In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On October 07 2017 02:03 Wulfey_LA wrote: Conservative twitter is making a whole lot of shitpost comments right now about the MSM ignoring Weinstein. Wapo.com has 3 Weinstein stories. NYT broke it. And CNN.com has two Weinstein stories. I don't watch cable. I wonder if Cons get their presupposition about what is covered based on watching 30 minutes of cable news.
to what end? is ‘the left’ supposed to like weinstein for any reason? is he something besides a sub par studio exec? (and alleged sex offender)
On October 07 2017 02:03 Wulfey_LA wrote: Conservative twitter is making a whole lot of shitpost comments right now about the MSM ignoring Weinstein. Wapo.com has 3 Weinstein stories. NYT broke it. And CNN.com has two Weinstein stories. I don't watch cable. I wonder if Cons get their presupposition about what is covered based on watching 30 minutes of cable news.
to what end? is ‘the left’ supposed to like weinstein for any reason? is he something besides a sub par studio exec? (and alleged sex offender)
They are pushing this because they can put Weinstein in the same room as the Clintons. Weinstein put a lot of money in liberal causes (planned parenthood, Democrats). It was obviously a cover. And Conservatives are rightfully smarting over supporting Ailes and O'Reilly.
On October 07 2017 01:36 Plansix wrote: I have been dog piled and called uninformed every time I post a strong opinion the shitty tech industry. Mostly by people who say I don’t understand code or development, which is not completely invalid. I'm not shocked by the dogpiling, I have a very low opinion of the tech industry and of course some people think my opinions are unfair or overly harsh. Especially on a tech heavy site like this one.
But I don’t act like a kicked puppy every time it happens. If you want to have strong opinions on a topic, stop whining about the opposition being mean to you.
If it makes you feel better, I work in that industry and agree with the thrust of what you say about pretty often.
I appreciate that. Its a rough time for folks in tech who are coming to grips that software has hard limits on what it can do.
Further, of all the shit arguments against gun control, the fake outrage over non-gun people not getting gun part definitions right has to be a top 3 shit argument. "Some lib somewhere didn't get detail XXX right on a gun, therefore no gun control!"
I’m in luck!
How is this fake news? Your link isn't from CNN and isn't sourced or dated from CNN. Assuming it is though, did you watch the video? I don't know about guns but the words seem factually accurate and the video appears to show a recoil action that appears plausible to how a bump stock might operate. The twitter link is inaccurate in any case. Assuming the video is a current CNN video, it is neither an image displayed to show what a bump stock rifle looks like, but rather a video showing a voice over and animation on the operation of a bumpstock. The video is even captioned "How does a bump stock work?"
Wherever you have been sourcing your news/information/twitter from, I suggest you should take it with a large degree of skepticism as it appears to be peddling misinformation.
I mean for fucks sake, your link directs me to source called Female Shitposter.
On October 06 2017 23:59 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
On October 06 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:
On October 06 2017 23:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Further, of all the shit arguments against gun control, the fake outrage over non-gun people not getting gun part definitions right has to be a top 3 shit argument. "Some lib somewhere didn't get detail XXX right on a gun, therefore no gun control!"
You know the difference between incompetence and fake news or not at all?
I'll try to show you. Fake news is something like that:
Mixing up guns because you have no idea and can't be bothered to do your job properly is not.
Now stop insulting our intelligence, kthx.
Broke: You're lying about CNN messing up their image of a bump stock. Woke: You didn't lie and didn't call it fake news, but you criticized it, which means you thought it was fake news, which means I can criticize you because it isn't really fake news! Haha!
It lets you say "stop insulting our intelligence" and furthermore, no retraction/apology on "you fall for lies" from Wulfey, Gahlo, crms (I'm open to being surprised, though).
1) Your youtube link is directed to a youtube video published by the author "Female ShitPoster".
2) Female Shitposter has declined to include a source. The video may well be current and true, but we have no way of knowing so.
3) Your original twitter links says that CNN displayed this image to show what a bumpstock looks like. There is no source either, but assuming your youtube video in your youtube link is current and true, CNN didn't display an image. It is a video.
4) That video isn't to show what a bumpstock looks like, but a fully animated video complete with a human demonstrating firing the gun with a bump stock.
5) The video is captioned "How does a bump stock work", not "what a bump stock rifle looks like"
6) The video at no point is any attention drawn to either suppressor or grenade launcher as a feature.
In conclusion, you are distributing false news Danglers. It's clear that you haven't even watched your own youtube link. Why are you spreading false news that another media is distributing fake news?
_____________________________________
Btw wtf is
Broke: Woke:
Is this some American slang or something? I don't have your cultural context to understand your slang.
I never called it fake news. The youtube poster titled is as he/she wanted. The clip is from CNN, does show the linked image (look @ 1 second). The only time this was in the news was in light of the recent Las Vegas shooting. Image matches, supporting the chyron, which makes explicit reference.
People said I was lying that CNN did not display a false image for a bump stock (but replete with other features). Now, it's that we shouldn't judge them too hard at showing a rifle without a bump stock in order to show how a bump stock works because it shows some idea that they know recoil against trigger finger is the operating mechanism. Keep moving goalposts, Dangermousecatdog. You're acting like Peter Daou with Hillary Clinton: it doesn't matter that they're wrong, what matters is they missed the target by 10 feet instead of an acre. Just admit they demonstrated incompetence and low journalistic standards so next time we talk, I won't remember you will never admit when CNN is absolutely in the wrong.
On October 06 2017 23:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:
On October 06 2017 23:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Further, of all the shit arguments against gun control, the fake outrage over non-gun people not getting gun part definitions right has to be a top 3 shit argument. "Some lib somewhere didn't get detail XXX right on a gun, therefore no gun control!"
Broke: You're lying about CNN messing up their image of a bump stock. Woke: You didn't lie and didn't call it fake news, but you criticized it, which means you thought it was fake news, which means I can criticize you because it isn't really fake news! Haha!
It lets you say "stop insulting our intelligence" and furthermore, no retraction/apology on "you fall for lies" from Wulfey, Gahlo, crms (I'm open to being surprised, though).
Fake news doesn't mean that something in the news is not true. There are mistakes, bad journalism, and even bad faith in every media in the whole world. That's part of journalism, there are fuck ups, and there is bad quality.
Fake news is a deliberate lie to convey a alternative version of reality, disguised as serious information. It's not a mistake, not an exaggeration, nor bad journalism. It's pure and simple lies to deceive people about what is and what is not.
If you can't make the difference, you should really stop posting here, because you are losing our time as it looks everyone else is smart enough to make the distinction. And if you do but decide that every inaccuracy from the liberal media is fake news (saaaad again) because of your grotesque partisan bias, you are also losing our time. Stop it. Thanks.
xDaunts and such are engaging in serious discussions. You are just acting like a propaganda antenna of the alt right on that website. You are shitting this thread, and 90% of the discussions you are involved in lead absolutely nowhere. Just stop that bullshit. We are here to talk and exchange points of views, not to relay every piece of shit propaganda from our side.
You're basing all this on the titling of the youtube video showing the clip I was after. You're arguing against a straw man not in existence. You're acting like a shameless hyperpartisan. Read the quote chain, and fucking end it once you've admitted the central point: CNN was damn incompetent in their coverage. You don't have to sneer so hard just to let the other side gain a remarkably narrow point.
1) You deliberately chose to propagate fake news. You are complicit in doing so, whether it was intentional or not. Now that you acknowledge it is false, you should change your source of information.
2) There is no proof it is from CNN, nor is there a timestamp. I am not saying it isn't from CNN, nor that it isn't current, but where is the source? Why isn't there a source?
Sorry, man. That's the CNN segment the twitter author/blogger saw. Image matches up. Chyron matches with source and contention. I've heard newsreader voice previously on CNN. If you showed one iota of yielding the point, I'll look up the name.
3) It appears to me to show a bumpstock and how it operates. So when you say that it does neither, it means you have not watched your own link.
Bumpstocks carry the force closer to the trigger with a larger moving piece. Check out Wulfey's response in the same darn quote train. Or, if you want my paraphrase, apparently Dangermousecatdog does not read the quoted posts he responds to.
Let me educate you: They're showing an adjustable rifle stock. You can make it longer or shorter to fit firing comfortability. Then they're taking this adjustable rifle stock and acting like it's just gonna slide back and forth while firing like a bump stock. Ludicrous.
4) What goalpost? You posted a twitter picture with caption
"CNN displayed this image to show what a bump stock rifle looks like.
The rifle features a suppressor, grenade launcher and no bump stock."
Assuming it is from CNN and is current, the image would be from a video of a bump stock in action. It features a bump stock and makes no mention of a supressor or grenade launcher. The picture also appears to feature a massive telescopic sight (I'm not a fire arms expert btw), but the neither you or the twitter poster seem to mind that either.
So, now that we have established (again, because you operate in a post-truth world), that the video is of a bump stock in action, you cannot say that it is a false image. Your statement A is false. Therefore your statement A is not true.
You claimed "I don't know about guns but the words seem factually accurate and the video appears to show a recoil action that appears plausible to how a bump stock might operate. That's a far cry from "You lied that CNN showed a bump stock operation that wasn't a bump stock." It's now "nevermind all that, it can fool someone that doesn't know about guns because there's superficial similarities." Goalposts moved.
Please just watch your own link.
I did. You spent more time on the title than watching and comparing it to the linked twitter image.
5) I don't know who Peter Daou is and I don't care, but you seem to care a lot about him.
You have never admitted or googled what a bump stock looks like, but continue to defend CNN's use of a non-bump stock to show a bump stock. It's very easy to find a correct image. See Wulfey. Peter Daou's treatment of Hillary is close to your treatment of CNN, defending their mistake without ever calling it a mistake or blunder and without knowing about guns.[/quote]
6) I don't watch CNN, I am not American. I don't understand why you think I have some bais towards CNN. By all accounts it appears to be a reputable media outlet. Certainly more reputable that your links of that twitter account, that you tube video, and certainly more reputable than the current President of USA.
This is a story I pointed out in the broader trend of loose standards of reporting by mainstream media sources on gun control issues. I'm trying to discover why you blindly jump in without any knowledge to defend a channel you never watch on a topic you know very little about.
7) I don't understand your comments of hyperpartisan. I am neither part of the Democratic party nor or the Republican Party. I am not American nor can I legally can vote in your elections. There is no sneering at the other side, becuase there is no other side.
I was trying to discover why you whitewash the major oopsie. You tell me why you're compelled to consider a clear mistake justifiable. I've seen MAGA Trump supporters with better criticisms of Trump than your attempt to clear CNN.
8) I don't see what is so incompetent of CNN. Their video did exactly what it purports to show, and I don't see why you are so fixated on the suppressor or grenade launcher. I thought you like those features of a gun? Is it taboo in USA to show images or videos of suppressors and grenade launchers on a gun?
It purports to show a bump stock in operation. They did not show a bump stock in operation. If Trump showed the wrong gun mod on a slide and talked about bump stocks, he would get lots of flack, and not similar levels of rationalization from you.
Severe weather battered the U.S. economy in September, leading to the first job losses since 2010, the government reported on Friday.
The labor market lost 33,000 jobs last month, though the unemployment rate fell to 4.2 percent, the lowest in 16 years.
Major hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria last month devastated parts of Texas and Florida and all of Puerto Rico, weighing heavily on jobs.
"Although the headline number for September is a loss of jobs, the first in seven years, the labor market remains in good shape," PNC chief economist Gus Faucher said in a statement.
"The job losses were due to disruptions from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, not underlying weakness in the economy," Faucher added.
Economists had expected a rough report because of the hurricanes, but the results were even weaker than predicted, though they could always be revised upwards in a future report.
"Job growth should resume in October as the impact of the storms fades, and in fact will get a boost through the rest of this year and into 2018 because of rebuilding efforts, supported by federal aid and insurance payments," Faucher said. The economy grew at a faster-than-expected clip of 3.1 percent in the April–June quarter, according to recent data from the Commerce Department.
Top Republican and Democratic House leaders acknowledged the devastating effects of the hurricanes and used Friday’s report to spar over GOP plans for tax reform.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said “it’s clear from this jobs report that Hurricanes Harvey and Irma not only devastated communities in Texas and Florida, they devastated their local economies as well.”
“By passing a budget that paves the way for tax reform, the House took a major step yesterday toward creating more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks,” Brady said.
“In the weeks ahead, the Ways and Means Committee will move forward with pro-growth, pro-middle-class tax reform legislation that Congress will ultimately send to the President’s desk this year, for the first time in 31 years.”
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said “the devastation of the hurricanes has laid bare the corrosive effect of the Republican Congress’ total refusal to act on jobs and wages for working families.”
“Republicans should abandon their job-killing giveaways for the richest and focus on raising wages and creating jobs for hard-working Americans,” she said.
“Instead, the GOP is pushing a budget that would devastate America’s investments in good-paying jobs, growing wages and dignified retirements — all to fast-track deficit-exploding, multi-trillion dollar tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent.”
The September jobs report was a strange brew of bad and good data.
I really wonder, before president dumb i had my fair share of fights with plansix (but was allways sure that we kinda align). Since president asshole the game changed, anyone that somehow is ok with him is just a moron. I haven't seen ONE coherent argument about why trump is good in any way. The most i got was:" the left made us do it." The only real answer to that is fuck you.
On October 07 2017 02:49 Velr wrote: I really wonder, before president dumb i had my fair share of fights with plansix (but was allways sure that we kinda align). Since president asshole the game changed, anyone that somehow is ok with him is just a moron. I haven't seen ONE coherent argument about why trump is good in any way. The most i got was:" the left made us do it." The only real answer to that is fuck you.
Trump makes the political opponents of Conservatives mad. That is enough for Conservatives to think him a good President. Tax reform and ACA repeal are DOA, so Trolling Libs is going to have to do.
On October 07 2017 02:49 Velr wrote: I really wonder, before president dumb i had my fair share of fights with plansix (but was allways sure that we kinda align). Since president asshole the game changed, anyone that somehow is ok with him is just a moron. I haven't seen ONE coherent argument about why trump is good in any way. The most i got was:" the left made us do it." The only real answer to that is fuck you.
There isn't really one; even rationalizations processes have their limits. There's several different arguments that are false/flawed in one way or the other of course. I made a decent post a few weeks ago covering some of the arguments they used, I do'nt know how to search for posts on here to find it though. I might be able to dig it up if you're really interested.
Trump's (or, more accurately, Congressional Republican's with the blessing of Trump) space policy seems to be a little less stupid than Obama's. Though of course that is little consolation in the fact of his general ineffectiveness.
On October 07 2017 03:09 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Weren't Nelson and Rubio blasting the administration about possibly putting a nonscientist in charge of NASA?
On October 07 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote: Trump's (or, more accurately, Congressional Republican's with the blessing of Trump) space policy seems to be a little less stupid than Obama's. Though of course that is little consolation in the fact of his general ineffectiveness.
Just curious what would you like to see done? from previous posts I gather that you would like to see more support of privatized, but I'd like to get your take on what a better direction looks like.
On October 07 2017 01:36 Plansix wrote: I have been dog piled and called uninformed every time I post a strong opinion the shitty tech industry. Mostly by people who say I don’t understand code or development, which is not completely invalid. I'm not shocked by the dogpiling, I have a very low opinion of the tech industry and of course some people think my opinions are unfair or overly harsh. Especially on a tech heavy site like this one.
But I don’t act like a kicked puppy every time it happens. If you want to have strong opinions on a topic, stop whining about the opposition being mean to you.
If it makes you feel better, I work in that industry and agree with the thrust of what you say about pretty often.
I appreciate that. Its a rough time for folks in tech who are coming to grips that software has hard limits on what it can do.
I mean, for what it's worth, I despise things like social media and companies like Uber as much as you do.
I just disagree with the assessment that something needs to be done, or can be done, on an industry wide level, without some drastic changes on a social and legal framework level. Changes that would involve shooting for the moon.
On October 07 2017 03:06 LegalLord wrote: Trump's (or, more accurately, Congressional Republican's with the blessing of Trump) space policy seems to be a little less stupid than Obama's. Though of course that is little consolation in the fact of his general ineffectiveness.
Just curious what would you like to see done? from previous posts I gather that you would like to see more support of privatized, but I'd like to get your take on what a better direction looks like.
A few things, some of them realistic some of them a pipe dream I've come to terms with not being able to expect.
1. Completion of the current large programs of NASA including Orion and SLS, rather than random ass cancellation. 2. A shifted focus to more technically viable long-term ventures rather than overengineered boondoggles, even if the up-front cost is unpleasant. 3. A focus on the moon rather than on dicking around with literally anything else like they did under Obama. 4. A reduction of the scope of how much the government can influence the design choices of the NASA programs. 5. A more sensical public-private partnership that doesn't just end up being NASA giving up major capabilities when private industry doesn't do a good job of making the tech they need.
Trump's admin is doing (1) and (3) fairly well. (2) is a pipe dream and (4) probably is as well. (5) I withhold judgment on for the moment but it's hard to do worse than Obama did on that front.
I have been thinking about the various sexual abusers in the news. Ailes, O'Rielly, Weinstein, Hastert, Cosby, and I noticed a disturbing consistency. Jowls. Nothing says "my power entitles me to your body" like jowls on a man. Check out some examples.
On October 07 2017 01:36 Plansix wrote: I have been dog piled and called uninformed every time I post a strong opinion the shitty tech industry. Mostly by people who say I don’t understand code or development, which is not completely invalid. I'm not shocked by the dogpiling, I have a very low opinion of the tech industry and of course some people think my opinions are unfair or overly harsh. Especially on a tech heavy site like this one.
But I don’t act like a kicked puppy every time it happens. If you want to have strong opinions on a topic, stop whining about the opposition being mean to you.
If it makes you feel better, I work in that industry and agree with the thrust of what you say about pretty often.
I appreciate that. Its a rough time for folks in tech who are coming to grips that software has hard limits on what it can do.
I mean, for what it's worth, I despise things like social media and companies like Uber as much as you do.
I just disagree with the assessment that something needs to be done, or can be done, on an industry wide level, without some drastic changes on a social and legal framework level. Changes that would involve shooting for the moon.
More involvement and regulation by national governments will go a long way to change the way the companies operate. It doesn’t’ even take a lot of regulation. Just the idea that the government might regulate more if tech companies take their eye off the ball is enough to dissuade a lot of bad decisions.
The best way to regulate capitalists is to occasionally make it known that if they don't behave they will be facing the guillotine soon enough. And make an example of a few of em.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/171005120936-bump-stock-780x439.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/unflattering-donald-trump-chin-photo-ps-battle-34.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/fashion/daily/2017/04/04/04-bill-o-reilly.w710.h473.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://dawm7kda6y2v0.cloudfront.net/uploads/2016/07/ah33ke5czb9ukgospzbf-654x362-bc0829d.png)
![[image loading]](https://media.salon.com/2017/10/harvey-weinstein-300x200.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://static.flickr.com/68/206472968_3781b840a8_m.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BdaVObSQCQk/TrXQKJQ5tfI/AAAAAAAAE18/rch1vY9J-Ng/s400/jerry-sandusky.jpg)
