Posts by h4rm0ny

Re: Figures

>>"What's wrong with Soros? As opposed to any other mouthy billionaire trying to buy political influence and look important. Why does he get special mention? It wouldn't be the J word would it?"

Anti-Semites are drawn to George Soros like flies to shit, unfortunately. I say unfortunately both because any anti-Semitism is bad and because it obscures some of the problems Soros actually causes. Compare him to, for example, the Rothschilds - a wealth Jewish family that on the whole have done a lot of good. Both attract deeply unpleasant anti-Semites but only Soros also draws the ire of non-bigots. I'll give a couple of examples of Soros sticking his wealthy hands in world affairs.

George Soros directly cost the UK billions when he precipitated Black Wednesday for his own self-enrichment. George Soros has a net worth on record of $24bn. Enough wealth to destabilize nations and certainly enough to influence their behaviour. He shorted the UK pound in 1992 (essentially a bet that the pound would fall) and then, to make that short pay off, caused the very same fall in the pound. The Bank of England desperately tried to shore up our currency but - let me phrase this is very clear terms - Soros outspent us. With the collapsing pound, Soros raked in a fortune.

In addition to such staggeringly selfish behaviour on such a horrific scale, he frequently dabbles in politics both domestic and international, funding groups that campaign or act according to his political goals. Sometimes subversive ones. For example, much is made of Russia "banning NGOs", but as an example of one of the NGOs banned, you have Soros's "Open Society Institute". A group that spends around $800m per year furthering political goals. With such eye-watering levels of funding of political groups, he's bound to attract a lot of attention in conspiracy theories. Mainly because if you're spending $800m per year to fund your political groups, it ain't conspiracy theory. He funded the "White Helmets" in Syria which is an anti-Assad group. Funded activists in the Ukranianian "Orange Revolution"

So yes, he gets a lot of hate from anti-Semites but I prefer to ignore their opinions as a general principle. The reason he is such a focus is because he is an active and important participant in many political events.

Re: Just when you thought...

>>There are sanctions with Russia because it invaded Georgia and Ukraine.

The US sanctions in the news recently - those voted through the Senate in June, 2017 - are not in response to either the Russian annexation of the Crimea (February 2014) nor in response to the conflict in South Ossetia (Georgia) in 1994. They are because of conflicting business interests.

https://www.ft.com/content/27e28a44-51b0-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb

One category of news source that is usually more reliable than those 'for the masses' are the financial news. Because investors don't give a damn about being told who are good guys and who are bad guys - they just want to know what the reality on the ground is and any company that misleads them quickly finds itself without customers. Hence the Bloombergs, Stratfors, Financial Times are where you go if you don't want narratives and just want facts. Albeit with a somewhat amoral slant. ;)

There are older sanctions but plainly the current ones are not for the reasons you gave. This is why it is important to be able to get as many points of view as possible. To illustrate with your own examples. The Crimea has historically been Russian and is largely ethnically Russian and Russian speaking unlike some other parts of the Ukraine; its population voted overwhelmingly in referendum that they wanted to be governed by Russia and - critically - regards the US-backed overthrow of the Ukraine's President Yushchenko as illegitimate. Whilst if you ask in the Western parts of the Ukraine you'll get the opposite opinion. Note, fraud was never proven in the election of Yuschenko. However we do know for a fact that the USA Congress voted through over a billion in supporting opposition in the Ukraine. A minor and specific example, Pora members were flown to the USA for training in subversion and destabilization tactics. From the non-Western point of view, and with some good reason, Ukraine is a case of a legitimate government being overthrown by Western-funded and trained opposition. None of this is delusional conspiracy theory. Obama has spoken openly about how the USA facilitated the installation of a replacement president in the Ukraine.

Whilst we could debate back and forth on who is right, I think it's fair to point out that on an article where Russia is alleged to have paid for non-candidate supporting ads that are "divisive" whatever that means, we're now talking about proven US funding for opposition parties in foreign countries and the providing of training in organising and carrying out civil unrest for citizens in that country. To condemn Russia for ads in the face of Western interference like this, is insanity. Most of the people in the Crimea regard the Russian annexation as protecting them. Some of those that attacked them were literal Nazis with variant Swastikas on their flags. (Check out the "Azov Regiment" which became part of the new Ukranian National Guard").

The point is, foreign points of view like the above are important to be heard. Else everybody will think, as you do, things like "the sanctions against Russia are because it invaded Ukraine" and not about business interests. It is not whether your view of Russians actions are right or mine is, but that people be allowed to put their case. And this article is about preventing people from doing so. About dismissing and hiding attempts to put a foreign point of view because it is foreign. It is a plea that we stop our governments from deciding what narratives we are allowed to hear, that I am making.

There will always be little corners of the Internet where people can speak any point of view they like, but if the eyeballs of the world are in the hands of a handful of giant corporations such as Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, then it's important that they not be allowed to restrict it to their favoured friends. Much less be applauded for it.

Re: Where's the substance?

By default, I take the view of a private citizen in all of this, rather than a constitutional lawyer. For illustrative purposes, suppose Saddam Hussein had taken out ads on Facebook saying Iraq had no WMD and wanted to allow full access to UN weapons inspectors? Both were in fact true, but the official narrative in the USA (where a survey showed more than 50% of Americans thought that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks!) said otherwise. By the laws we're talking about here, that could well be illegal but from my view as a private citizen, it's not only ethical but valuable. Col. Gadhafi was begging for a ceasefire and diplomatic resolution since the moment NATO got involved but we heard little to nothing about that unless you were involved. Again, an example of how foreign views and discussion points are shut down. That's ultimately what we're talking about here. We're not talking about foreign powers actually interfering in elections (although the USA has done that on many an occasion). We're talking about non-candidate backing ads being shut down because they're paid for by foreigners and "divisive".

I, as a private citizen, don't want my government countering foreign propaganda like this. We're not talking Daesh recruitment videos of people being beheaded. here. I'd be happy if ads contained the names of those who paid for them - that would be useful information. But I'm not happy with the government or in-bed corporations removing things that don't fit their preferred narrative.

Re: Where's the substance?

>>Some people bought adverts to affect the election. Either that's ok or it isn't, doesn't really matter who they are unless there are rules about limited spend or nationality.

Facebook state that none of the ads supported a particular candidate. Only that they were "divisive". If I had to guess - and I do have to guess because Facebook wont actually show us examples - they were simply points of debate / things to do with immigration or international military interference. Things that establishment narratives should be open to challenge on. Even the Russian "hacking" is not only not proven, but isn't hacking. It's about people leaking information to the American Electorate. Yes, the public finding out that the DNC chairperson was secretly helping Clinton over Sanders can "affect" the election. But as a member of the electorate I want information on my candidates. As much as possible. That isn't "hacking" the election. "Hacking" is just a word by the media to generate hype and clicks. It's disingenuous. Similarly, generating discussion about immigration or US involvement in Syria may "affect" the election, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Re: Spawn Spawnned An Evil Clown

In my tinier years, I recall watching a TV series set in a lighthouse. One episode had ghost clowns and a scarecrow that came to life and crashed through the window. Probably my first ever exposure to something scary. Well, it's scary when you're six years old. So scary clowns go a long way back.

And if you want really old examples, there was The Man Who Laughs, an old film from 1928 about a disfigured man in a circus.

Re: Hmmmm....

>>Most groups here in the states that have patriot in their title or event name don't believe in free speech.

Examples / support for that?

The Patriot Prayer meeting that this story is specifically about, is a pro-Free Speech group just for example.

Re: Apparently it worked.

Except they weren't White Supremacists. They were a prayer group wanting to preserve Free Speech. Threats shut down a legitimate gathering.

Re: Yes, alt-right are idiots, but...

Taking a quote from Martin Luther King in one context and transplanting it to a very different situation doesn't make it applicable. King was dealing with very real racial segregation and disenfranchisement. These people are violently opposed to Free Speech. One is not like the other.

MLK was also a devout Christian so would likely be very sympathetic to these people who so far as I can tell, chiefly want to have a public prayer meeting. MLK was also a strong believer in non-violence, inspired by Mahatma Ghandi.

Frankly, quoting MLK on racial discrimination in favour of Antifa types shit-bombing a group of Christians speaking out in favour of Free Speech is appalling misrepresentation of him.

Re: Hmmmm....

The whole anti-fascist movement has parallels with Think of the Children types, imo. Proponents say "why would you oppose laws against paedophiles / why would you defend paedophiles". But then they go and gather a lynch mob outside a paediatrician's house.

Being against Nazis - I get that. You getting to decide anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi, not so much.

Have you ever wondered why there are so many diet books? It's because everyone would rather hear about some new easy idea that will get them what they want, rather than exercise more and eat less.

Ideas are cheap. Effort and resource are not.

Re: Phony story

>>it's doubtful that the bartenders would bother offer anything for a simple tit flash in Paris

You don't go to a bar purely for the alcohol. You could just buy it in Tescos if you wanted. You go for the atmosphere and the people. They probably thought that it created a fun and flirty atmosphere in the club. And they were probably right, as well.

>>and even if they did why would the management feel a need to apologize?

Same reason any company feels the need to apologise for something like this - fear of the hordes of complaints, harassment and protest that comes with offending a certain online segment of society these days.

That said, reviews of the club on TripAdvisor are pretty dire. I quote: "I'd rather go to a nightclub in Rhyl"

Re: Bah!

Is there any evidence that women were pressured into doing this? Seriously - "rape culture"? "counts as solicitation?" "not much different to kerb crawling?"

This sounds like someone from outside the a micro-culture poking their nose into something they don't understand and applying their own values on other people. I very much doubt the women who did this were coerced. Enticed, maybe. But enticement is not a bad thing.

>>Not a problem. My front door has a lever lock that requires me to turn a key to lock it.

Ever gone away and not been sure if you remembered to lock it?

Re: "smart home devices"

It's pretty useful to be able to assign temporary pass codes to people for the lock and also see remotely if it's been used, if it's closed and locked or left open. These products are very popular with AirBnB hosts. Even as just an every day obsessive compulsive who always wonders if she's left the door unlocked when she goes away, a product like this has appeal.

Yep. Compare their behaviour with a company like TalkTalk. Whilst it's a cock-up, and undoubtedly a PITA to the affected customers, the company's response seems professional and pro-active. They responded quickly, reached out to customers proactively, set up a dedicated email address for customers to contact them with and arranged compensation.

The company is also a supporter of Net Neutrality. In all, they seem a good company.

You appear not to have actually read his argument. He didn't say, to use your analogy, that blue horses were worse at foot races. He argued that blue horses were less interested in average in footraces. He argued that if blue horses tended to choose to go into show-jumping then holding back pink horses, or preferentially promoting blue horses in an effort to make sure a race was fifty:fifty between colours was misguided. You can agree or disagree with him but you have heavily misrepresented his argument.

Also, why are we using analogies here, anyway? Surely men and women are concepts we're all familiar with?

Re: Assange shouts at world to stop forgetting him

>>And no, he wasn't 'polite'. It's fundamentally not polite to question whether your female colleagues are biologically capable of doing their jobs.

Another poster linked to it elsewhere so I've just read through it in his entirety. The person you are replying to is correct - his piece was very polite. You are very wrong - nowhere in it is he suggesting that female colleagues are biologically not capable of doing their jobs. I'll link it again here.

You plainly have not read the piece or else have a tremendous determination to misinterpret it. Therefore you have no business telling the poster who has that they're wrong. It's actually a very interesting read and does attempt to support its points.

Re: Obligatory xkcd

It's a bad definition. It presumes the thing you have to fear when speaking out is the government supressing your voice. That may have been true once but these days there are companies more powerful than many governments. And unlike governments which could only deprive you of printing presses, companies like Facebook and Google can deprive you of talking to your community. Because they believe they own it rather than the people it is made up of.

Re: Well..

Hiring should be about ability to do the job well. Nothing else. By all means identify why there is a lack of candidates in a particular demographic - for example girls in school being discouraged from IT - and address it. By all means deal with cases where prejudice is preventing the hiring of qualified candidates - for example, racism. But the goal is to make hiring about the ability to contribute the most, not ham-fistedly treat a symptom rather than a cause.

Google's culture is worrying to me because they have massive influence on what people can say. Their ability to supress a view, an idea or even just a funny video, is greater than a lot of governments. Someone sent me a funny clip of Harry Potter dropping the dragon egg from one of the films and it exploding terrorist-style. Fairly dumb, quite funny. Half an hour later it was removed as "Hate Speech". Not that this is hugely consequential, but just observing that unlike governments, Google can do what it likes. Including shutting down debates. Honestly, if this person wants to discuss male vs. female careers, I'd far rather him do so openly so I can engage and challenge his views than for him to go away with them unexamined and many others to wonder if his views have to be censored that there must be something to them.

All great ideas challenge the status quo. That doesn't mean that everything which does is a great idea, but it does mean you can't institutionalise the suppression of anything that challenges your views because inevitably a few of those things will be something you were wrong about.

Re: Biology is a thing.

>>What he *did* say was that differences in the way the sexes think might account for the lack of women joining the ranks of programmers in the first place - that they are simply drawn to other things, things that involve relating to people more.

If so then it's likely more a pressure towards IT for many males. Girls mature more quickly than boys (probably to do with cave people not having a word for 'jailbait'). Consequently a girl at school is usually more capable socially on average than a boy at the same age. Perhaps it's as simple as IT appealing to those who seek subjects dependent on simple, learnable rules. As career paths start as young as fourteen / fifteen (choosing GCSEs), perhaps if career paths settled in later in life you'd see, not more women taking IT, but fewer men.

It's a hypothesis only, but it's one I could entertain. Essentially that IT is a career perceived as not depending on social success and girls acquiring social adeptness and team mentality earlier than (not more than) boys.

Re: Well..

Even if there are biological predispositions to certain careers, it's meaningless as a guide to who you should hire unless the disparity is, to use a statistical term, fucking enormous.

If women were - very hypothetically - 5% less capable of higher mathematics on average, it would still be insanity to use male / female as a determinant in hiring policy. And 5% is actually pretty high, if there were a difference of that much, it would have been easy to prove by this point.

Biology primarily influences women's careers by the fact women often take career breaks to have children and men seldom do. Everything other than that has always seemed to be cultural rather than biological in my experience. Certainly I have known innumerable very talented engineers who were women. I have also, from personal experience, known many girls who got put off "boy's subjects" at school. IF (and I'm breaking out the capital letters here), there is a biological difference in ability, it's so small as to be utterly inappropriate to make judgements about individuals based on it. And if there's a biological difference that inclines men and women to be interested in different careers independent of ability, then I would stake everything I own on it being far, far less a determinant than cultural factors because I have seen the latter in action repeatedly at school and at university.

Re: Well..

>>"OF COURSE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN ARE BIOLOGICAL!!!"

Not if the differences you're referring to are roles in society. There culture, history and prejudice apply. And this discussion was about women's roles in society - specifically a career. And you cannot make a supported case that roles in society are solely down to biological differences.

Re: Hey Instart

Actually, I'm fine with sites containing adverts. I think it's reasonable that they do! My problems with it are the tracking and also auto-play video (which is irritating by itself, and doubly so if like me you open a row of tabs to queue up what you'll read).

I want the sites I like to make money. I just don't want Google et al. having a big profile of "went to this site at this time, bought product Y last week" for me or having to close pages unread because they're blasting crap into my headphones from half-way down an unopen tab.

Whilst it's possible that they only acquired the information that he was a criminal during the convention, the more likely scenario is that they waited until he set foot in the USA because they knew that their evidence would either not be sufficient for the UK's justice system or alternately because it would expose a chain of evidence that was illegal (e.g. warrantless surveillance, unapproved spying on a European country). My money would be on the former, but I'd say either is much more likely than them just suddenly finding out he'd done something whilst there.

So either way, it implies that the USA will not be handing over evidence to us with which to try him. If they had sufficient evidence / such evidence were legally acquired, then we have some pretty generous extradition treaties with the USA that they could have used. Note, I don't know whether he's guilty of wrongdoing or not - I've no way of knowing. But the above does imply there'd be no conviction in the UK.

Re: Colonization dilemma

If any of those planets are inhabited then the chances of them being at a comparable level of development as ourselves are astronomical. Either they are so far behind they are to us animals, or they are so far ahead as to make US the primitives. The only chance that we are comparably developed is if technological advancement stalls at a certain point and we are already very close to that point. Which would be a depressing thought.