Sunday assorted links


#4 Brazilian dishonest, leftist writer Mr. Castro types in lower case.

I am a hunt-and-pecker. I try to use upper and lower case.

I use both lower and upper case, but Brazil leads the world in lower case use.


brazil....definitely a lower-case country.

It is not like that. Some Brazilians type in lower cases.

How many is a Brazilian?

It's a unit of measure that's somewhat larger than the Roman Empire.

#1 Regarding banning in social media/online forums, what we have is a situation that gets very uneven outcomes even when starting from rules that are in no way trying to be biased. I have had a lot to do with a very long living politics forum, which has grappled with this problem forever. Rules of basic civility are set, and a group of people with a variety of political opinions and nationalities look at transgressions. Rule breakers are overwhelmingly conservative, and have been so since the GWB administration. Conservative moderators are as frustrated about this as anyone: they realize that, for some reason, a larger subset of conservatives just have either no interest or ability to follow the rules.

Historically speaking, the worse thing that happened to the forum regarding rules was the Obama presidency. Many historically well behaved conservatives started to get radicalized in ways that made them break the rules. A wave after the election, and another with the rise of Gamergate/Men’s rights movement.

Now, very recently we are seeing a spike of radicalization of liberals that is leading to them starting to even out the ratio of moderation needs, but it’s still far from even.

Our institutions are Center Left. Far Left opinions are accepted much more readily in the Public Square. Alt Right and even some mainstream Conservative opinions are not accepted in the Public Square and so they are driven to the internet to rage against the machine. Plus, an apolitical person who wants to the troll the system takes radical Alt Right positions because it's less edgy to troll with opinions that are tacitly or overtly accepted by the Mainstream.

'Our institutions are Center Left'

Not even close, as the U.S. no longer seems to have an idea of what center left even means.

To put it a bit differently, the Nixon Administration seems to be somewhere between center and far left using current measuring scales.

Center Left when compared to the opinions of the median voter in the US. I am not making comparisons with Germany or the rest of the developed world.

Right. Median voter is pro choice, in favor of taxing the rich, and want to enhance social security.

In a democracy, the median rules.

Right. Median voter who is against abortion after the first trimester, in favor a flat tax (of 15% on average), and that social security will not be a major source of retirement income (been a few years, but a majority think it will not be able to pay their benefit at all).

The median voter is pretty elusive. Depending on phrasing, timing, and a myriad of other concerns they are pretty slippery.

It is particularly troublesome to look at labels and relative positioning queries; respondents are much more likely to be signalling about something else than actually giving a reply of substance.

Your data is out of date. The median voter today is for raising taxes on the rich while the flat tax was more popular 3 years ago:

On abortion, what you and Moo cow say are both true: voters are pro-choice but less so after the first trimester.

The most recent poll I saw, from 2016 placed a flat tax as more popular than the current setup. Certainly most of the progressive tax initiatives in 2018 on state ballots failed to pass.

As far as abortion. Please.

The median pro-choice voter wants more abortion restrictions than the Democratic party supports. The current Democratic party position is opposed by something like 80% of Americans, and yes that includes the majority of Democratic voters.

Further, even within the first trimester a majority of Americans only support abortion in the events of: rape, incest, maternal health threat, and significant fetal abnormality (i.e. abortion for Down Syndrome in the first trimester lacks majority support). The current setup in the first trimester, abortion on demand, only garners about 45% support. If given their expressed will, the median American would ban over 90% of abortions currently performed (granted this depends on what you do with people who refuse to answer).

And this is the problem with this sort of thing. People say "pro-choice" because they conflate a lot of issues: access to birth control, abortion following rape, sexual freedom, etc. Similarly on taxes Americans like the idea that everyone should pay the same percentage of income ... but they also want to identify with the middle class.

It is far too easy to tweak polls and even easier to spin interpretation. It gets even worse when people intentionally punk the pollsters or use their answers to signify tribal allegiance. Never trust the top line.

Alternatively, during the Bush years, the progressive moderators twigged to the use of moderation as a tool for suppressing conservative viewpoints, and now they're having to do the same to the socialists emerging on their left. Are your moderators evenly divided left vs. right?

I don't think so. I'm a centrist who left the twitter fray long ago but still am on facebook to keep in touch with old friends and my relatives' baby pics.
I've spent years trying to get rid of political posts of all types and still they come, virtually all from "progressives." My only conservative FB friend was run off Facebook three times (before 2016) and never has come back.
I feel tainted even for participating and probably will leave soon.

+1. Noticed this exact same dynamic and I'm more of a centrist. These fringe "conservatives" should give themselves a different name because they don't follow rules which most conservatives do. You trace it to GWB but it goes further back with the introduction of Fox News.

I'm pretty skeptical. Typically, members of the chattering classes accept all sorts of anti-white vituperation because they don't want to be thought racist. So, Bob, tell me, would your forum censor the sort of leftist abuse described here? I doubt it.

With all due respect, fuck you Bob.

All of the internet tech companies are bastions of liberal dogma. If you worked at one you would know.

All of the internet tech companies skew very young. The young have been solidly indoctrinated over the last 20 years. The are further backed by laws which, when viewed through the lens of extreme progressive doctrine, are freely wielded against any descent.

So, fuck you. Thanks.

Goodness, hun. Take a walk. Ask a girl to walk with you. Maybe have coffee after.

I love you Connie


You're an idiot for getting mad at the internet.

Unless this is satire, you just proved his point.

3. Hall-Harper said the disparity is also racial. According to a citywide 2018 Gallup poll, nearly three times the percentage of black residents — 46 percent — say they have trouble finding stores that sell fresh food, compared with whites and Hispanics.

They have trouble finding stores? Supermarkets advertise extensively, they don't keep their locations and inventory a secret. Do these people having trouble finding stores suffer from some kind of sensory problem?

Now, Knox takes his business to a Sam’s Club 16 miles away. But if a grocery store were to open in District 1, he said he could spend his money locally.

Perhaps "local" has a different meaning in Tulsa. In rural South Dakota 16 miles is just down the road. Actually, 16 miles is local almost everywhere. Before the advent of the automobile, small retailers were found on every other city block. Local was different then . Is Hall-Harper saying that residents of her district don't have transportation? That they walk from home the sixteen miles to the grocer? Or maybe it's just the auto-free residents that are complaining. The ones with cars aren't making a fuss. Maybe Hall-Harper should investigate luring a bus company or taxi firm to the area.

Ultimately, this issue is about "freedom". The freedom of the business community and the freedom of consumers. Hall-Harper and her allies are a manifestation of a medieval system that has been gone so long that people haven't any awareness of what it entailed.

'Actually, 16 miles is local almost everywhere.'

Definitely not in DC. A number of other East Coast cities come to mind, but DC is really quite small.

Remember that the original food-desert research in Detroit has been debunked; there were far more grocery options than the research purported to show. It wouldn't surprise me if the same were true of Tulsa. And certainly the dollar store shown in the picture isn't especially walkable.

If none of your neighbors want fresh fruit, the store isn't going to offer fresh fruit.

If they want potato chips and doughnuts and pop, that's what they get.

I suspect this is nearly all demand-driven.

If i recall correctly, the standard for a food desert was being a mile from a grocery store. here in my middle class neighborhood we're at least 3 miles from the supermarket yet no one is concerned about the lack of food availability here.

The logic behinds the complaints escapes me. First they argue that supermarkets won't come to neighborhoods with dollar store. Really? Around here they are just blocks apart. (Yes, the supermarket was first but they do peacefully coexist.)

Then they complain about the lack of fresh produce in dollar stores. Um, I guess dollar stores are not direct competitors of grocery stores that routinely carry fresh food then.

"... have trouble finding fresh food ..."

And getting valid IDs, like driver's licenses. Maybe "fresh food" is not in demand in those neighborhoods. Not everyone eats fruit and veggies, a fetish of the cultural elite, even when the doc says they need to because of HBP, high cholesterol, and low HDLP.

These eggheads drive me crazy. The can't discern cause from effect.

I love the Dollar Store for toothpaste, toothbrushes, dental floss, deoderant, soap, shampoo, cleaning supplies, batteries, you name it. Food, not much.

Unlike elites in $150 sunglasses and yoga pants at the farmers markets, poor people have to watch every buck. They know what they are doing. Just leave them alone.

2: Pay higher rates for your electricity so that Google can pay less in taxes.

Oh my.

This is almost as good as the sales pitch for high efficiency boilers. To get the high efficiency numbers you have to melt snow on your driveway with the return water.

2. There are so many more opportunities today for Glenn Turner to screw people. He was long before his time. Dare to be Great!

I will read these links, sometimes just from the title and making inferences, and summarize them so you, dear reader, don't have to. Remember 1 minute of my time is 10 minutes for a lesser mind.

#1 - conservatives get banned more than liberals. Actually, I've been banned everywhere except this site (TC has deleted some of my posts but not banned me). BTW a good troll uses economics in their posts.

#2 - solar power is subsidized in the USA. Bonus trivia: though Germany is touted as a successful "Green" country, because 30% of their electricity comes from solar and nuclear is less than 10% and falling, in fact, both Germany and the USA get about 12% of their total energy from renewables. So strip out the solar electric panels, and you got nothing.

#3 - Say's law: does supply create demand? These anti-Dollar Store agitators seem to think so. Do they read Keynes?

#4 -c c cummings wannabes?

#5 - disappointed. I expected a chess theme post.

#6 - seems like a broken link? Got a 404 error in the sublink

#7 - India is being unreasonable with Pakistan. Without reading the article, the former is blaming the latter for a suicide bomber who blew up 30 Indian solders. The same thing happened in Iran, and Iran is not blaming anybody.
Another thing that irritates me: I notice in these developing countries, the solders are all "clusterfuck" (yes that's a military term of art) in that they cluster together on operations. It's happened in the Philippines too (Google "Philippines 44"). Don't they teach these people to spread out? I saw a video of some vigilantes in Mexico once that was the same way, a bunch of guys with guns all in a group, about a couple of dozen, doing a frontal assault en masse. Sorry dudes, there's NO 'safety in numbers'. Also that Apache helicopter massacre of those Afghan dudes including the hapless reporters. Again, clusterfuck. Any military types reading this are welcome to comment. The Greek infantry (as well as the Soviet) also used to practice "frontal en masse" assaults, which rarely work post-US Civil war. It must be instinctual to want to be part of a group.

The problem is that too many times these suicide bombings are carried outv by front groups of the Pakistani government.

The Mumbai attack in India, known nationally as 7/11, has the same weight to the Indian people as 9/11 in the US. That attack was carried out by Pakistani terrorists who, to this day, are protected by the Pakistani government, even though the government itself claims no wrongdoing.

Iran does not have a history of attacks by "terrorists" which are actually carried out by governments. I mean, maybe some of the high tech ones, like Stuxnet? But nothing else really. India does. A terrorist attack, especially in Kashmir where the Pakistani government would want to attack (to destabilize the region and take over) has a high chance of being done by the government.

"in fact, both Germany and the USA get about 12% of their total energy from renewables. So strip out the solar electric panels, and you got nothing."

Total energy from renewables in the U.S., 2%
Total energy from renewables in Germany, 13%

Wikipedia says Ray's number is correct.

@Todd K - (Wikipedia): "Renewable energy accounted for 12.2 % of total primary energy consumption and 14.94 % of the domestically produced electricity in the United States in 2016" - same as in Germany, just like I said.

The lack of NIMBYs in Texas meant that as soon as market opportunity for windmills opened up, they started putting them everywhere. While Massachusetts wouldn't let off-shore windfarms get built off of Cape Cod because it would annoy the millionaires.

It's not a lack of NIMBYs, it's a lack of urban planning and zoning regulations.

Yeeee Haawww, if you like that sort of thing. You can even have assault rifles there!

Giddy up!

Beating furor and fury, the sound of heaven itself beat its chest.

The lack of zoning is tightly coupled with the lack of NIMBYs.

Lefties and NIMBYs - synonymous - both curl their lips into a snarl and bare their teeth at the mention of Texas, unless it's about Austin.

All major cities in Texas voted for Hillary, not just Austin. Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, you name it. So no, they won't snarl at Texas. There's plenty of love for the Lone Star state. And no, not all on the left are NIMBYs there are plenty of YIMBYs particularly on the coasts that are fighting entrenched interests to put up more housing. Speaking of Texas, most along the border are against Trump's wall. In the end it might be Trump doing the snarling at Texas.

Some do not want a wall for reasons to do with wildlife (there is a substantial, though never finished, chain of parks/federal refuge land in the lower RGV, as well as chunks of private conservation land: see Bentsen - RGV State Park, for instance - people don't want to see a wall, and klieg lights, and the semi-tropical riparian habitat mowed down, there - however, you can bet TPWD doesn't want to lose the 5 or six Border Patrol vehicles hanging out there at any given time.) There are those loath to have part of their property cut off by a wall (remember, "property rights," or a certain definition thereof, are king in Texas; this is what killed Rick Perry's dream of quarter-mile wide transportation corridors all over the state); or lose access to the river, rights to which are zealously guarded, etc. And the heavily-populated lower Rio Grande is already a hybrid of Mexico and the US, tipping more toward the former. Most rural border county residents would be perfectly happy with a human chain of Border Patrol agents, however. Also: BP jobs.

The media will choose to interpret this very local, on-the-ground wall ambivalence as: see, Texans born in Texas are more than happy to die in Mexico/Central America. This is most definitely not the case outside of lefties, of which we have our share, certainly.

But there's never going to be a wall through Big Bend, anyway; so it's especially disingenuous when these reporters interview a desert rat in Terlingua about a wall in the lower RGV.

Hi Mouse!

You are nothing if not consistent.

Yes, we all know the big cities vote left - big city rats hate freedom and love an all powerful state.

It's good to remember on this President's Day that George Washington's army surrounded the British army in Boston, cutting them off from food, fuel, and hay. After building a fort on Dorchester Heights - in ONE night - the most powerful military in the world had to turn tail and run.

They ran to Canada, where all lefties threaten to run to. Then they went to New York - the collection center for all misfits.

Today, those un-American lefty communist vegetarian nudist social justice warriors are totally dependent on racist ignorant country folk for food, water, and energy. We're going to surround you, force you to surrender, and we're gonna take your Raybans, yoga pants, $7000 bicycles, and energy bars. In return, you will get to keep your lives.

It's gonna be Adrianopolis all over again.

I can't wait!

Hey dummy!

Didn't you mean "Adrianople"?

2017 US electric generation by renewables: hydro (e.g., Niagara River/Falls, etc.) - 7.4%; Zephyrs 6.3%; Sunbeams 1.3%; the rest various biomass.

The rest: Fossil fuels (nearly all nat. gas/coal) 62.9%; Nukes 20%.
From US site.

And yet, in the devil's canyon, 2 power plants on 960 acres, really only 11 dedicated to the reactors, produce 8.6 % of all the electricity consumed by a state of 40,000,000 people. All day, all night, everyday, every night, year after year, quietly humming along while delivering clean, no carbon electricity to almost 4,000,000 people.

The fuel can even be reprocessed and reused, over and over again, if we so choose.

What's not to like?

11% for US in 2017

Sorry, that should be 11 Quadtrillion BTUs out of 88 or 12.5%

Thanks for correcting me. I wonder why the site I saw said 2.4%. I should have guessed it couldn't be that low.

I suspect the number you recall is effective capacity, not energy (wind is often not available at the system peak), and probably excludes large hydro.

#3. The war against dollar stores.

WashPost is reviving the debunked "Food Desert" theory, pushed by leftist SJW's 15 years ago. That theory imagines that poor black urban areas are generally deprived of "healthy food choices" from retail grocery businesses... due to oppressive racial discrimination. Complete nonsense and thoroughly proven as such.

WashPost is shameless in its heavily biased "reporting".

Yes, if there's money to be made, money-grubbing corporations will be there to make it!

The idea that corporations are actually leaving money on the table due to racial discrimination is unlikely -- remember, their CEOs don't have to visit the stores, just own them.

#1 I’ve noticed that self-professed libertarians spend just as much time as everyone else carping about the policies of companies as though those companies should be held to the same standards as governments.

If you don’t like Twitter’s policies start your own version. The technology is not hard and as opposed to Facebook, the network effects are not as sticky.

It should not be surprising to you that the same people who believe government is made better through strong valuing of, among other things, free speech, also believe that society as a whole is made better by strongly valuing free speech.

The failure to distinguish between private persuasion and governmental compulsion is of course a silly strawman.

As for starting one's own platform, was shut down by collusion among other tech companies (while the platform that hosts Farrakhan and transmits the Iranian mullahs' assassination orders is permitted to turn a profit).

They were not shut down. They were denied service by other companies.

Do you oppose the right to deny service in a free market?

You mean like denying service to black people? I don't believe that should be permitted, and I believe that common law principle, long antedating any sort of civil rights era law, that common carriers must carry all, should continue to apply.

lol, yes truly Nazis are the new "black people."

Well that's an easy rule to apply. People I don't like = Nazis, discriminate away. People I like = blacks, no discrimination


You guys don't know who Robert Bowers is? Or why he migrated to Gab?

i can't help but notice this piece about not capitalizing letters capitalizes letters a the start of each sentence. this is already behind on a real trend in internet writing. because periods exist, capitalizing at the start of each sentence is redundant and will probably go away. see this blog post for one example of what the future looks like without sentence-start capitalization:

Periods have been redundant for centuries, yet survived. There is not a strong selection pressure for resolving to the lowest possible level of detail that isn’t ambiguous.

I’m having a hard time figuring out if the post you linked is satire or just Gibsonesque hyperventilation.

Hi Prester!

You once were lost but now you're found.

Praise the Lord!

Beat me to it.

Do you think anybody else hereabouts has a clue about who was PJ?

I dunno, but after Gog and Magog have taken over Canada - any day now - the ex-Canadians will be looking for William Preston.

Sargeant William Preston of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. :)

#5. I’m just passing by on the blackmail topic, but isn’t the main issue that robust demand for secrets motivates creation of secrets by some version of entrapment? I haven’t seen this in the limited number of arguments I’ve seen. I think expanding the market for embarrassing or unseating people in positions of wealth/power creates some problems for society.

3. Sour grapes. Grocery stores that rely on higher margin dry goods being undercut by dollar stores specializing in dry goods is similar to newspapers being unable to sustain themselves with the old business model that relied on classified and other ads for revenue (intersectional solidarity!).

I capitalize when writing multiple sentences and don't when writing a one-liner. The period and capital letter are nice when writing a short chat message but superfluous, since you already get very clear delimitation from the program.

A multi-sentence paragraph with no capitalization on the other hand is clearly less readable even if you have periods, as a commenter above has already demonstrated.

I capitalize because my phone does it for me. I dispense with capitalization on pc chat, for instance.

I saw in his eyes a wicker candle blown out from one grand act of clarity, maybe it was perfidy of the word--a sweep of his own story, a quieting of one’s guard. And I thought to myself, anyways, why’s a monkey got a handful of ice. Maybe it is love. Maybe it is a catcher’s mit (!) an asphalt bite, a top hat thrown to the sky, a sea sawn rumpled dress worn in no world I’ve ever met…. so be it! So, so. So! I’m not of this world, but another, all put together, like a catch you saw in the skyline.

Yep, capitalizing means that typing/writing takes more work -- but it also makes our writing more easily readable.

It's a lot like clear writing in general: it takes more work, but is a service to the reader.

Comment sections such as this one are in a gray area: is it worthwhile to spend the time to make a comment better written and more clear? Some commenters clearly do not take the time to do so. But it's hard to blame them; this is just a comment section after all. (Albeit now being preserved by/for the Library of Congress.)

Residential solar does not make a ton of financial sense at mainstream installer rates ($3/watt). But if you are going to do it, buy the system outright. You can buy all the components for about $1/watt now. And if you have a friend that can help with the install, and you pay enough taxes to be eligible for the tax rebates it's not too crazy.

Residential solar systems, especially retrofits to existing construction, are generally the least economically effective policy choice.

One simple test is to look at new commercial construction - a warehouse for example. If a 1,000 KW system is not economically compelling enough to be the default on a new 200,000 square foot flat roof building (and by inspection they are not), why would one think a 5 KW system will be compelling on a 1,000 square foot residential roof.

The sweet spot is probably 20-100 MW industrial scale facilities.

If you install your own system (as in buying it and physically installing it yourself), I believe that the economics of it can work, but only really because it is a form of untaxed labor and the returns are in costs avoided.

I've tried to proselytize on using upper case for EMPHASIS rather than "shouting" but have had little success. I attribute it to the profound inefficiency and inertia of the average human mind. (how often do you shout on line?). In the era of antifa and zero tolerance, perhaps using ANY capital letters is reason for "concern". Shouting is violence, right?

RE: Dollar stores "Grocery stores run on thin profit margins — usually between 1 and 3 percent" I hear this statistic all the time and it can't really be true, can it? At least not without being some specific type of grocery store? There's tens of thousands of grocery stores out there. Who is paying to open them to possibly earn a 2% profit?

What is not captured by saying a “1-2%” margin is time. Many things that grocery stores sell turn over often. Making 2% on a head of lettuce every day might be as good as a 100% markup on a diamond that sits in your store for three months.

In 2018 Kroger had a profit of $1.9B on sales of $122B. Meanwhile Walmart made $9.8B on revenue of $500B. So yes, profit margins are less than 2%. Got the numbers from yahoo finance.

I guess the attraction must be the inflation protection in that they can raise prices very quickly and easily with little resistance from consumers.

If they could, they would.

The attraction is that their return on capital matches that of other businesses, otherwise they would be out of business. Profit margins (i.e., gross profit as a percent of sales) vary widely across industries, and aren't particularly meaningful in that context.

Everyone must eat.

I use to describe Wal-Mart's business plan of high turn over of low margin products as applying the grocery store model to other retail.

#2. Completely mixing issues. Installing panels on new homes while you are constructing the roof doesn't have anything to do with SunRun's business. No new home owners would need to go into this lease type of contract at all. The builders install the panels along with the roof and bake the cost into the price of the home and the new owners still get the tax incentive. The whole Sunrun / Solar City financing kludge is to hide the cost of adding to the current older housing stock.

Making the energy a separate transaction seems the obvious way to handle it. The journalist admits halfway through the article -- after having a lawyer write a demand letter -- that they could have done it better.

Say I have a 200K house, and I put 50K of panels on it so it's energy independent forever, and the NPV of all future electric bills would be 50K. That sounds like everything evens out. But when I try to sell my home, I am selling a 200K home for 250K. If my buyers had the budget for 250K, they wouldn't be looking at my house. I doubt the the mortgagee will lower my PITI load because I don't have energy bills. But if I pay $100 (or whatever) a month to the company that owns my solar panels instead of to the electric company, everything works out like everyone expects.

That is true, but those numbers are inflated. 50K installs are only going on 750K-1MM+ houses.

I bought mine for $14K (after tax rebate), it covers all electricity costs, and my house is worth about 450K. If I went to sell that would add maybe ~$70 to a $1900 PITI payment? Seems small. But I guess it depends if your house’s price point is towards the high end of the “band” of prices local buyers are able to pay.

It's not obvious to me that panel costs scale with house costs.

Bigger houses use more electricity, but at a linear rate? And most of the differences in housing costs are differences in land price. I would expect labor to be more expensive in areas with expensive land, but nowhere near linearly.

Given that politically-linked domestic terrorism comes *overwhelmingly* from the far right, why is it so absurd to think that the sorts of things that get people banned from Twitter are evenly distributed among the far-left/far-right?

This meme has been floating around lately. It's BS.

Every meme the alt-left (America-hating commies) floats is a lie.

"Right-wing violence has 'accelerated' in the US since Trump took office"

The report found that 92 out of 263 incidents of domestic terrorism between 2010 and the end of 2017 were committed by right-wing attackers, constituting a third of all incidents. Meanwhile, Islamist terrorists committed 38 attacks while left-wing attackers were responsible for 34 incidents.

That “study” was debunked months ago ... it’s all in how you define “incident” and “domestic terrorism”. Just like the “studies” that purport to show how few incidents of Islamic terrorism there have been since Sept 12 2001 ( in the US). And the Black Lives Matter guy who shot and killed 5 cops in Dallas (under St. Obama’s rule) was just one incident, comparable to painting a swastika on a synagogue.
Try to keep up!

I've never even heard this idea that there was just one study to be debunked. The numbers have been running this way since Timothy McVeigh.

There is simply far more right wing jerks than there are left wing jerks. About 3 times as many.

Look at this sites comments and judge for yourself.

OK, give it a try and see if you can identify bias in these “objective” reports you link to. Try the Talking Points Memo that says the ADL reports that “right-wing extremist movements committed every single extremist-related murder in the country in 2018. The report focuses on incidents like ... the shooting spree at a Tallahassee yoga studio by a man bent on committing violence against women.” — So Incels are right wing? Most of the metoo stuff (and anti-semitism expressed by elected officials, as another example) are in the left wing. Stephen Paddock who killed 50 people in Las Vegas expressed a hatred for Trump (not mentioned in any of the links in your reference). Open up your eyes!
P.s. I am not defending any of these atrocities of course. Just pointing out the media bias ( and bias of the ADL and SPLC who have an obvious agenda).
P.p.s. I see your reference to Timothy McVeigh took me up on the 9/11 “incident”— how do your sources classify the terrorism that killed 3,000 people (and totally dominates the prior and subsequent numbers)? I recall several on the Far Left rejoicing in this attack on imperialism.

Ignore those lefties - they are hopelessly beyond redemption. All of their conclusions are driven by motivated reasoning. They all make absolute statements all the time, totally based on mood affiliation. They are completely guided by emotion and prejudice and incapable of objective problem solving.

You don't want to be stuck in a lifeboat with these hysterical cry babies.

You just need to address the facts. Try to look at the facts objectively. Right wingers cause more violence and anyone/everyone who looks at the data objectively comes to this conclusion.

You need to somehow address that the Muslim territosts are right wingers and hate lefties themselves to the point they execute them when they take over.

"You need to somehow address that the Muslim territosts are right wingers"

Certainly if you define all violent groups as "Right wing" then you'll surely come to the conclusion that right wingers are more violent than left wingers. But that's just a basic tautology.

#1 answer: Conservatives

1. I am skeptical, because I refuse to believe there is any kind of order to the Twitter madness.
It is a platform controlled by billionaires and Saudi Princes, acting capriciously. They may think they are acting in their own business interest, or they may think a spirit spoke to them during 48 hours of nonstop meditation.

And if you want net neutrality, understand what that is, and how it properly acts the lower levels.
No one should be denied a connection to the internet or the right to host their own server (short of court order for criminal behavior).

Hi mouse!

I beg to differ, respectly of course.

You can bet the intimidating and authoritarian lefty employees do their best to stifle conservatives.

I think I am offering a balanced and moderate approach which preserves both individual rights and the right of employers to make their own choices.

It might be ironic if people who opposed net neutrality when they didn't understand it, now demand it at the wrong level.

Again, what you want is the right to create your own server and your own competition to Twitter if you don't think they're doing it right.

I haven't taken a position on net neutrality.

2. As someone who has been pro solar and anti home solar for decades, I object to the framing.

The economics of solar depends on large, properly designed and properly managed, installations.

@anonymous - you're behind the times, the new trend is "distributed generation". Let a million flowers (or solar arrays) bloom (on CA rooftops).

Residential generation is growing, but utility scale is growing faster. Installing at about double the pace.

What many people overlook is rooftop solar saves a home or business the retail price of electricity. This improves its economics considerably. In South Australia, which has the most expensive grid electricity in the country, rooftop solar supplies roughly 10% of all electricity consumption.

Before strong subsidies that's the way it was in California. Big peak daytime users (pool + AC) bought solar. Now there are good companies, but also fairly scam operators who will install at any angle for the subsidy. A lot of low production panels going in.

Dodgy installers putting in crap systems are a problem in Australia too. Strong consumer protection helps, as does increasing consumer knowledge. Unfortunately, our inspection regime has been very slack when it comes to punishing crap installers with millions spent on random inspections but next to no action taken.

Unfortunately, when competition starts happening on price there will always be those willing to rush to the bottom no matter what the product is.

The WaPo doesn't like dollar stores but they want me to sign up for a dollar so I can read it?

2. In Australia households can have a decent quality solar system installed on their roofs for under $700 US per kilowatt of solar panel capacity. Without tax or subsidy it would come to under $1,000 US per kilowatt. Solar leasing is almost non-existent. Thanks to expensive grid electricity the economics of rooftop solar are very good here. Levels of insolation aren't necessarily better than in large parts of the United States on account of how we quite intentionally built our cities in the parts of the continent least likely to kill us.

Perhaps I should have expressed that as -- Without including subsidy, Australia is now putting solar on home roofs for less than $1 US per watt.

1. I find it very credible that extreme Trump supporters are four times more likely to engage in harassing or threatening than extreme Clinton supporters (remember we are talking about the extremes here since the number of people banned is tiny). Read the article by conservative writer David French about how Internet trolls on the left vs. right responded to his interracial adoption about this. The trolls on the left were annoying but the ones on the right were threatening.

The article is confusing since it uses statistical terminology when it really is a detailed examination of (a tiny number of) cases. He compiled a “database of prominent, politically active users who are known to have been temporarily or permanently suspended”. That’s 21 people all but one of which are conservatives. These are not trolls ( or at least not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity). The conclusions are undeniable ... if they are stated correctly (exercise for the reader).

The statistical conclusions are irrelevant in the "Chewing gum quadruples your probability of developing cancer in the second knucle of the third finder on your left hand" way. If you are considering how likely you are to be banned, the relevant population is all Twitter users, not banned Twitter users.

Facebook apologises for labelling Declaration of Independence hate speech .

#1. The supposed statistical evidence is not even wrong. It makes no sense at all. 21 conservatives acting 'out of line' sufficiently to be banned vs. 1 leftist? Entirely possible without bias.

I'm not saying there isn't any bias. But this article doesn't prove anything and is just more rattling in the echo chamber.

It doesn't appear as if you read the article:

"Of course, the existence of this disparity does not prove that Twitter is actively discriminating against Trump supporters.
one would have to assume that conservatives were at least four times as likely as liberals to violate Twitter’s neutrally applied terms of service to produce even a 5% chance (the standard benchmark) that a 22-data point sample would yield a result as skewed as 21-1."

" The supposed statistical evidence is not even wrong. It makes no sense at all. "

I think you just don't understand statistics very well.

I've never set foot in a dollar store, but I imagine they could all disappear and most everything in there could be procured nearly as cheaply from Amazon, no transportation required. Steep upside, Washington Post?

Those of us who aren't members of twitter - well, let's just say I understand its rules and workings about as well as I once understood the cathode ray tube that delivered Speed Racer to me. I was led today to the twitter feed of someone I would consider a stalwart of the establishment, a "classical liberal" on the Right, who at a glance seems to tweet most often on American historical subjects rather than the controversies du jour. His tweeter feed is preceded by a warning, "This profile may include potentially sensitive content ... they Tweet potentially sensitive images or language."

Am I correct in assuming this is something the twitter account holder himself put in place?

1. More interesting is why the tech companies elected ca. 2015 to abandon the common carrier model. The human resources they invest in this have to be considerable and it's damaged their brand to boot. And it doesn't have much with 'conservatives' 'violating' 'rules'. They banned Robert Stacy McCain with a bogus excuse.

Comments for this post are closed