Gawker will shut down next week

[Evil Yoda]

Univision bought many of the company's sites, but Gawker.com did not fit into its plans. Gawker.com will be shuttered and Nick Denton will move on to other projects. This is the culmination of Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against the site, which published a video of him having sex with a friend's wife (well, maybe a former friend now). Gawker's a site written sleezily for sleezy people, but... the interesting twist is that Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal, bankrolled the lawsuit (presumably to ensure a lawyer would accept it). How much of Hogan's settlement Thiel will claim is unclear. But his motivation is very clear: about ten years ago, a Gawker site called Valleywag outed him as gay, something he felt would cause him problems with wealthy Saudis and other highly conservative figures who might not wish to invest in his hedge fund. According to Gawker founder Nick Denton, Thiel promised revenge, and thanks to his billions, he has delivered. (Thiel is bankrolling other lawsuits against Gawker as well.)

Thiel clearly believes that the wealthy should have the power to crush stories about them that they do not like. That's disturbing. He's also a libertarian who believes women should not have the vote, and who wants to form his own country in the ocean (for those who don't like the SPLC, hit Google - the story's all over). One thing's for sure: if he manages to create his seagoing utopia, and then pirates come for him, who will he turn to for help? Because if the Navy better not send so much as a dinghy to assist him.

[kemmer]

I dunno. I kinda figure what consenting adults do sexually ain't nobody's business but their own.

If a gay man wants to keep his sexual preferences private, the site that "outs" him, against his will, ought to be sued.

If it happened to me, I'd want revenge, too.

I don't think one can be Libertarian and keep women from voting. If he founds his Utopia, that will be his very own country. The citizens of said country will have to cobble up their own Navy. I know we now allow "dual-citizenship", but that doesn't mean we automatically provide military support for all the foreign nations our dual-citizens claim allegiance to.

[Evil Yoda]

Gawker was a sleezy site.

But I find disturbing the idea that a billionaire thinks it's okay to use his money to intimidate and punish people who say things about him. The next time he might set his sights on a reporter or publication that says something he doesn't like about his business dealings, something folks need to know. Reporters, in the future, will self-censor or be censored by their editors because the owners will fear putting themselves into his crosshairs. And it sets a dangerous precedent that other billionaires will copy.

At this point I'd be happy if national comics mocked him for this level of immaturity, but I don't think it will happen.

[bobloblaw]

He's also a science denier. He thinks there is no such thing as Global Warming. He also gave $1 million to the anti immigration hate cult NumbersUSA too.

[Ranger John]

Aug 20, 2016 13:17:33 GMT -5 bobloblaw said:

He's also a science denier. He thinks there is no such thing as Global Warming. He also gave $1 million to the anti immigration hate cult NumbersUSA too.

That's some nice science denying there.

[redleg]

Aug 20, 2016 13:17:33 GMT -5 bobloblaw said:

He's also a science denier. He thinks there is no such thing as Global Warming. He also gave $1 million to the anti immigration hate cult NumbersUSA too.

So, because there is no evidence of "AGW", he's a science denier? The climate might, MIGHT, be warming. I'd be surprised if it wasn't, since we are still coming out of the Little Ice Age, but there is nothing at all anyone can do to either speed it up or stop it. It's a natural cycle, and it's been happening for 4 billion years.

[Evil Yoda]

Aug 20, 2016 19:42:47 GMT -5 redleg said:

So, because there is no evidence of "AGW", he's a science denier? The climate might, MIGHT, be warming. I'd be surprised if it wasn't, since we are still coming out of the Little Ice Age, but there is nothing at all anyone can do to either speed it up or stop it. It's a natural cycle, and it's been happening for 4 billion years.

If the petroleum industry says it, it must be true, eh?

[Ranger John]

Aug 20, 2016 21:02:20 GMT -5 Evil Yoda said:

Aug 20, 2016 19:42:47 GMT -5 redleg said:

So, because there is no evidence of "AGW", he's a science denier? The climate might, MIGHT, be warming. I'd be surprised if it wasn't, since we are still coming out of the Little Ice Age, but there is nothing at all anyone can do to either speed it up or stop it. It's a natural cycle, and it's been happening for 4 billion years.

If the petroleum industry says it, it must be true, eh?

Given the government's track record with the truth, and their vested interest in expanding to regulate as much as possible, is the government really any more trustworthy than the petroleum industry?

[bobloblaw]

Tinfoil Hat Time.

[Ranger John]

Aug 21, 2016 10:35:57 GMT -5 bobloblaw said:

Tinfoil Hat Time.

So you think government has no motivation to make up bogus statistics, and that only corporations do?

Tinfoil hat time indeed.

[Evil Yoda]

Aug 21, 2016 6:10:08 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

Given the government's track record with the truth, and their vested interest in expanding to regulate as much as possible, is the government really any more trustworthy than the petroleum industry?

Our government isn't very trustworthy.

However, many scientists who are not affiliated with it also seem to believe climate change is occurring. I find it impossible to dismiss all of them because the fossil fuel industry has convinced the Republicans to endorse a contrary view for reasons of self-interest.

[Ranger John]

Aug 21, 2016 11:46:46 GMT -5 Evil Yoda said:

Aug 21, 2016 6:10:08 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

Given the government's track record with the truth, and their vested interest in expanding to regulate as much as possible, is the government really any more trustworthy than the petroleum industry?

Out government isn't very trustworthy.

However, many scientists who are not affiliated with it also seem to believe climate change is occurring. I find it impossible to dismiss all of them because the fossil fuel industry has convinced the Republicans to endorse a contrary view for reasons of self-interest.

Sorry, but they are associated with our government. Where do you think their funding comes from? If we've learned anything from the green e-mail scandal a few years back, these scientists have created a giant echo chamber they shout at each other in with the goal of silencing anyone who disagrees. And there are scientists who disagree. Science isn't done by majority vote.

[Evil Yoda]

Aug 21, 2016 11:51:41 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

Sorry, but they are associated with our government. Where do you think their funding comes from? If we've learned anything from the green e-mail scandal a few years back, these scientists have created a giant echo chamber they shout at each other in with the goal of silencing anyone who disagrees. And there are scientists who disagree. Science isn't done by majority vote.

All the scientists in other countries? Who knew our involvement was so vast.

Science isn't done by majority vote. It's done by experimentation, and there will always be some who aren't convinced. In this case, mostly those are the scientists employed by people who produce or use fossil fuels.

Surely you remember the tame scientists who worked for the tobacco industry who strove mightily to convince folks cigarettes weren't dangerous. And before them, tame scientists worked for the gasoline industry and tried to convince the world leaded gasoline wasn't dangerous. Some of the climate change supporters are tame scientists who are advancing the government's agenda. But many are not. As far as I can tell, most of the scientists who say climate change isn't occurring or isn't man-caused work with or for companies that produce or use fossil fuels.

[bobloblaw]

Don't worry, Don the Con is going to rebuild the 50+ coal firing power stations that have been demolished this year in order to put the coal miners back to work!

[Ranger John]

Aug 21, 2016 11:57:54 GMT -5 Evil Yoda said:

Aug 21, 2016 11:51:41 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

Sorry, but they are associated with our government. Where do you think their funding comes from? If we've learned anything from the green e-mail scandal a few years back, these scientists have created a giant echo chamber they shout at each other in with the goal of silencing anyone who disagrees. And there are scientists who disagree. Science isn't done by majority vote.

All the scientists in other countries? Who knew our involvement was so vast.

Those scientists are mostly funded by their own governments or the UN... Which is mostly funded by our government.

Science isn't done by majority vote. It's done by experimentation, and there will always be some who aren't convinced. In this case, mostly those are the scientists employed by people who produce or use fossil fuels.

This would mean more if the predictions of the scientists were frequently accurate. Or they didn't define the thing they're studying down to a meaningless concept like "climate change". This is a tell that you're dealing with a scam. The Earth's climate has never been static. It probably will never be static. Climate change is perfectly normal. The concern is how is it changing and why. When you get into those details, there's a great deal of disagreement among scientists. But governments have gone to great lengths to paint a picture that will allow them to regulate carbon... A basic element that is necessary for all life on Earth. Which brings me to...

Surely you remember the tame scientists who worked for the tobacco industry who strove mightily to convince folks cigarettes weren't dangerous. And before them, tame scientists worked for the gasoline industry and tried to convince the world leaded gasoline wasn't dangerous. Some of the climate change supporters are tame scientists who are advancing the government's agenda. But many are not. As far as I can tell, most of the scientists who say climate change isn't occurring or isn't man-caused work with or for companies that produce or use fossil fuels.

I do indeed remember them. I would argue that they are currently working for the government and UN. After all, those organizations now see a way to regulate a basic element that is necessary for all life on Earth, and are outspending their petroleum industry counterparts by several orders of magnitude to convince people one of the substances they exhale is toxic and must be regulated.

Those tame tobacco industry scientists are indeed still with us. They're on the green side.

[Ranger John]

Aug 21, 2016 12:12:47 GMT -5 bobloblaw said:

Don't worry, Don the Con is going to rebuild the 50+ coal firing power stations that have been demolished this year in order to put the coal miners back to work!

The Cryptkeeper's older sister will close down the remaining coal plants and put the rest of those nasty coal miners on the unemployment line. It really is shocking that any organized labor organization still supports the Democrats. That party hates the working class.

[bobloblaw]

LOL Because the Unions should back Don the Con when he used undocumented workers to remove asbestos in his buildings at 1/10th of what they were supposed to be paid?

[Ranger John]

Aug 21, 2016 12:51:31 GMT -5 bobloblaw said:

LOL Because the Unions should back Don the Con when he used undocumented workers to remove asbestos in his buildings at 1/10th of what they were supposed to be paid?

Cheeto Jesus employs a very large number of union employees. The Cryptkeeper's older sister plans on ending their livelihood. So yes, unions would be incredibly stupid to back Frau Farbissina. But they will anyway, because they're not interested in helping their membership, and they're every bit as corrupt as she is.

[Evil Yoda]

Aug 21, 2016 12:38:32 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

Those scientists are mostly funded by their own governments or the UN... Which is mostly funded by our government.

So there's a vast, worldwide conspiracy to make life difficult for the petroleum industry? Is that what you're saying?

Aug 21, 2016 12:38:32 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

This would mean more if the predictions of the scientists were frequently accurate. Or they didn't define the thing they're studying down to a meaningless concept like "climate change". This is a tell that you're dealing with a scam. The Earth's climate has never been static. It probably will never be static. Climate change is perfectly normal. The concern is how is it changing and why. When you get into those details, there's a great deal of disagreement among scientists. But governments have gone to great lengths to paint a picture that will allow them to regulate carbon... A basic element that is necessary for all life on Earth. Which brings me to...

Or it means the models are still evolving. But I'll give you credit; you've got the opposing talking points well memorized.

The tame scientists are those who work for corporations, where the only important rule is: make money. Truth is of value only if it promotes that goal. By definition, a scientist working for a corporation must be less trustworthy, as he has only that goal. A scientist working for the government may be untrustworthy to the extent that he is going to try to get grant money. But there is at least a chance he's honest.

There are problems with the scientific community, but mostly they are caused by people who want to make money, find scientific conclusions that interfere with that inconvenient, and take the necessary public relations actions to move people around. And by people, I mean "Republicans". Republicans have had an adversarial relationship with science for decades; it's one of the reasons I left the party.

[Ranger John]

Aug 21, 2016 18:58:31 GMT -5 Evil Yoda said:

Aug 21, 2016 12:38:32 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

Those scientists are mostly funded by their own governments or the UN... Which is mostly funded by our government.

So there's a vast, worldwide conspiracy to make life difficult for the petroleum industry? Is that what you're saying?

No. There's a vast worldwide conspiracy to end the entire fossil fuel industry, called the "Green Movement." They're very open about what it is they're trying to do. End coal mining. Forbid Keystone XL. Stop fracking. You name it, if it's energy derived from fossil fuels, they're trying every trick in the book to stop it. Remember everything Obama has said about it... from bankrupting anyone who wants to build a coal fired electrical plant, to making energy prices 'necessarily skyrocket.'

Aug 21, 2016 12:38:32 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

This would mean more if the predictions of the scientists were frequently accurate. Or they didn't define the thing they're studying down to a meaningless concept like "climate change". This is a tell that you're dealing with a scam. The Earth's climate has never been static. It probably will never be static. Climate change is perfectly normal. The concern is how is it changing and why. When you get into those details, there's a great deal of disagreement among scientists. But governments have gone to great lengths to paint a picture that will allow them to regulate carbon... A basic element that is necessary for all life on Earth. Which brings me to...

Or it means the models are still evolving. But I'll give you credit; you've got the opposing talking points well memorized.

If this is the case, then we sure as hell shouldn't be making decisions based on those models. Either the scientists understand what they're trying to model (which would make the models reliable), or they don't. The models aren't reliable, so clearly the scientists don't understand what they're trying to model. It's ok to not understand something. Just not to pretend you do when you don't.

The tame scientists are those who work for corporations, where the only important rule is: make money. Truth is of value only if it promotes that goal. By definition, a scientist working for a corporation must be less trustworthy, as he has only that goal. A scientist working for the government may be untrustworthy to the extent that he is going to try to get grant money. But there is at least a chance he's honest.

There are problems with the scientific community, but mostly they are caused by people who want to make money, find scientific conclusions that interfere with that inconvenient, and take the necessary public relations actions to move people around. And by people, I mean "Republicans". Republicans have had an adversarial relationship with science for decades; it's one of the reasons I left the party.

The ones working for the government only have one important rule as well: consolidate power. Money is less of a corrupting force.

Either way though, whether a scientist thinks he's honest or not doesn't really matter. In this case, what matters is whether or not he understands the system he's trying to model. So far, the simple reality is, no one has demonstrated they understand the Earth's climate well enough to accurately model it. Until that happens, it's garbage in-garbage out.

[redleg]

Aug 20, 2016 21:02:20 GMT -5 Evil Yoda said:

Aug 20, 2016 19:42:47 GMT -5 redleg said:

So, because there is no evidence of "AGW", he's a science denier? The climate might, MIGHT, be warming. I'd be surprised if it wasn't, since we are still coming out of the Little Ice Age, but there is nothing at all anyone can do to either speed it up or stop it. It's a natural cycle, and it's been happening for 4 billion years.

If the petroleum industry says it, it must be true, eh?

If the government says it, it must be true, eh?
The petroleum industry has nothing to do with it. Especially since the government has decided that they should be prosecuted for daring to disagree with the Communist manifesto of "global warming". Nothing in science says there is any AGW. All of that is propaganda, made up from whole cloth to scare the low intelligence voter into surrendering all of their liberty to protect them from a myth.

[redleg]

Aug 21, 2016 11:46:46 GMT -5 Evil Yoda said:

Aug 21, 2016 6:10:08 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

Given the government's track record with the truth, and their vested interest in expanding to regulate as much as possible, is the government really any more trustworthy than the petroleum industry?

Our government isn't very trustworthy.

However, many scientists who are not affiliated with it also seem to believe climate change is occurring. I find it impossible to dismiss all of them because the fossil fuel industry has convinced the Republicans to endorse a contrary view for reasons of self-interest.

There are no scientists that are not affiliated with the government on some level spouting the propaganda. It's only government owned and operated alleged scientists that are spewing that garbage. And you seem to have a real problem with an industry under attack by it's own government trying to get the truth out to defend itself. Until not a single vehicle, building, or pair of shoes in government is affiliated in any way with petroleum will I believe a word they say on the subject.

[redleg]

Aug 21, 2016 11:57:54 GMT -5 Evil Yoda said:

Aug 21, 2016 11:51:41 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

Sorry, but they are associated with our government. Where do you think their funding comes from? If we've learned anything from the green e-mail scandal a few years back, these scientists have created a giant echo chamber they shout at each other in with the goal of silencing anyone who disagrees. And there are scientists who disagree. Science isn't done by majority vote.

All the scientists in other countries? Who knew our involvement was so vast.

Science isn't done by majority vote. It's done by experimentation, and there will always be some who aren't convinced. In this case, mostly those are the scientists employed by people who produce or use fossil fuels.

Surely you remember the tame scientists who worked for the tobacco industry who strove mightily to convince folks cigarettes weren't dangerous. And before them, tame scientists worked for the gasoline industry and tried to convince the world leaded gasoline wasn't dangerous. Some of the climate change supporters are tame scientists who are advancing the government's agenda. But many are not. As far as I can tell, most of the scientists who say climate change isn't occurring or isn't man-caused work with or for companies that produce or use fossil fuels.

The "scientists" spouting the "global warming" garbage in other countries are paid for and operated by their own governments.

[cyclegeek]

Aug 21, 2016 11:46:46 GMT -5 Evil Yoda said:

Aug 21, 2016 6:10:08 GMT -5 Ranger John said:

Given the government's track record with the truth, and their vested interest in expanding to regulate as much as possible, is the government really any more trustworthy than the petroleum industry?

Our government isn't very trustworthy.

However, many scientists who are not affiliated with it also seem to believe climate change is occurring. I find it impossible to dismiss all of them because the fossil fuel industry has convinced the Republicans to endorse a contrary view for reasons of self-interest.

I agree, but I also find it interesting that in spite of failed predictions (which Liberals never discuss) some folks continue to preach the apocalyptic predictions, and still believe that the strategy of calling people that aren't 100% all-in on global-cooling, global-warming I mean climate change "science deniers" (amount other things), is an effective way to debate the issue.

Honestly, a science denier is someone who believes that the current science on anything is set in stone.

[Ranger John]

Aug 22, 2016 7:11:58 GMT -5 cyclegeek said:

Aug 21, 2016 11:46:46 GMT -5 Evil Yoda said:

Our government isn't very trustworthy.

However, many scientists who are not affiliated with it also seem to believe climate change is occurring. I find it impossible to dismiss all of them because the fossil fuel industry has convinced the Republicans to endorse a contrary view for reasons of self-interest.

I agree, but I also find it interesting that in spite of failed predictions (which Liberals never discuss) some folks continue to preach the apocalyptic predictions, and still believe that the strategy of calling people that aren't 100% all-in on global-cooling, global-warming I mean climate change "science deniers" (amount other things), is an effective way to debate the issue.

Honestly, a science denier is someone who believes that the current science on anything is set in stone.

This is how you can tell real scientists from climate believers. Real science is skeptical by its nature. It starts from the assumption we probably don't know all there is to know. Especially about a system as complex as Earth's climate.

Believers, on the other hand, are basically faith-based. They think we understand it well enough to start doing something to make it better. Hell we haven't even been able to demonstrate global warming is a bad thing. Reason would seem to say that biological diversity is highest in the warmest parts of the world. Life seems to prefer the Earth warmer than it is.