No, is work (barring the password gaffe) is of generally quite high quality. It's the product he's selling that's crap. He's a scam artist. not an author.

My position is that anyone can have any opinion they want, and that the significance of that opinion to others depends on whatever level of trust the claimer can command. This puts some people in a de facto privileged position. This can be rational (e.g. privileging an oncologist's opinions on cancer over a layman's) and in other cases not (privileging a fellow mom's opinions about vaccines over an immunologist or toxicologist).

So my point is that you CAN make any of the claims you suggested, but your authority won't carry much weight because you're just a random bloke on the Internet. You would have to make a convincing argument. However even then there are lots of very credible-sounding arguments out there that don't sound credible to someone who has actual knowledge.

The bottom line is knowing the truth of any claim is quite difficult, particularly when it involves jargon. In general the judgment of someone who has spent some time studying an issue is more be trusted than what "stands to reason" in your own judgment. Even so, an expert should still be able to give a coherent defense of his positions.

So in the case of this frog meme, I have no particular reason to doubt ADL; however if it were important to me I would look at the evidence ADL puts forward in justification of their position. I do not necessarily agree with ADL on everything (e.g. on Muslims displaying tokens bearing the Shahada), but they have more than any other group tracked violent extremist groups and their affiliates and therefore are in at least a position to compare and contrast the symbols used. If, however, it were an organization like Kahane Chai, I would feel no particular reason to look into their reasoning because they're a racist group. Life is simply to short to treat a source that is consistently nonsense as if it might be credible.

Well, actually technically speaking you're the one begging the question: you haven't established that either you or I enjoy some kind of privileged position in which we get to condemn other people for condemning language they don't like.

So by all means condemn them for calling things "hate speech", it's your right; but it's also their right.

No need for return trips when all the passengers are killed by radiation on the flight out.

Nah, he just didn't mention fine print in the release form where you certify that you understand that your DNA will be denatured by interplanetary radiation and in fact that it's an integral part of the experience you're seeking.

You can declare anything you want a hate symbol. The question is whether you have the credibility for others to follow your lead.

In other words: just like everyone else.

so long as he doesn't fat-shame Ms. Piggy.

Pootsky doesn't like Hil'ry because she publicly questioned the legitimacy of his election.

You don't just have the average speed to consider. You also have to consider peak demand. Many relatively mundane individuals may benefit from much higher peak capacity. They may not need it constantly, but it will be terribly useful when they can take advantage of it.

Well, YouTube and the record labels did figure this one out a while ago. They have various forms of advertising along with the content when it's served from YouTube, they're all getting some cut from it, and listeners are free to enjoy the music.

It's reasonable to claim that the ripping tools are undermining that, reducing YouTube usage by promoting illegal copyright infringement as an alternative, and that they are doing so on a commercial scale for profit. So the businesses who have the legal rights are suing, and I can't imagine any likely ending for this that doesn't involve an injunction and significant damages being awarded.

If you sell something, then you are obligated to actually deliver it.

ISPs don't sell fixed units of things. That's just big business trying to sell a blatant lie in hopes that no one is paying attention.

It also depends on believing that playing basketball is a way to get ahead in life.

You also have different groups of people that ignore sports as a way to get ahead entirely. They decide to go to college in order to get ahead or start a business in order to become rich and famous.

American blacks are an intensely anti-intellectual demographic versus Pakastanis.

So then networking and referrals are illegal now?

This seems to be more about hiring "who you already know" versus some unknown quantity. People can look good on paper, interview very well and still manage to be a total disaster.