Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/20/2019 in Blog Comments

  1. 1 point
    The Q as Folk numpties are at work:
  2. 1 point
    Cunning little video exposing a much-cited QAnon account's disinformation ...
  3. 1 point
    William, PP is as good as any. Look at my paraphrase of a few of his (or her) comments. That while there are parents who willingly sell their children to the scientism and socialist indoctrination of modern education. It's more likely the teachers, nurses, and others who care for your children are there to turn them into willing thralls for the globalist manmade global warming power mongers. . . . Imagine living in this kind of fear. That a great evil hung over you like a cloud that will soon be destroyed along with the planet. That at any moment evil forces would be there to brainwash and control your family and destroy the entire earth in 10 years. That Christians (and now Trump) are out to get you. . . . Everyone is the outgroup. Everyone is to be distrusted. The enemy surrounds us. Only via isolation and safe spaces can we achieve salvation. Scientism plus statism is a poison that make people hateful and scared. To think anyone would want to be this way makes me sad. That works to a tee for SJW's. Michael
  4. 1 point
    @PokerPolitics continues to offer poignant takes on the Q phenomenon. These sum up a feeling I get when I consider the self-sealed mental landscape of extreme QAnon cultists ... ... ... "Only via isolation can we achieve salvation."
  5. 1 point
    Fredrick Brennan may understand more than anyone what is likely to happen, though of course he may be subject to a cognitive bias:
  6. 1 point
    New Jersey requires automobiles to have license plates mounted on the front and rear, I recently bought a car and was issued a paper 'temp' tag for the rear, leaving the front open. I made a 'fun' front plate by fashioning a "Q" out of orange electrical tape on a white backround. I've noticed a few smiles and other approving gestures on the road. The only q quotes or drops I've ever seen have come from reading OL and my favorite ,and to me, the most important q- related story is the one about the deputy sherriff in Florida wearing a patch while welcoming VP Pence. To me the meme is more important and powerful than The Q, prove or disprove the personage , I'll always have Q. Who doesn't want a Q, yeh? Seriously who doesn't want to have the belief that there is a 'righteous' power to speaking ( and 'doing') truth to power?
  7. 1 point
    From David Gilbert at VICE: "Who has seen the wind?"
  8. 1 point
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
  11. 1 point
    Can anyone demonstrate this (icon remains) happening? Or give an example? If so, please do so. This is, as they say, false -- a false allegation. Following will be three tweets that I will have posted to test the "Icon Remains" claim/hypothesis -- while other active members may perhaps fork up supporting warrants. I will leave them up for an hour, then delete them ... to see what kind of remnant is retained once they disappear from Twitter. Members, feel free to do your own experiments here with tweets that are subsequently deleted via your Twitter account. I don't know if Jon Letendre has an active Twitter account, but expect that if he does he can then easily test his contention about 'icon remains' ...
  12. 1 point
    Why did you delete Mike's analysis, Billy? Is that what you are doing now with the old, now proven-to-be-stupid shit that you have reposted? It really doesn't get any more intellectually dishonest than that, Billy. You know, Idiot, that all of it will have to be deleted eventually if you adopt this approach. Wouldn't it be simpler to just stop posting? My best guess is that on the 23rd, Mike Rothschild posted the same content (relying on Twitter cards to populate the tweet with an image and website ID) four times or more times, with minor differences in whether an iteration included an @somebody or differences in whom the tweet-content was addressed to. Either he deleted one of the group or he addressed one of the several to a Twitter account that blocked him shortly thereafter. This can sometimes result in an AI-deletion, from my experience. There may be another explanation that escapes me. I changed nothing in the tweet that appears to have agitated an OL member. This is I think most likely to be the tweet-content at issue: 11:16 AM 12:07 PM 12:42 PM
  13. 1 point
    I have changed nothing in the comment above. When I checked just now in several browsers, the OL software attempts to fill in the tweet code and display it, but fails and shows nothing. This could mean that the original tweet (from around or before the 23rd) was deleted by Mike or was hobbled by some Twitter AI. I made a mistake in assuming Jon Letendre was yapping about the later tweet. My bad. I'll try to track down the tweet-hole or tweet that Mike may have altered or retweeted or what have you. I did nothing to alter the comment being yapped about. For those who care about the content of the tweet that is not showing up, this link leads to Twitter Advanced Search results for Mike's tweets between the 22nd and 24th of September 2019. If Michael is paying attention to this wee ruckus, he can examine the HTML of the comment in question -- and discover the code inside it (which I have no access to) and perhaps what the OL software is attempting to do with the 'invisible in browser' code.
  14. 1 point
    I gave readers a straightforward explanation -- how to make sure a quote will comprise a tweet from an earlier comment. The Mike Rothschild tweet remains where it was posted. Nothing was deleted. Intelligent readers will most likely accept a parsimonious explanation -- that the attempted quote failed to include the 'white-space' following the embedded tweet -- and thus failed to show. Anyone can check to see if the "missing" tweet is still there ...
  15. 1 point
    Russian goals ... Senate Intel Committee Releases Bipartisan Report on Russia’s Use of Social Media. Full-text PDF: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
  18. 1 point
    Frederick Brennan has an opinion about 8kun:
  19. 1 point
    "Did you delete Mike's analysis?" No. It is where it was -- embedded in the comment on the previous page. When we quote a post containing an embedded tweet, we need to include in our selection the 'white space' that follows the tweet. Eg, Voici ...
  20. 1 point
    There are no coincidences ... It will be interesting to see the roll-out of OLer comment on Syria's travails, in light of the Turkish desire to push the SDF out of areas under its present control. The hoopla is besides the point, I think. The confusion is the key. Cui bono and all that ... The President said it all: "[Turkey's] long-planned operation into Northern Syria" ... I encourage commenters-in-waiting to orient themselves to the 'long-planned operation.' Folks with long-standing interest in the area will have the advantage in putting names to acronyms: SDF, PYD, KRG, PKK, KDP ...
  21. 1 point
    Some of us have gotten off the perpetual war bus and are happy for getting out of Syria.
  22. 1 point
    It looks like today is Syria Day in the White House ... Grand Supreme Hoopla!
  23. 1 point
    Visual pastiche on the "Greenbaum Speech," a touchstone of theory undergirding iatrogenic harms in therapy, during the Satanic Ritual Abuse memory wars. Key words: Corydon Hammond, Bennett Braun, Judith Peterson.
  24. 1 point
    Surprise surprise, the two grifters are offering the same material two weeks later ... Sather, Nemos. This time there is a bit of news via the 8chan folks: Bonus: young Mike Rothschild utters intemperate criticism ...
  25. 1 point
    This old piece popped up for me today. Truth: "There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious." ----- Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. iStockphoto 7.3K1.1K By JAY RICHARDS Published on April 19, 2017 • 168 Comments Jay Richards This week’s March for Science is odd. Marches are usually held to defend something that’s in peril. Does anyone really think big science is in danger? The mere fact that the March was scheduled for Earth Day betrays what the event is really about: politics. The organizers admitted as muchearly on, though they’re now busy trying to cover the event in sciencey camouflage. If past is prologue, expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on catastrophic climate change this week. The purpose of this claim is to shut up skeptical non-scientists. How should non-scientists respond when told about this consensus? We can’t all study climate science. But since politics often masquerades as science, we need a way to tell one from the other. “Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink? Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are prone to herd instincts. Many false ideas once enjoyed consensus. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternativesto their view. Question the paradigm, and some respond with anger. We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone who thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best ignored. So how do we distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? And how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Do we have to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it? Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. I don’t know of any complete list of signs of suspicion. But here’s a checklist to decide when you can, even should, doubt a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be leery. (1) When different claims get bundled together Usually, in scientific disputes, there’s more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there’s the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There’s also the claim that we are the main cause of it, that it’s going to be catastrophic, and that we must transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different claims based on different evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn’t evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet and Newfoundland become a popular place to tan: That wouldn’t tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause. There’s a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There’s even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four claims are often bundled together. So, if you doubt one, you’re labeled a climate change “skeptic” or “denier.” That’s dishonest. When well-established claims are tied with other, more controversial claims, and the entire bundle is labeled “consensus,” you have reason for doubt. (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate Personal attacks are common in any dispute. It’s easier to insult than to the follow the thread of an argument. And just because someone makes an ad hominem argument, it doesn’t mean that their conclusion is wrong. But when the personal attacks are the first out of the gate, don your skeptic’s cap and look more closely at the data. When it comes to climate change, ad hominems are everywhere. They’re even smuggled into the way the debate is described. The common label “denier” is one example. This label is supposed to call to mind the charge of columnist Ellen Goodman: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious. (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line The famous Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union is example of politics trumping good science. But it’s not the only way politics can override science. There’s also a conspiracy of agreement, in which assumptions and interests combine to give the appearance of objectivity where none exists. This is even more forceful than a literal conspiracy enforced by a dictator. Why? Because it looks like the agreement reflects a fair and independent weighing of the evidence. Tenure, job promotions, government grants, media accolades, social respectability, Wikipedia entries, and vanity can do what gulags do, only more subtly. Alexis de Tocqueville warned of this almost two centuries ago. The power of the majority in American society, he wrote, could erect “formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.” He could have been writing about climate science. Indeed, the quickest way for scientists to put their careers at risk is to raise even modest questions about climate doom (see here, here and here). Scientists are under pressure to toe the party line on climate change and receive many benefits for doing so. That’s another reason for suspicion. (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish Though it has its limits, the peer-review process is meant to provide checks and balances. At its best, it helps weed out bad and misleading work, and make scientific research more objective. But when the same few people review and approve each other’s work, you get conflicts of interest. This weakens the case for the supposed consensus. It becomes, instead, another reason for doubt. Those who follow the climate debate have known for years about the cliquish nature of publishing and peer review in climate science (see here for example). (5) When dissenters are excluded from the peer-reviewed journals not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but to marginalize them. Besides mere cliquishness, the “peer review” process in climate science has, in some cases, been subverted to prevent dissenters from being published. Again, those who follow the debate have known about these problems for years. But the Climategate debacle in 2009 revealed some of the gory details for the broader public. And again, this gives the lay public a reason to doubt the consensus. (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented We’ve been told for years that the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous in its support for human-induced climate change. In Science, Naomi Oreskes even produced a “study” of the literature supposedly showing “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” In fact, there are plenty of dissenting papers in the literature. This is despite mounting evidence that the peer-review deck was stacked against them. The 2009 Climategate scandal underscored this: The climate scientists at the center of the controversy complained in their emails about dissenting papers that survived the peer-review booby traps they put in place. They even fantasized about torpedoing a climate science journal that dared to publish a dissenting article. (7) When consensus is declared before it even exists A well-rooted scientific consensus, like a mature oak, needs time to grow. Scientists have to do research, publish articles, read about other research, and repeat experiments (where possible). They need to reveal their data and methods, have open debates, evaluate arguments, look at the trends, and so forth, before they can come to agreement. When scientists rush to declare a consensus — when they claim a consensus that has yet to form — this should give everyone pause. In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.” In the real 1992, however, Gallup “reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.” Seventeen years later, in 2009, Gore revised his own fake history. He claimed that the debate over human-induced climate change had raged until as late as 1999, but now there was true consensus. Of course, 2009 is when Climategate broke, reminding us that what had smelled funny was indeed rotten. (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus It makes sense that chemists over time may come to agree about the results of some chemical reaction, since they can repeat the results over and over in their own labs. They’re easy to test. But much of climate science is not like that. The evidence is scattered and hard to track. It’s often indirect, imbedded in history and laden with theory. You can’t rerun past climate to test it. And the headline-grabbing claims of climate scientists are based on complex computer models that don’t match reality. These models get their input, not from the data, but from the scientists who interpret the data. This isn’t the sort of evidence that can provide the basis for a well-founded consensus. In fact, if there really were a consensus on the many claims around climate science, that would be suspicious. Thus, the claim of consensus is a bit suspect as well. (9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution In Newsweek’s April 28, 1975, issue, science editor Peter Gwynne claimed that “scientists are almost unanimous” that global cooling was underway. Now we are told, “Scientists say global warming will lead to the extinction of plant and animal species, the flooding of coastal areas from rising seas, more extreme weather, more drought and diseases spreading more widely.” “Scientists say” is ambiguous. You should wonder: “Which ones?” Other times this vague company of scientists becomes “SCIENCE.” As when we’re told “what science says is required to avoid catastrophic climate change.” “Science says” is a weasely claim. “Science,” after all, is an abstract noun. It can’t speak. Whenever you see these phrases used to imply a consensus, it should trigger your baloney detector. (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies Imagine hundreds of world leaders and NGOS, science groups, and UN functionaries gathered for a meeting. It’s heralded as the most important conference since World War II, in which “the future of the world is being decided.” These officials seem to agree that institutions of “global governance” need to be set up to reorder the world economy and restrict energy use. Large numbers of them applaud wildly when socialist dictators denounce capitalism. Strange activism surrounds the gathering. And we are told by our president that all of this is based, not on fiction, but on science — that is, a scientific consensus that our greenhouse gas emissions are leading to climate catastrophe. We don’t have to imagine that scenario, of course. It happened at the UN climate meeting in Copenhagen, in December 2009. It happened again in Paris, in December 2015. Expect something at least as zany at the March for Science. Now, none of this disproves climate doom. But it does describe a setting in which truth need not appear. And at the least, when policy effects are so profound, the evidence should be rock solid. “Extraordinary claims,” the late Carl Sagan often said, “require extraordinary evidence.” When the megaphones of consensus insist that there’s no time, that we have to move, MOVE, MOVE!, you have a right to be wary. (11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as fairly as possible Do I really need to elaborate on this point? (12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus A consensus should be based on solid evidence. But a consensus is not itself the evidence. And with well-established scientific theories, you never hear about consensus. No one talks about the consensus that the planets orbit the sun, that the hydrogen molecule is lighter than the oxygen molecule, that salt is sodium chloride, that bacteria sometimes cause illness, or that blood carries oxygen to our organs. The very fact that we hear so much about a consensus on climate change may be enough to justify suspicion. To adapt that old legal rule, when you’ve got solid scientific evidence on your side, you argue the evidence. When you’ve got great arguments, you make the arguments. When you don’t have solid evidence or great arguments, you claim consensus.
  26. 1 point
    Freshly published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, Elizabeth Loftus, Steven Jay Lynn and Scott O Lilienfeld are joined with several other authors for "The Return of the Repressed: The Persistent and Problematic Claims of Long-Forgotten Trauma.' Full text PDF is unlocked at the Sage site.
  27. 1 point
    Filthy talk nonsense from traitor bag of shit Maxine.
  28. 1 point
    Here's a quick audio-tweet of the alternative-media fellow called Josh Bernstein. He calls for torturing traitorous Democrats. I mean, why not?
  29. 1 point
    Major persuasion fail ... Poll: Majority of Americans say impeachment inquiry into Trump is necessary
  30. 1 point
    While we are exploring the landscape of possibility: EXPOSED: George SOROS Is Behind the ‘Whistleblower’ Complaint!!!
  31. 1 point
    “Abused your position” ”incompatible with your duty” The Constitution provides expulsion with 2/3rds vote of his House colleagues. Could Diddler be out on the street by next week?
  32. 1 point
    Dustin Nemos and Jordan Sather are each proposing a probable set of events, touching on similar topics. The biggest news from Jordan is the 'return of Q' ... via the 8chan owner Watkins. "Biden for Treason2020, Q Justice Phases, Mass Arrests, Trends ... " Young Jordan ... "8chan Coming Back? - Calls for Impeachment - Biden & Ukraine - Flynn Case News ..."
  33. 1 point
    Skeptic editor Michael Shermer in conversation with Peter Boghossian:
  34. 1 point
    She's better than Billy at serving up tasty steamed octopus! Dayyam! People are DYING!!!! Fuckers need to be punished right goddamned now for future catastrophes! We can't wait. Immediate pain to the grups for what they done to Greta's childhood and her future of doom. J
  35. 1 point
  36. 1 point
  37. 1 point
    Consistency and hobgoblins ... Arrhenius! I wonder if Greta has bloodlines in common with Tyndall and Fourier as well ... the Gang Buster in Chief may know something:
  38. 1 point
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  39. 1 point
    Blah blah blah... Jail is not jail if you don't use the word sentence... Right... What a crock. I'm actually glad this happened. By jailing Manafort before the trial, The Swamp has openly declared war--using guns--on President Trump. Now he can act against them as the one attacked. Now we will see who has the larger reach and influence with America's armed forces and law enforcement. As the saying goes in Brazil, the bird who swallows stones better know the size of its own asshole... Michael
  40. 0 points
    So strange that all of you are still dutiful followers of “QAnon believers.” Why do you care, why does M Roths follow so carefully the thoughts of “believers” in a pimply kid in his mom’s basement who you are certain was successfully and permanently silenced over two months ago?
  41. 0 points
    So Q been snuffed out for good, then , huh retard? I’m shattered. 😀 I do wonder why this is so wonderful to all you morons who have always “known” it was just a punk kid in his mom’s basement, anyway. Why so much celebration over shutting down one punk kid in his mom’s basement? Something isn’t adding up.
  42. 0 points
    Mike Rothschild has some analysis ...