qcnguy

That phrasing sounds like you're not yourself outraged by it. It wouldn't be surprising given the institutional attitudes seen at the BBC (and Channel 4 which got caught doing something even worse) - clearly, leftists have decided that framing politicians and publishing entirely fake news is acceptable if it's to attack right wing people.

Anyone who knows about that event and is still watching the BBC afterwards is saying they don't care about the truth of their own beliefs. Dangerous stuff.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22i...

> About 30,200 results

qcnguyon Harvard legal scholars debate the state of the U.S. constitution (2025)

Not really. SCOTUS is mostly the same people. Eight years ago was 2018, people were whipping themselves into a frenzy about Trump, not much different to today.

1. Are those topics being censored? You don't seem to know that is true, you're just making assumptions about what reach should be. They open sourced the ranking algorithm and just refreshed it - can you find any code that'd suppress these topics?

2. The media also amplifies people's interests which is why it focuses on bad news and celebrity gossip. How is this unique to social media? Why is it even bad? I wouldn't want to consume any form of media that deliberately showed me boring and irrelevant things.

It's better in all those metrics.

Go on X. Claims are being fact checked and annotated in real time by an algorithm that finds cases where ideologically opposed people still agree on the fact check. People can summon a cutting edge LLM to evaluate claims on demand. There is almost no gatekeeping so discussions show every point of view, which is fair and curious.

Compare to, I dunno, the BBC. The video you see might not even be real. If you're watching a conservative politician maybe 50 minutes were spliced out of the middle of a sentence and the splice was hidden. You hear only what they want you to hear and they gatekeep aggressively. Facts are not checked in real time by a distributed vote, LLMs are not on hand to double check their claims.

AI and social media are working well together. The biggest problem is synthetic video. But TV news has that problem too, it turns out. Just because you hear someone say some words doesn't mean that was what they actually said. So they're doing equally badly in that regard.

qcnguyon Harvard legal scholars debate the state of the U.S. constitution (2025)

Pollution doesn't make academics use terms like my truth, your truth or "indigenous ways of knowing".

The essay is written by academics who ignored all the evidence that their precious institutions are none of the things they claim to be. Universities don't care about truth. Look at how much fraud they publish. The head of Harvard was found to have plagiarised, one of her cancer labs had been publishing fraudulent papers for over a decade, the head of Stanford was also publishing fraudulent papers, you can find unlimited examples everywhere.

Universities have made zero progress on addressing this or even acknowledging the scale of it because they are immersed in post-modernist ideology, so their attitude is like, man, what even is truth? Who can really even say what's true? It's not like science is anything specific, riiiiiight, that's why we let our anthropology department claim Aboriginal beliefs about the world are just as valid as white western man's beliefs. Everyone has their own truth so how can fraud be a real thing? Smells like Republicans Pouncing!

In a Parliamentary system there needs to be either one party with a majority or a coalition that agrees to rule as one party. If one party wins a clear majority it is rare for a government to fail to pass a budget or collapse early, as it'd require the party to turn on itself. In coalitions bitter parties can indeed force early elections and it happens all the time. It's the reason European countries have such unstable politics and frequently experience government collapse, "caretaker governments", "firewalls" and long delays after an election before a government can be formed.

qcnguyon Harvard legal scholars debate the state of the U.S. constitution (2025)

It's a permanent professional army, where are you getting this stuff? Switzerland has an air force and everything. They also have a large trained citizen militia but it's supported by a backbone of a professional standing army.

qcnguyon Harvard legal scholars debate the state of the U.S. constitution (2025)

The AEC did nothing to stop the Australian government trying to criminalize the views of its political opponents, so it's not doing all that much heavy lifting.

qcnguyon Harvard legal scholars debate the state of the U.S. constitution (2025)

It did. An average of 48 percent of Supreme Court rulings from 2010 to 2018 were unanimous. Another eight percent were nearly unanimous. That happens even though justices were appointed by different parties and the issues under discussion are normally complex and contentious. Clearly they can't be a partisan body if they so regularly agree despite having different politics.

But it's not clear how long that can be sustained now. The recent appointment of KBJ takes it in that direction. She has stated in court opinions that are themselves clearly unconstitutional, like:

"Having a president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the Ph.Ds and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States… These issues should not be in presidential control."

A SCOTUS judge should not be concerned with the "best interest of the citizens". That's not her job, that's the job of politicians. Making decisions on such a basis renders SCOTUS merely another House, but one that considers itself above the others in the power rankings. And what she's asserting is that the President should have no power over the executive branch, which is what Democrats want but isn't what the constitution says.

Notice how everything I say comes with sources and facts, and every reply like yours is an ad hominem concern troll? That's how. If you want to win arguments you have to step up and respond to facts.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100113183137/https://www.indep...

Thinking that anyone who disagrees with you isn't real sounds concerning. You should see a psychiatrist about that, in case it gets worse.

Anyway. You say skeptics will vanish when we "really start" to feel the impact of it. When? Pick a date. Man up, commit. Because everyone who picked a date in the past had their beliefs invalidated. The skeptics win, every single time.

March 2000. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

You ask why. How about, because truth matters. How about, because the mitigations climate Kool-Aid drinkers demand are economy-cripplingly expensive. Those two alone are good enough reasons for anyone.

Sure, but it's not that lucky. You can't set your house on fire by adding more and more roof insulation, it's the same here. The greenhouse effect saturates, it's not linear https://www.scirp.org/pdf/acs2024144_44701276.pdf There's also lots of feedback loops. CO2 levels were much higher in the past but life thrived, it wasn't waterworld, it was just a lot greener. So it only sounds lucky because climatologists have claimed even very tiny changes can cause a crisis.

Remember, we're talking here about a gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas. CO2 wasn't measured directly before about 1960, but if you believe the ice core measurements it was about 0.02% in 1850. It would be a very fragile planet that could be tipped into disaster by a change of 0.02 percentage points in the level of a single gas.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo...

Climatologists have influence and funding because of their claims about temperature trends. But the records from individual weather stations are aggregated into regional and global timeseries by climatologists themselves, giving them intense conflicts of interest. If the graphs they computed wandered up and down in ways not linked to human activity they'd be no more important to the world than the people who classify beetles. So they have a strong incentive to edit the data as they aggregate it, and they do.

Climatology didn't really exist before WW2. From the end of the war to about 1975 the world was cooling. The then-new field discussed it extensively and projected the trend forward to predict a new ice age. See it by doing a historical Google Scholar search. Watch out that in the beginning they called it "climatic change" not "climate change".

Here's an example paper from 1973, shown in the first page of results for me but you can pick any, there are thousands and they all say the same thing: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1974...

CLIMATIC CHANGE SINCE 1950

Published in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers

ABSTRACT

The mean temperature for the Northern Hemisphere had a warming trend from 1890 to 1950 and a cooling trend since 1950. The eastern and central United States had colder temperatures in 1961–1970 than in 1931–1960

Claims like that are everywhere in the pre-1975 literature. Climatologists warned the US President to prepare America for a new ice age (https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/20...). Papers and news reports show the graphs of temperature they were using and the cooling trend is very clear. Modern temperature graphs look totally different and don't show what they were talking about. The reason is that starting around 2000 climatologists developed a culture of editing data to make it look like the world was warming. They alter the data by cooling the past and warm the present.

This has been noticed many times over the years, by different people.

Example: In 2021 NOAA announced a new global world temperature record which was lower than a previous world record they had announced. Someone queried this and NOAA told them that the temperature time series is a "reconstructed dataset", meaning every time they add a new month's data they recompute the entire historical record. This is a nonsensical violation of causality but the statement was attributed to their "climate experts". https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest...

Example: In the first decade of the century, the practice of changing temperatures was still new and rare, but recorded temperatures had stopped going up. For a few years climatologists did nothing in the hope the unpredicted pause in global warming was temporary but it continued. By 2013 Der Spiegel was reporting on the "crisis" in climatology. "Data shows global temperatures aren't rising the way climate scientists have predicted. Now the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change faces a problem: publicize these findings and encourage skeptics -- or hush up the figures." https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientist... Two years later they chose to edit the databases to delete the pause and asserted it had never happened: https://bibbase.org/network/publication/tollefson-climatecha...

The temperature record has been fake for a long time. No claims about temperature records can be trusted because they might change their mind about how hot it was on a certain day retroactively, years later.

There's billions being made from promoting the idea of a climate crisis. If you go down the road of "anyone with financial interests can't be trusted", then the number of people you can listen to is very small.

Fortunately there are a few. Climate crisis skeptics are mostly pensioners who take down bogus science for free, as a retirement hobby. It's about as close to the platonic ideal of a neutral third party as you can get. Look into them, you'll see for yourself.

It getting hotter since 1996 doesn't imply there is any climate crisis. It's also compatible with regular overlapping cycles, or with natural cycles + a small amount of change from CO2 levels that doesn't rise to the level of being a problem.

The temperature records are genuinely fraudulent. Investigate them in detail and anyone will see that it's true. They overstate the amount of warming considerably and try to hide the actual cycles that they once showed before climatologists started rewriting the past. But that also isn't incompatible with there being some warming. Probably the world got warmer since 1975, but before then it was getting cooler. That's why there was so much discussion of global cooling between 1945-1975. It's a history incompatible with industrialization having big effects.

No, the whole USSR had exit visas but it was resource rich. Russia still is. It's not the case that the USSR's only resource was labor.

https://www.amazon.de/-/en/SPIEGEL-Nichts-gelernt-Jahre-Bund...

You're doing exactly what I said you'd do. Zero shame. Morality is not just a matter of opinion.

> the issue was not "criticizing COVID authoritarianism" as such, but the use of a banned symbol under 86a StGB

Of course it was the issue. German media puts swastikas on things without any legal problems when they are government aligned.

It's only people criticizing the left who get prosecuted under such laws. That's deliberate.

> Which specific law were they convicted under?

Germany forbids insulting politicians, and German politicians use it extensively. Habek has filed criminal complaints against over 800 people. The German Chancellor has probably filed thousands of such complaints given the numbering of the case files.

From a German court order:

At a time that cannot now be determined more precisely, in the days or weeks before 20 June 2024, the accused published an image file using his account that showed a portrait of the Federal Minister of Economic Affairs with the words “professional moron” … in order to defame Robert Habeck in general and to make his work as a member of the federal government more difficult.

The public prosecutor's office affirms the public interest in criminal prosecution.

This is punishable as defamation directed against persons of political life in accordance with §§ 185, 188 para. 1, 194 StGB. ...

qcnguyon Justice Dept. launches criminal investigation of Minnesota governor

Yeah, it was filmed from three different angles. She was told to drive, she drove into him, he ended up with internal bleeding. You can see the moment she looks right at him and hits the gas.

It is absolutely frightening that you lot can watch something so physically simple and somehow not understand what happened.

Only if they get into power? I mean what's your reading of the last few centuries of history?

We're talking about North Korea executing children because their family members escaped. Doesn't get more left wing than North Korea. Not a good look to deploy a stock reply without thinking.

Dark patterns and slop aren't well defined terms. Engagement resulting in negative emotional states is not obviously a problem. Social studies academics pretend it is, but have no trouble with people consuming state TV news even if it shows them a constant stream of bad news stories.

Nice try. The German constitution is a poor document and doesn't protect political opinion, so your "constitutionally protected" political opinion caveat just makes it useless. You'd just defend every example with "our constitution allows that" rather than recognizing that it just means the constitution itself is wrong.

Example: the American author CJ Hopkins has been repeatedly prosecuted in Berlin despite being acquitted the first time, because in Germany there's apparently no constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. His "crime" was criticizing COVID authoritarianism. You're now going to tell me why the German constitution allows this, and incorrectly use that as a moral justification.

You're still an immigrant even if you can't become a citizen.