Twitter....... is a twit.

I have always been opposed to Twitter, mainly because of how obsessed people become over it. It's an unhealthy environment because people feel protected by the supposed "anonymity" that comes from hiding behind a computer and so they post highly ludicrous and offensive things, then get "triggered" when people call them out.

Despite all that, an experiment was done recently. The aim was to find out if there was any truth to the supposed "left-wing bias" that has led to Trump's "Social Media Executive Order". And so, a new account was created, a number of left- and right-wing people and news channels were followed, and some posts were created.

The posts were not designed to spread fake news, misinformation, or even a political agenda, simply the truth and the irony of certain viewpoints. (Incidentally, the next few posts on this blog will be like that.)

One post read:

Hitler orders rounding up and killing of Jews (a minority).
The Chinese Communist Party round up, torture, kill and organ harvest minorities (Falun Gong, Muslims, Christians, etc.)
Yet Trump is worse because some people died from a virus out of his control???

As mentioned previously, nothing untruthful about it. Fake news media (e.g. CNN) frequently degrade and demean Trump. I heard one news spokesperson describe Trump as "literally Hitler". Apart from the complete linguistic inaccuracy of the word "literally", it just simply isn't true: Trump has not killed 6 million people, Jews or otherwise, by gassing or otherwise. Trump has had no control over who lives and who dies in the pandemic. Blaming him is idiotic. You might as well blame you mother, for all the truth it would be.

Another post contained the following picture (from a CNN article):

and criticised CNN by highlighting that their opposition to Trump's "Executive Order" suggests that they should be allowed to continue editing their articles in "bad faith".

Anyway, The experiment lasted less than 12 hours, as the account was locked. But here's where it gets darker.

Twitter wants your phone number. The way to unlock an account is to provide them with a phone number.

Why do they need this?

From a brief search on the internet, Twitter wants to be able to track people. You should never need to provide your phone number for a service that can be used entirely on the computer. I understand if it is being used on a phone, but not if the user intends to only use it off a phone.

Hence, Twitter......... is a twit.

But it gets worse!

Twitter has a privacy policy that says that private information, such as personal phone numbers shouldn't be shared. But they want your phone number. So a user has to give away something that the company views and non-shareable private data, in order to use their "service". What hypocrisy!!

Hence, Twitter......... is a twit.

But certain things are not in violation of the policy, such as sharing "gossip, rumour, accusations and allegations". In other words, while you are not allowed to abuse or harass people (as per this policy), you are perfectly at liberty to spread false information and accusations about people. (A nice policy to allow people to spread hatred and misinformation against Trump.) What hypocrisy!!

Hence, Twitter......... is a twit.

And to top it all off, in the name of "authenticity":
"You may not use Twitter’s services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people’s experience on Twitter."
And yet Twitter chose to "fact-check" Trump when he said something truthful, by sending people to the all-reliable fact-checkers known as CNN (yes, that's sarcasm). CNN have a reputation of hatred and animosity towards Trump, which are meant to be the sort of things mentioned in Twitter's policies... What hypocrisy!!

And, of course, Twitter also says:
"You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections. This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress voter turnout or mislead people about when, where, or how to vote."
Well, the amount of blocked content, suppressed tweets and the number of people that want Trump banned from Twitter are all attempts to interfere in the upcoming election. So far Twitter hasn't banned Trump, but they are mighty close to this line.

Hence, Twitter......... is a twit.

And Jack Dorsey is an idiot.

I shall not be joining Twitter. Especially not if they want my number.

Australian bushfires

I live in Australia. I've had so many people (who aren't in Australia) telling me how bad the fires are and how all of Australia's ablaze. So far, I've had 3 smokey days. In order to look at my area on the "fires near me" apps, I have to zoom right in. There are no fires nearby. There are a few big ones, but all the tiny ones aren't worth bothering about.  There was one about 40 km away, but it seems like that one has burned out, especially with recent rain.

 

Here's what you have to consider:

1. Any fire that gets reported will make it onto the app, as a safety precaution. This happens before firemen can go check it out and determine the real severity. Many of them are simple house fires. "Simple" because someone let their frying pan catch light or something like that. Such a fire will make it onto the app, and it will remain there for a while (sometimes even more than a day), even though the fire is no danger and was put out within 20 mins. Also, when that fire is put onto the app, it will be labelled as "out of control" because a fireman has not investigated it yet, not because the fire really is out of control.

2. The large fires aren't actually as big as the maps make out. Think about it: fire cannot burn a piece of wood indefinitely. At some point the wood burns up. These big fires are only a danger where the front of the fire is. People are returning to their homes (or what may be left of them) when the fire has passed. Just because a map shows a big area with a fire symbol, that just indicates the affected area, not how big the fire is.

3. On most maps, the fire symbols are all the same size. You can have a 400,000ha area fire with one fire symbol. You can also have a frying pan fire with the exact same fire symbol.

4. Due to the long drought, the bush is very, very dry. There is also a lot of fuel (i.e. wood and leaves) on the ground, more than usual because some areas haven't had the much-needed fires for many years. This is not climate change, it's just how the conditions currently are (if you roll a double six on a pair of normal dice, then another double six straight after, does that mean the dice are biased? No, because it's all about probabilities).

5. Bushfires are natural and part of the ecosystem. There was a fire near me last year (on the other side of the bay: I could pretty much see it from my house), and that area is now seeing some really good new growth. You can hardly tell there was a fire there. Yes, it is sad at how many animals are being affected, but unfortunately that's just the way it is at the moment. Yes it's a particularly bad fire season, but it'll pass, and the next few fire seasons will likely be much, much easier (but of course, that won't make the news).

6. People who live in bush areas that are prone to bushfires are just like people who live in tornado alley in the US, or who live on flood plains, or who live in earthquake zones, or near volcanoes. It's just the way it is. If they don't like it, then my advice to them is: move house!!

Here's an interesting video on how the international news, and people on social media, are twisting the reality to either push the "climate alarmism" agenda or to generate clicks:

 

Climate stupidity

Did you know that your contribution to climate change is based on how rich you are?
Obviously, if you are rich, you are able to get your car fixed so it doesn't blow out lots of black smoke.
Obviously, if you are rich, you can invest in renewable energy ideas like solar panels.
Obviously, if you are rich, you have many options available to you in order to reduce your "carbon footprint" because money is no object.

Well, apparently you would be wrong.

By being rich, you must therefore be contributing far more to climate change... not because of your lifestyle, but because you're rich.

What counts as "rich"? It's some arbitrary value someone made up.

Why do most people "know that climate change is mainly caused by rich people"? Because they assume that every rich person has a private jet that they use to go shopping with every day.

Why is climate change "mostly suffered by the poor"? Well, there's no real reason... it's just something they made up because they don't like the idea that some people have more money. If they can claim that poverty is a result of climate change (instead of poor life choices or poor circumstances a person was born into), then they can claim victimhood and reparations for year - decades - to come!!

What a victory!

And this is why I opposed the "global climate strike" on 20th September 2019. It's nonsense.
It's nonsense because the solutions don't aren't proportional to what the supposed "problem" is.
The "problem" is presented as "climate change", but the "solutions" are all about getting rid of rich people.
I did my bit for the strike: instead of walking, cycling or getting a lift from a co-worker, which is what I usually do to get to work, I drove myself.

This is why kids would have been far better staying at school... they would have been able to get educated instead of getting brainwashed by the left-wing, anti-capitalist rhetoric.

Climate disaster

Here's an advert for something which I gather will be a global event.

It's idiotic.

It's idiotic from a number of perspectives.

Scientifically:

1. There are many scientists who disagree with the "common opinion". They get shut up, shut down, and some find it easier to just leave the profession rather than struggle on in the vague hope of changing minds.
2. There doesn't seem to be much said about why increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is truly bad for the environment. Sure, speculation is that it will increase the 'global' temperature, which is speculated to cause ice caps to melt, which is speculated to raise sea levels. A lot of speculation. But the earth has coped with high levels of carbon dioxide before.
3. Man-made carbon emissions are only a part of the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase. Even if all humanity cut carbon emissions, it won't prevent the rise, only delay it. (I accept that some people might consider this to be a good enough reason, although I disagree. It's only an opinion anyway.)
4. What is the 'ideal' global temperature of the earth? No one knows. It's an arbitrary number with no real scientific backing.
5. What is the 'ideal' sea level? Again, no one knows. This really is an arbitrary number entirely based on people living at the coast.

Practically:

1. Almost every society in the world is dependent on fossil fuels. Banning carbon emissions will bring civilisation to a halt (at best), likely sending it back a few hundred years. (I accept that some people don't think this matters enough, but I seriously doubt they can convince the whole of humanity.)
2. Even those who are 'true believers' continue living lives hypocritical to their beliefs: flying around the world for conferences, protests and to bring awareness to the 'problem'.
3. The amount of money which is being invested into trying to change the weather (the full cost by some proposals being in the trillions of US dollars) would be better spent helping poor people moving house from the coast to somewhere higher up, and helping island nations re-locate too. It would likely be cheaper.

Evolutionary:

1. Evolution is all about change over time. If we believe this is how all species came into existence, why must the climate be denied an evolutionary experience?

Socially:

1. The climate alarmism is just another issue that has been highly politicised and is polarising people even more.
2. The two sides of the debate interestingly seem to be divided much like the political left and right, giving the impression that the issue is more political than practical.
3. Such protests keep people out of their educational institution and out of their workplace.
4. The information provided is cleverly disguised to look like it says more than it does. (For example, find an answer to points 4 and 5 of the "Scientifically" section above.) The issue prevents people from doing their own research and finding accurate statistics, instead making people regurgitate the same logically flawed statements with no proper backing.

This protest on the 20th September is a complete waste of time. The science is far from 'settled'; the consequences exaggerated; the premises assumed; the proposed 'solutions' flawed. Children would be better off remaining in school (although, if their education is about promoting the protest, etc., then perhaps they are better off not being in school!), and adults would be better off working for the day, contributing to society and making some money.

I will not be joining people on the protest. I'd rather be 'protesting the protest'! If I meet anyone on the protest, I shall enjoy mocking them.

But animals do it too!

A number of times I've heard the argument of "But animals do it too!" when having the homosexuality debate. "Therefore," the argument goes, "it's natural."

Well, if you say so...

Animals also fight to protect the lives of their unborn young.
"Therefore," says I, "if you want homosexuality to be natural, then so is the pro-life option!"

Stop killing babies. They don't have the privilege of being born yet... and I thought liberals fought the cause of the under-privileged.

Don't be a hypocrite. Give babies a chance.

Rotten Tomatoes is clearly biased

There's been a lot of talk about Dave Chappelle's new show Sticks and Stones. A lot of people really like it, but apparently "those who matter" don't like it.

The reason? Because it offends their precious sensitivities.
It's crazy. I'm not a fan of Jimmy Carr because I think his comedy goes too far and is overtly sexual. However, I think he does have some good jokes, but I can't be bothered to sit though a load of stuff I don't find funny just to hear the bits I might like.

It shows that we're all different. And that's a good thing.

Critics don't agree. They think we should all be the same. Maybe it's just that real critics have left the profession and we're just left with a bunch of idiots pushing their personal opinion.

Here's the score from Rotten Tomatoes (taken today):

And here's something else interesting:

No audience reviews? But see what happens when you click on the link:

It seems to me that Rotten Tomatoes is just waiting for a negative review to put up on the page. They don't want people to really think that Dave Chappelle is good or funny.

And that's what we call bias.

Climate Change goes progressive!

Climate "science" has been pushed so far that in order to get anything fresh, it has to appeal to the progressive agenda. This video explains.

By including progressive attitudes in so-called "science", it simply creates a bigger divide. Those people who were sceptical before will only be more sceptical. It's simply another bandwagon for the political left to jump on.

Unfortunately for those in favour, people on the political left are starting to get bored with such agendas that don't really have any practical benefits to help make life easier and/or better. For an example, look at the #WalkAway campaign in the USA.

If climate change really is as big of a threat as they are trying to make out, there needs to be real, practical solutions for all people, free from idiotic political agendas (such as the USA's Green New Deal proposal which has now been shown to be a farce). Since that isn't happening, is it really any surprise that people are sceptical?