Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Fake science/sloppy science (Score 1) 323

You have that wrong, I think. Sure, the Scientific Method is not about building a consensus, however, the Advancement of Science (as in expanding our understanding of the universe), has to be about consensus. Without consensus on what is true (or likely to be true), Science would perennially be stuck at what a single scientist could accomplish in one lifetime. At some point, you have to accept that other scientists have already researched and discovered things. At that point, the scientific consensus will help you find areas for your own research that haven't already been exhaustively studied.

Of course, there is nothing stopping someone for challenging the consensus on any scientific topic, but if you do want to challenge the consensus, then you better have a good alternate theory and the evidence to back it up.

Comment Re: s/drug trials/climate change/g (Score 3, Informative) 323

Record high temps, record low temps. record rain, record drought.

That's actually what you'd expect with a chaotic system built of multiple random variables. It would be unnatural for weather to always be the same.

Actually it's not. It's a simple fact that in a stable system, as time goes on, there are fewer and fewer "record" events because each new record needs to be more extreme than all previously recorded events. Over time, record-breaking events decline significantly. So, an increase in record events is, by itself, evidence that the system is undergoing change.

Comment Re:Umm (Score 1) 395

I think you're a purveyor of bullshit all around, but this one part I thought was worthy of further discussion:

Had a genuinely (non-insane, non-neocon) qualified Republican candidate run for president with a promise to enforce existing immigration laws, help create jobs for Americans first and foreigners second, and give priority to assisting Americans before outsiders, he would have won in a massive landslide reminiscent of Reagan's defeat of Mondale.

I think that scenario might actually be impossible. Republican primary voters were never going to allow a sane, sensible Republican candidate to run. Just look at the primaries, the reasonable people were among the first people eliminated. Of course, there a good chance that against a non-insane Republican candidate, Clinton might have actually won. In a large part, her loss can be tied to Trump's labelling her as "Crooked Hillary" and endless repeating that label. The negative campaigning had the desired result of depressing Democratic turnout. Furthermore, the problem is that Clinton's policies and a sane Republican's policies would have had limited differences, and Russia might have feared such a Republican candidate as much or more than Hillary, and their electoral sabotage could have been aimed at the both parties, or even just the Republicans. Frankly, I can name a single popular moderate Republican, I think (Jeb Bush?), because ideological purity tests seem to have either expelled the majority of them from candidacy or pushed them away from moderate positions to avoid challenges.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If Obama had been a Republican President, he would have been the new Reagan. Republicans would be worshipping at his feet and praising his legacy, but because he had the wrong letter next to his name, most Republican voters despise him. So, with Obama representing so much of what the old Republican party would have stood for, and Obama being "irredeemably evil", the current Republican party keeps having to find newer, crazier issues to differentiate itself from it's mortal enemy.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 920

but multiple people (not just his fans) appear to be confirming PDP's claim that the WSJ edited his videos,

First, I don't believe you or them know anything about what was actually sent to Disney. I've seen this many times before with Gamergate, for example, where people simply invented lies to sway people to their side. Lying on the internet is easy. Second it doesn't even matter if they edited the video unless what they did was truly egregious and that would be counter-productive because regardless of what the WSJ sent to Disney, Disney should have done their due diligence rather than simply trusting a video sent to them. I only guess that you are young and have little to no idea of how most businesses are run. The managers at Maker aren't going to fire a money-making celebrity simply because the WSJ told them to with a doctored video. They can watch the videos for the themselves, you know.

I grow weary of trotting out The Producers as a counterexample, but it's the most crystal clear one I've found. The parallels between it and the supposedly most offensive video ("Kill All Jews") are very strong. Both contained an over the top candy-coated celebration of a horrible idea, and then showed a reaction shot of someone(s) looking on in horror. The difference is, people think they have made some terribly clever point when they claim PewDiePie's horror was just acting. Well, let's say that's true... guess what the actors in The Producers who were playing the audience watching "Springtime for Hitler" were doing?

I think everyone is tired of you trotting out The Producers. The situations aren't really comparable, one is a comedy where two awful people are trying to be offensive by making a musical about Hitler, the other is a jackass who thinks it's edgy to pay poor people 5 dollars to do something politically incorrect. One is comedic genius, the other is tasteless attention whoring. The fact that you don't understand the difference is merely tiresome. To put it simply, PewDiePie seems to have more in common with Max Bialystock than Mel Brooks and that is not a good thing, in case you continue to misunderstand the situation.

Again, you keep pretending that PDP has lost.

I don't know why you're obsessed with winners and losers. I'm just pointing out that PewDiePie is upset because someone has revealed the things that he actually did, but in a way he doesn't like. Welcome the real world, man-boy.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 920

These is a *fascinating* story to anyone who remotely cares about where the media is headed. You don't have to be a PDP fan (I'm not) to find it fascinating. There are multiple facets here, and I'm most interested in the stuff that involves the larger ecosystem. I've already linked to this a half dozen times at least, but this article [] shows pretty clearly the WSJ's motive in all of this. (That one shouldn't be paywalled.) Don't forget, they didn't just "write an article" that started all of this. They didn't just hire three reporters to comb through his videos and edit them. They sent their edited results directly to Disney. They had an explicit agenda in getting PewDiePie's platform trimmed down a bit. Why is that? WSJ isn't a progressive-leaning paper. Well, see the above link.

The simple problem is there is no need for you to invent "an explicit agenda". It seems far more likely they were doing research for an article on YouTube "influencers" and found the anti-Semitic content. Knowing this should be a huge deal for Disney, they sent a video with the relevant clips to Disney for comment. Disney saw the clips, likely did their own quick internal investigation, and cut PewDiePie loose because they didn't like what they saw. If they had any ulterior motive, it is far more likely to concern the opportunity to hurt the profitability of a competitor or two, than to somehow gain control over what people post to YouTube.

There's a lot of other stuff you're conflating into this issue, that is interesting but not directly related to this issue. YouTube policies, leftist politics, millenial media interests can indeed by interesting stuff but you are muddying the water by trying to drag them into this issue. This is a bog-standard story someone got caught doing something bad then lashes out at the people who caught him. PDP might as well yell "I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling [reporters]".

1. Including J.K. Rowling now.

You do realize that J. K. Rowling re-tweeted an article about how PDP and others "just joking around" about racism, is enabling racists to normalize their views, right?

Not to be prejudicial here, but from a purely statistical standpoint the chances of a Swede (someone who grew up there) having right-wing views by American standards is must be darn small.

And yet, it's actual people in the alt-right community who think that PDP might be one of them... The left seems to think he's a immature, narcissistic, asshole. Which seems to be a pretty accurate assessment to me.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 920

2. It's a bit amusing, but moreso deeply worrying to see you and so many other people view this as a major setback for PewDiePie or a victory for the forces of anti-racism. Uh, no. This is Pearl Harbor, and the mainstream media and the progressive left (two very distinct players here; I'm not conflating the two) are the Japanese.

Well, it is a setback for PewDiePie. As for a victory of the force of anti-racism? Why would I think that. PewDiePie is just a fool with a big mouth who got himself into trouble with his sponsors. You can continue to blame everyone but PewDiePie, but really he's really the only one to blame here. He shot himself in the foot, and blaming the media for pointing out that he did so is kind of sad and pathetic.

I'm not bragging or boasting or laughing; this is serious shit. How do you think his tens of millions of subscribers are going to react? "Damn, I guess he was a racist, the WSJ said so" ? How many of those people are kids? How many of those kids are (like most kids) currently left-leaning? And how many of those kids have never felt the rush of arguing on the internet, of calling out (what they think is) stupidity, of actually fighting for something before?

I didn't see them call him a racist, I saw them say he posted anti-Semitic videos. Are you sure you're not building up a strawman argument? You seem to attribute things to the WSJ that I didn't see in the articles (not that I can read them all because some of them are paywalled).

I don't quite know what to expect next, but this is the beginning of something, not the end of something.

On the other hand, it seems unlikely to be either to me. It's the same old story, a shameless populist blaming the messenger for his own self-inflicted problems. I've seen it so many times, it's kind of tiresome now. You, however, seem to be quite caught up in your impassioned defence of PewDiePie, but I see little to justify your impassioned defence. PewDiePie did several things likely to embarrass his sponsors, someone pointed it out, and his sponsors dropped him for it. It's a pretty boring story if you ignore PewDiePie's outrage at actually being held accountable for his actions.

Comment Re: Never (Score 2) 369

The difference between fascism and libertarian is that libertarians want "minimal rules to create a safe environment" where fascism wants maximal rules. Fascism wants the government to control things. Libertarians want the government to control nothing. They are on exact opposite sides of the spectrum.

You might think that, but I'm not sure that's actually true. In the short run, they can have many goals in common. Fascists like to dismantle entitlement programs, as do libertarians. Fascists want a strong military, as do many libertarians. In fact, many libertarians seem quite willing to go along with Fascism as long as their rights (specifically) aren't being infringed and the fascists promise to cut taxes and fight the "nasty liberals" who want to insist that people should be nice to one another.

Of course, the real problem could be that so many people who claim to be libertarian seem to be everything except actually libertarian...

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 920

It's not an 'antisemitic video' or 'antisemitic content'. That's the prime and obvious lie for me here, and anyone arguing otherwise has to explain why dozens of the greatest comedians of all time weren't being antisemitic when they did Nazi or holocaust stuff. I've seen comedians do straight uber-dark toned holocaust stuff that no one would call anti-semitic. I've heard Bill Hicks scream "Hilter had the right idea; he was just an underachiever!" and no one has ever to my knowledge called him a fascist or a Nazi. In comparison, PewDiePie offered nothing but a sustained look of horror, no laughing, as the message was unfurled. That look of horror could be real or faked; it doesn't matter. By the standards of Nazi jokes stretching back for decades and deacdes, it's a rather tame example, showing horror instead of the morbid, flippant, shock-tactic version of a holocaust that stand-ups often use.

Several other people have said that the context was actually the PewDiePie thought that if he paid "brown people" to show anti-Semitic messages, no one would get angry. I don't know if that's true or not, I've previously watched a couple of his videos but didn't think they were very good. However, if that's true it plays into a larger narrative that PewDiePie has been feeding. In essence that white people, like him, are being discriminated against by everyone else. He can claim he's just joking, but it's a disturbing pattern of behaviour. And if you want to be comedic about those things you need to be very explicit about it being a joke before you tell the joke. Plus, it's not like this is the only time he's done things deliberately to offend people. I have a friend who stopped watching his videos a couple of years ago because PewDiePie kept throwing gratuitously offensive comments into his regular videos. He's been called out previously on using racist epithets, and in this case he made not one, but three videos with anti-Semitic messages in them. What's that old saying "Once is a fluke, twice is coincidence, three times is a trend?".

The whole being horrified at what people will do for money thing just seems like bullshit cloaking. It should be no surprise to anyone that you can get people who are desperate for money to do horrible things, especially when they don't understand what they're doing. And apparently the guys in the video who made the banner have released an apology video saying they didn't understand what the message meant, which is certainly possible, with English not being their first language and not actually having lived in a English speaking culture.

The problem remains, I haven't seen any actual lies. The WSJ sent a video to Disney about an issue that they were going to write about, the video might be "edited", but I doubt it was deceptively edited. Removing the context in some cases changes the message, but in this case, I don't think there's been much deceptiveness. PewDiePie was using anti-Semitic messages for shock value and to get attention. He just ended up with the (potentially) the wrong kind of attention.

I'm pretty convinced that the "Fake News" angle on this story is entirely bogus, and is meant to incite sympathy for some who's been hoisted by their own petard.

Comment Re:Professional attention whore strikes again (Score 1) 920

For some reason, the meat of the story, that main steam media are being so dishonest, seems to be ignored by many commenters here.

Maybe because that's not the meat of the story? Someone's just trying to convince you that it is. The meat of the story is that PewDiePie has a history of using racials slurs and asshatery to get attention. He has ranted about and made insane accusations about the companies that have made him rich and famous. And then later claimed that he joking about the racism and insanity. However, when his behaviour patterns were pointed out to his biggest sponsors, they dropped him.

The Wall Street Journal's take on the story is that there is a public relations danger to companies when endorsing content creators (influencers) that they have little or no control over.

Your take on the story is that the media is out to get PewDiePie because he's a threat to them.

Comment Re:Death To All Jews (Score 1) 920

I detest the guy for other reasons. I think he's a twat. However, do you truly believe that he's a neo nazi? Does anyone? Probably not. His firing was one of virtue signaling, nothing more. I think virtue signaling is far more harmful to society than some moron's stupid jokes.

I disagree, according to his claims some people at the Wall Street Journal pointed out to Disney that they had a developing public relations problem, and Disney terminated the problem.

It doesn't matter whether or not PewDiePie is a neo nazi or not, as long as he could credibly be portrayed as one in a way that would be harmful to Disney's business. Whether or not he's sincere, his juvenile shock tactics made him toxic to a company with a brand based on good, clean, family fun.

Comment Re: Never (Score 1) 369

Although the current libertarian party generally seems to be for open borders, there is a third type of libertarian. It's the libertarian who thinks that the government's sole job is to create a safe and stable environment. This type of libertarian is going to be for a strong military, a strong police force, strong borders, pro-isolationalist and anti-immigration. It's the same mindset of a person who builds a wall around 100 acres and a cabin in the middle. The anti-immigrational libertarian just happens to just want to have a bigger wall.

That actually sounds a lot like fascism. Which shouldn't be too surprising, I suppose, since Libertarianism and Fascim seem to have a lot in common.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with money is it costs too much!