they have no interest in truth, and any will use any means to further their agenda. They are only interested in science when it supports that agenda, and when it doesn't they will throw out science and use other tactics instead. There are many examples of editing of comments on the site, decption and lies, etc., - there is no real discussion allowed. That's not surprising since it is run by Fenton Communications, run by David Fenton, an unapologetic anti-Semite and propagandist that would have made Goebbels proud.

The point of the site isn't even to promote science, it's to promote "consensus".

Comment: Re:Belief systems (Score 1) 523

by Curunir_wolf (#47768537) Attached to: Limiting the Teaching of the Scientific Process In Ohio

To be fair, science is a belief system. It's just a belief that we can come to understand best by translating explanations into testable empirical hypotheses that make different predictions than competing hypotheses, and then testing those competing hypotheses.

That sounds more like a methodology to me. The "belief system" part is only related to the value of the methodology. That's fine, but science itself is a methodology, as I think you have described here.

I certainly agree with your assessment of it, and that the methodology is the important thing to teach, not the facts or even thoroughly tested hypotheses. Everything flows from core principles. As you have done, you can describe your belief system as a faith in the scientific method. But that's something else.

There are, of course, some very clear opposing bases for belief systems in general, which often come down to faith in a higher power or faith only in empirical evidence. But you can pick either one and still do science.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 335

After Citizens United, they can fund Super PACs.

Incorrect. You could have at least tried to check Wikipedia before posting ignorant comments. This is directly from their page (check the link if you want source references).

In its 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court overturned sections of the Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act) that had prohibited corporate and union political expenditures in political campaigns.[5] Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures related to campaigns, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns.[6][7] Organizations seeking to contribute directly to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose.[8]

Stop getting your information from partisan comedians. It's an embarrassment.

Comment: Re:Interesting slam of Judith Curry (Score 1) 544

by Curunir_wolf (#47767177) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

This isn't "Watts up with that" where there's a financial payment for having the right opinions.

Actually, it operates on exactly that principal. The owners and operators of the site are financially dependent on the ideas espoused in the articles, and are in fact publicity whores with more interest in popular opinion that truth.

Comment: Re:Damage or Change? (Score 1) 544

by Curunir_wolf (#47767143) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

Think of all the evolutionary opportunity there will be in the Next Phase!

There won't be any. Well, there will be, but those new species will never get the chance to progress up the evolutionary ladder as humans did, ever again. The reason is you need easily accessible primary resources and especially primary energy to do that, otherwise you're stuck. And we made sure (and will make sure in the time until our demise) that all those resources are fully exhausted.

Which is why I can't understand the myopic thinking around what to do about climate change. It seems the alarmists are adamant that the agenda should be to curtail use of energy by a combination of stopping use of fossil fuels, reduction of energy use generally, and limiting human habitat to allow conservation of wildlands. It's a "hunker-down" approach which, yes, may give humans more time. Yet, if, as they claim, it's human habitat (and thus future generations of humanity) that are in danger and need preserving, it seems clear that their strategy is one that will only buy time.

The only way to ensure the long-term viability of humanity is to spread. Whether that is colonization of space, the solar system, or multi-generational ships to other stars, is not entirely relevant, only that there must be an effort in that direction. Crawling back and tightening the apron strings to mother earth only means that humans will never grow up and leave the nest. Perhaps this is the civilization firewall that explains the Fermi paradox.

Comment: Re:Impacts (Score 1) 544

by Curunir_wolf (#47767073) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

Well, we could still work to try to lessen/minimize the damage and instability.

Like, if you had gangrene on your arm, and the doctor announces, "I'm sorry, but we can't save the arm, the damage is irreversible," you wouldn't go, "Ah, well. It's impossible to save the arm. Time to wait it out and adapt."

At least, I'd hope you wouldn't. That's when you have an operation, try to save as much of your arm as you can. And then you think about what caused the gangrene in the first place, and try to not do that ever again.

Oh, okay, I get it. So who gets to decide which parts of the human population to cull?

"And do you think (fop that I am) that I could be the Scarlet Pumpernickel?" -- Looney Tunes, The Scarlet Pumpernickel (1950, Chuck Jones)

Working...