Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

But in saying it this way, you're attempting to imply you can provide evidence. And I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to even consider that this is a possibility. Don't tell me you will do it later, because that's irrelevant. It's no different than saying nothing at all, or even saying "I have no evidence" or "I cannot provide evidence." They are all exactly equivalent in the end, except that the other methods do not have the implication that you might actually provide the evidence, despite you not giving us a reason to believe that, so it smacks of dishonesty.

Just say nothing at all, unless you have something to contribute. You'll be better off.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

If not for you, then it's not difficult for anybody.

I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.

In this case blaming the media is just doing the democrats' dirty work ...

Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.

We all have the same power to turn our backs. You're not that special.

You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.

In theory humans can make the choice.

Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their bad behavior. They are still to blame for it. Obviously.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

Incorrect. Page views and the like are cash money.

I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton.

Of course not, you don't read the NYT.

So you have no examples, then. Good to know.

Comment Re:Whoah there (Score 1) 22

I'm not talking about evidence, I'm talking about railgunner's assertion that it's "obvious".

I get that, but the main point is that there's no reason to report it in the first place, because there is no evidence ... regardless of how much you think it might be in line with his character to do it.

Besides, it worked so well on Clinton, can you blame anyone for adopting the tactic?

I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton. Can you give an example? The main attacks I know of on her were based on hacked documents that the DNC and others admitted were genuine; on a report by the FBI that no one called into question on the facts (though admittedly we couldn't verify some of those facts, such as that the information Clinton mishandled was actually classified); and so on.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

The media has 'trained' us?

Yes.

Is it really so hard to turn your back?

Not for me, no. I am one of the very few who actively dismisses any unsourced report.

Where is all this *personal responsibility* that you speak of?

Of course, it is our responsibility to ignore unsourced reports. But that doesn't mean the media isn't responsible for incessantly giving those unsourced reports to us ... obviously.

Comment Re:It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

'Fake news' and the official narrative are frequently synonymous. Why is it the media's fault if people decide to believe them?

Did you not read my comment? I already answered this question: because it's the media that has trained us to believe assertions without evidence.

Comment It's the media's fault (Score 1) 22

The media regularly gives us stories without evidence, without substantiation, and asks us to believe those stories. Then -- I'm shocked! -- people end up believing stories without evidence or substantiation.

Only when we stop paying attention to source-less claims will we solve the problem of "fake news."

Comment Re:decline in leadship quality (Score 1) 289

OK, I'm coming out of cryogenic storage to tell you to shut up. You opened this subthread with *bizarrely ignorant claptrap*, and should have shut up when the first reply called you out on your lies. But now you're doubling down.

Lincoln could not be the "trigger that started the Civil War" when he was elected *after the war started*, after the majority of the Confederate states had already seceded, the last 4 were already proceeding with secession, and the Confederacy had already started shooting at the Union. Which should have been enough facts to shut you up, but I suppose you enjoy the kind of BS sometimes known as "from the South's perspective": any lie to deny the truth, however bizarrely ignorant.

Lincoln wasn't a "two-bit" lawyer prior to his political career, he was an extremely well accomplished lawyer. And he didn't have "zero experience", he had represented Illinois prominently in the US House of Representatives, and served in the Illinois House of Representatives for 8 years prior to that.

Lincoln was of course recognized as a good leader while destroying the Confederacy, being reelected to do so. That is the very definition of "recognized as good leader": reelected wartime Commander in Chief of the USA. Yes, the US press and many factions are always highly critical of any president; "universally recognized as a good leader" doesn't even belong to FDR.

Oh, how about your BS about Lincoln's "razor close" first election? Lincoln: 1,866,452; Douglas: 1,376,957; Breckinridge: 849,781; Bell: 588,789. That 489,495 margin over #2 was a *landslide* 10.4%, . What the hell are you talking about? You also said something deranged like "but if the South had been voting in the second election". What about "but if the South had freed its slaves instead of seceding"? Because they're equally nonsensical hypotheticals. And your Electoral College split 4 ways because *there were 4 candidates*, no reflection on Lincoln's leadership. But Lincoln's 180 EVs to the combined total of the other 3 at 123 EVs was an even bigger landslide than the popular vote. The words "razor close" don't describe any aspect of Lincoln's *landslide victory* over a full field, representing a new party in a large war-divided country.

And how does maintaining his commitment to Emancipation, even in face of a resigning Cabinet member (showing Lincoln's commitment to including even those who disagreed in his Cabinet, more committed than they were to staying), show anything but deeply effective leadership - as the government didn't suffer, but instead the nation was kept together even despite the war?

Your spin on all that crazy talk is that Lincoln turned out to be a leader who rose to the occasion, despite no reason to expect it. But in fact Lincoln gave all indications of being an exemplary leader from start to finish of his presidency.

Were you perhaps educated about Lincoln out of some "ex" Confederate state textbook? In any case, who taught you that when you're totally wrong you should ignore being proven wrong and double down with even more wrong?

Comment Re:Weird article (Score 1) 14

The bizarre thing is that you're accusing me of "singling out one particular issue based purely on the person implementing it," when you have literally no example of me ever doing that, ever, least of all in this discussion, where if anything I was taking Gruber's side.

Comment Re:Weird article (Score 1) 14

... you did seem to lament the courts' inaction ...

Not in any way, no, I did not.

you ... always singl[e] out one particular issue based purely on the person implementing it

You're a liar.

When talking about transparency, it's yours that is the most obvious...

I agree. I am nearly completely transparent and obvious and clear. I lack pretense or disguise.

Comment Re:At first glance, I liked the first response... (Score 1) 24

... exactly the way your financiers want it ...

No. It's true that the framers and most people who understand politics want the people to be ignorant about most issues in government, because otherwise, the people would be spending too much time watching government and not enough time enjoying life and being productive. Everyone should want to be ignorant about most things, especially most things government does. Otherwise you'll be miserable.

But it's not true that they want people to be ignorant, but with a delusion of lack of ignorance. You're just making things up.

... with its present day monolithic two-face one party system. Not a single independent in the house. Smells very bad...

There's no objective reason why it's a bad thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Where are the calculations that go with a calculated risk?

Working...