People are going to assume you're a trump supporter if you call out any of that shit. This Russian narrative is the only thing they have and they double down on it. They refuse to believe otherwise. I'm honestly getting so sick of this I really hope this investigation hurries up. And if I'm wrong I'm fucking wrong and I'll eat my words

You won't be wrong

And if I'm wrong I'm fucking wrong and I'll eat my words

The problem is that Russia HAS been hacking the US for decades, but it's nothing to do with what they are accusing Trump of.

They wanted Hillary to win and to undermine her with conspiracy theories, their goal is civil war, and Balkanization...

I'm fairly certain it has been mentioned by many officials that Russia preferred a Trump victory over a Hillary one. Whether they hacked us to push for that result is unclear, regardless they preferred that Trump should win.

I'm confused.

How can you be so sure about Russia's motivations/goals, yet so unsure about whether they carried out the hacks in the first place?

Because people who will readily admit that they would rather Trump win will also not admit to committing state sponsored hacking? How is that a surprise to you?

Because people will readily admit that they would rather Trump win, but will not admit to state sponsored hacking.

What "people"?

One is an opinion, the other is a crime capable of causing an international incident.

How does the severity of the crime impact whether it's true or not?

Those two things are insanely different.

I never said they were the same. I asked how the person I was responding to is so sure about another countries motivations (especially when they mention the intel communities), but are unsure of whether they carried out the attacks in the first place (which also comes from the intel communities).

Generally, intent is much harder to prove than whether something happened or not.

They wanted Hillary to win and to undermine her with conspiracy theories, their goal is civil war, and Balkanization...

Interesting theory. I think it makes sense, although I don't think Putin/his admin would have been particularly unhappy that Trump won.

I don't think Putin/his admin would have been particularly unhappy that Trump won.

Because they can undermine him by promoting conspiracy theories about him being a Russian spy (the sworn enemies of Nazis btw).

It's a win win!

What Hillary was pushing for, we would of ended up going to war with Russia. I'm not sure they wanted her to win. They even did a nation wide nuclear drill before the election. Putin wants better relations after Trump won. They had talk shows in Russia, talking about how evil Hillary is.

They had talk shows in Russia, talking about how evil Hillary is.

No, these were mainly broadcast into the USA.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky is a Russian politician and leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mILSIyBKLs

Are you asking me if a link with western production values, english captions, and an english title on youtube is broadcast into the USA?

The youtube channel is a Russian news website. Anyone can take a clip and put english captions and an english title on it. The clip is from a Russian talk show. It was filmed and broadcasted in Russia, then a news website picked it up.. How is that being broadcasted into the USA?

a news website picked it up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Insider

What would you say is the political leaning of that news website?

It has both English and Russian editions, and the English edition is aimed at Western readers. The publication's main goal is to represent an alternative to how Russia is being portrayed in the Western media.

It was founded in 2014, by which point the Obama Administration was already concerned by the fact they were failing to counter Russian Propaganda.

http://observer.com/2015/11/obama-fails-to-fight-putins-propaganda-machine/

I don't care who picked up the news story, the guy still said this on a RUSSIAN TV SHOW.

Propaganda is legal here too.

What if I told you the Russian TV Show was literally part of their disinformation campaign targeting the USA. Do you have any evidence this clip was aired or taken seriously in Russia?

All I've seen is a link to an American Website (YouTube) hosting a video filmed by an obvious Kremlin disinformation organization hosted on a channel controlled by the Kremlin disinformation organization.

It wasn't "Picked Up" by anyone. It's entirely produced, directed, written, and published by Russia Insider, and the "opposition politician" in question is a "well known" (according to Reuters) servant of Kremlin policy.

According to Reuters, "Although nominally part of the Russian opposition, he is widely seen as a servant of Kremlin policy, used to float radical opinions to test public reaction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Zhirinovsky#Foreign_relations_and_military_excursions

Additionally, Hillary Clinton does technically have a serious chronic illness for which she takes Warfarin. Can you explain how that video was aimed at Russians who don't speak English?

They wanted Hillary to win and to undermine her with conspiracy theories

But instead, Trump won... and he is being undermined with conspiracy theories, which is leading to total division among the populace, and could move towards civil war, and.... hey, wait a minute. It's almost like it didn't matter who won.

It's almost like it didn't matter who won.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9167332/Barack-Obama-microphone-gaffe-Ill-have-more-flexibility-after-election.html

The Russia links are far from the only thing to bash Trump and the Republicans with.

I can say the exactly something about the_donald..

if you don't like it, don't visit it, downvote it.. that''s all.

No, that's not all, when Reddit codes the site so only one side of the story ever gets through. Don't be so naive!

if you don't like reddit don't use it, simple.

I guess it is simple to simple people

all i heard was T_D crying about their treatment on reddit.

Which is fair considering.

crying about censoring while banning pretty much anyone not agreeing with them?

I just laugh.

Completely different, get that through your thick skull

Last time I checked banning people falls into the literal definition of censorship in every sense of the word. They're the exact same thing, get that through your thick skull.

Banning users for not following SUB rules IS NOT THE SAME as the Reddit engineers changing the site to specifically censor a sub-reddit with special rules to make it not appear to users.

Like, seriously, come on!

Users make a choice to visit and post in the subreddit. That's not the same as visiting the website altogether. We're comparing a subreddit's rules vs the entire website.

You want to talk about echo chamber subs? /r/twox, that female hugfest will ban you if you make a joke (and clearly label it as one). Do I decry them for it? Not unless asked. I'm the one who went in there to post. Try bringing up a neutral pov in /r/politics. You become a russky and get b&. That's acceptable though since we all know politics was taken over by shills.

I hate this argument being brought up against t_d. I've largely stopped posting it - he won and the hype is somewhat gone, but this argument is genuinely unreasonable

You want to talk about echo chamber subs?

No, I don't

So exactly like esist, politics, worldnews, and every single anti-Trump subreddit.

What's the phrase? Divide and Conquer?

/politics doesn't ban people for liking trump or expressing protrump views, t_d does, because their ideas fail when exposed to democracy and freedom. Only in tightly controlled environments and highly filtered populations can t_d's ideas not face ridicule and derision and downvotes for their naked vulgarity and myopic idiocy.

t_d is a home of active censorship, their very existence only persists because they have been granted some limited privilege by a private org to censor themselves and ban anyone who contradicts their narrative. That they whine about getting censored themselves is laughable.

Let me explain it for simple people: r/the_donald is one side of the coin, politics, esist, ets etc. are the other side of the coin.

r/the_donald is actively being censored, while the others are being encouraged. That is what peoole criticise.

Why do feel like reddit owes you neutrality and objectivity?

Because Reddit is one of the biggest internet pages in the Western world and calls itself the "Frontpage of the internet", which implies that it values free speech and is a hub for open discussion. On the contrary, it is a cesspool of business interests, it censors opinions that its leadership considers bad and the admins even edit comments that they feel personally hurt about.

Oh, and I believe that censorship of free speech is generally bad, both coming from the left or from the right.

Apart from this, the worst thing is the hipocrisy from people on the left. They claim to be in favor of diversity, but then they proceed to ban one specific kind of diversity they don't like. They claim to be against walls, but then they proceed to basically build a wall around r/the_donald. They claim to be against fascism, but they tag people who use r/the_donald like jews were tagged with David's Stars in the Third Reich.

What makes me feel good about all of this is that they lost specifically because of this abhorrent behavior, yet they keep doing it and further alienate themselves from more and more people.

Because Reddit is one of the biggest internet pages in the Western world

Nothing about that necessitates neutrality.

calls itself the "Frontpage of the internet", which implies that it values free speech and is a hub for open discussion.

How are those things implied?

The reality is that reddit has long been dominated by liberals. It comes with the territory of being created and utilized by millennials. Reddit's primary demographics are far more likely to be liberal. What happened with TD is that a bunch of people who share a very different world view invaded the site and went out of their way to be as annoying and obnoxious as possible. Even TD users acknowledge that TD is a constant pep rally (circle jerk) that lacks substance.

It's completely reasonable for the owners, operators and users of a liberal website to quarantine invaders who took refuge on the site specifically to troll and troll-meme.

Do you not realize that freedom of speech also implies the freedom to manipulate others?

The corporations that manipulate the front page are within their rights. If you have a problem with this, then you actually have a problem with the value you cry so much for.

Tagging the Donald users? What are you referring to?

Here you can find further information:

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5ws2l7/repost_because_it_got_removed_for_no_reason/

Basically, Shariablue and/or the anti-Trump subs made a list of Trump supporters (=people who are active in r/the_donald) and have an addon to tag them.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Because they claim to be neutral?

Where do they make this claim?

you reap what you sow.

Let me explain it for simple people: r/the_donald is one side of the coin, politics, esist, ets etc. are the other side of the coin.

this reminds me of the drmcninja with pirates. He talks about how pirates believe theres a war, a rivalry, between pirates and ninjas. DrMcNinja explains that this is akin to tin cans believing they have some great rivalry with BB guns.

/politics doesn't ban people for liking trump or expressing protrump views, t_d does, because their ideas fail when exposed to democracy and freedom. Only in tightly controlled environments and highly filtered populations can t_d's ideas not face ridicule and derision and downvotes for their naked vulgarity and myopic idiocy.

t_d is a home of active censorship, their very existence only persists because they have been granted some limited privilege by a private org to censor themselves and ban anyone who contradicts their narrative. That they whine about getting censored themselves is laughable.

All subs get to decide who participates, only one has been effectively prohibited from being a member of ALL.

You don't think it Odd that The_Donald is one of the biggest and most active subs on Reddit and that Trump actually won the election, yet it appears Reddit is decidedly anti trump?

I get why the admins don't like T_D being on /r/all, though.

Reddit is a big place fore reading about and then discussing ideas, information, etc. But, because dissenting opinions on T_D result in an instant ban, there isn't really any conversation to be had. Indeed, many of the people who would see a post in /r/all and want to join the conversation can't comment due to being banned.

So, you end up with a big chunk of /r/all being taken up by threads that a lot of users can't even interact with. That's frustrating. That doesn't even get into the fact that T_D is a big troll subreddit that likes to rile people up.

So, you have troll posts hitting /r/all that people don't like to see, that they can't participate in to argue against, and that they have to wade through getting more and more frustrated with.

Is there any question as to why the admins disliked T_D so much that they worked to get it off the front page? It was probably taking away from site usage, and thus the bottom line. So, of course they hate it. It wouldn't matter what it was about. T_D was and is an anti-reddit subreddit designed to, in effect, hurt reddit itself.

Yes, it is simple. No one is making you use this site. Find a site that fits your narrative if reddit doesn't do it for you.

For a /r/conspiracy browser, you sure seem unusually fine with the blatant censorship of free speech on this site and in general. Sounds like bias

Every sub has on this site has their own rules. That is not owned by the US government. You seem to be the FakeAmerican since you have no idea what the the first amendment states.

Every sub has on this site has their own rules.

Yeah, that's a LITTLE different to the site's engineers implementing rules that affect a single sub.

I thought the mods here did a pretty good job at filtering out the idiots, but, obviously they missed one when you got through. Something seriously wrong with the way you think

Removed. Rule 4.

What about Reddit changing its algorithm so r/the Donald posts were no longer showing up on the front page during the election? That sounds like changing the rules because you don't like the outcome. Kinda like how everyone hates the electoral college after trump won. And I am not even a trump supporter, but man is the anti free speech meme being pushed by the left pushing me farther and farther to the right everyday.

The crazy thing is people act like those that were forced to join the right this election cycle were happy about it. I've spent most of my short life harping on the nonsense of Bible-thumping Republicans and now I have to go join them with my tail between my legs because the modern left has moved away from my most fundamental core philosophy. At the heart of the modern left is authoritarianism: they don't want you to have certain opinions on certain things and if you disagree they are willing to use the government (which implicates government violence; what happens if you tell the government "No?") to correct your behavior. The modern right, while certainly a group guilty of hypocrisy and authoritarianism themselves, is in my opinion a better alternative. Their core philosophy is closely associated enough with the concept of Liberty that to choose between them isn't really a choice at all. Sure, sometimes an abundance of freedom means some bigoted assholes are going to be a pain in our asses, but it's still better than an incredibly powerful federal government who will change its policies on a whim to accommodate whatever their issue of the day is at any given moment.

I don't think the modern left is evil, I just think they are wrong. They seem to want equality for all which is good, but what they are doing to get equality is encouraging more and more power over our lives be given to the federal government. They are setting up all the procedural and governmental mechanisms that could one day rob us of our liberty if the wrong person came into power. That's one of the reasons why I think they hate Trump with such vigor: they know what they want vests incredible power in the federal government and now they aren't in control of that power anymore. That must be terrifying.

But this is all just my opinion, so if you disagree that's cool. Just let me say this, I'm not married to Trump. If he fucks up I'm not going down with the ship; we can all take the life boats and let the captain go down Titanic-style. Same goes for the Republicans and the Democrats. We don't need these people to fix our problems.

Well said. Many political beliefs I have are very leftist. However it seems the left in America has been taken over by neo liberals who are neo conservatives with an identity politics front instead of a bible thumping front. It is very frustrating and I think it happened some time during the Obama administration when liberals had to face that the president they elected was a war hawk who was slowly eroding away civil liberties everyday. Whistleblowers became the enemy when under bush they were heroes. While I don't agree with trump on many things I respect him for overthrowing the republican neo conservative establishment. Now we on the left have to do the same overthrowing the neo liberal establishment. But I don't see my fellow lefties agreeing with me. Instead I just hear how much of a stupid, racist (I am mixed race), misogynist I am. No more discussion is allowed and I find myself supporting those I thought I would never support and I am obviously not alone.

Yes, cozy up and support the Dominionists. You're such a free and pragmatic thinker!! Give me a break.

You mean changing it so mods can't abuse stickied posts?

What about Reddit changing its algorithm so r/the Donald posts were no longer showing up on the front page during the election?

So?

Reddit or any other private organization does not grant you free speech. The first amendment protects you from the government not from neck beards.

Sound a little like, "America, love it or leave it..."

You go.

Bro I see the Donald pop up all the fuckin time give it a break

The_Donald constantly manipulated upvote counts to get to the front page until the mods got so sick of it that they allowed people to block subreddits.

Furthermore The_Donald doesn't present a side fairly or accurately. They constantly create false narratives to try and fool people into believing headlines are false.

Trump himself lies again and again even when faced with overhelming evidence to the contrary... even posting supporting evidence which explicitly refutes his claims to try and trick people.

But no... Donnie and The_Donald are victims.

Have you seen the vote % of T_D lately?

https://np.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/60qufp/alert_girls_gang_rape_livestreamed_in_chicago/

What's so false about that? 53% upvoted

More like mass manipulated downvotes.

Haha, that was a hilarious read. So many lies! I feel sorry for you, actually believing that!

The difference is the average score of the donald is like 7-10k. The average score of essit is 200-300. Yet one post from essit is always on the front page of all at like 40k

Yet one post from essit is always on the front page of all at like 40k

I generally browse /r/all and there's almost always a post from The_Donald near the top. Sometimes there's one from r/esist

So I decided to check the first few pages:

There were 3 posts by The_Donald and none from r/esist.

I don't think you're right.

I do find it funny that the party of climate deniers, fox, etc is crying foul about information manipulation.

"Denier" - There you go again...If I were to label you a "Cyclical Climate Change Denier" you would lose your mind and fly into a rant.

Hypocrite.

Orrr....I could hit you with facts. Regardless, I wouldn't lose my mind or fly into anything, not even a rant. I will however roll my eyes at you.

Well, go on. Give us the facts we apparently are unaware of.

The only facts I'm aware of is that our climate is changing rapidly. I know nobody who denies that fact. What people deny is the magnitude of impact that greenhouse gasses have on this process, and whether or not the accelerating release of these gasses is entirely our fault. Contrary to the 97% of scientists consensus, it's is still an open debate and a manufactured conclusion that should make you suspicious.

I used to parrot An Inconvenient Truth for years, until I learned how much the climate data is messed around with for the CO2 models to fit a foregone conclusion. Again, I still realize that our climate is changing rapidly and that we should immediately stop the systemic pollution of our environment, but I'm by no means convinced anymore that the two are causally linked to any significant degree.

There is no debate there are facts. The entire argument that climate change isn't real is manufactured by multinational oil and gas companies to keep the world dependant on fossil fuels. Exxon was just ordered by a federal judge to release all of their research on climate change, because they were lying to the public. It is all about keeping the status quo of using harmful fossil fuels to keep profits rolling in. If you're truly a conspiracy theorist you should read up on it. The fact that you think climate change isn't real is proof that the globalist Psy ops is working. You're being played for a fool.

The fact that you think climate change isn't real is proof that the globalist Psy ops is working.

Did you read what I wrote? In no way did I infer that climate change wasn't real, my friend. That was the point of my post. It's very real and it's very concerning, and I have no doubt that humans are a driving factor in its acceleration.

My point of contention is the apparent certainty about the magnitude of our influence via greenhouse gasses that is entirely based on climate models that are either inadequate by design or occasionally manipulated to suit a predetermined conclusion. See Dr. Judith Curry's explanation for more on this.

I'm well aware that Exxon and BP and all the rest of them have falsified environmental studies on the impacts of their industry for decades. As I said, there is no doubt that their products, as well as their byproducts, have a substantial influence on the acceleration of the current climate change.

I merely hold the view that the bulk of this change is driven by cyclical phenomena over which we have little control, and that to try and control it with a carbon tax, for instance, has little effect on the phenomenon, but serves to strip down the population even more so as to fill the pockets of the rich even more.

I'm not a climate change denier by any means, it's observable fact that it's changing very fast. I'm a climate change debater, because the debate is far from over, as much as we like to pretend that it is.

How do you explain that the global temperature has skyrocketed since the industrial revolution? Are you telling me that I'd a coincidence?

As for the cyclical explanation, that doesn't hold water. There are no facts to back that up trust me I've looked.

Carbon taxes are a good thing. They force large corporations to either pay up or stop polluting. It isn't like residents have to pay a carbon tax to heat their homes.

Carbon taxes are a good thing. They force large corporations to either pay up or stop polluting. It isn't like residents have to pay a carbon tax to heat their homes.

In theory, sure, but who do you think will cover the increased costs to these corporations? These taxes are always passed on to the consumer.

How do you explain that the global temperature has skyrocketed since the industrial revolution? Are you telling me that I'd a coincidence?

As for the cyclical explanation, that doesn't hold water. There are no facts to back that up trust me I've looked.

If we were to assume that the process is entirely natural, I agree that current events would be a clear outlier as these changes have never occurred this rapidly as far as we can tell from ice core samples and so on. But to say that the climate isn't in principle cyclical in nature would also be incorrect. It is my understanding that we were on a warming period for a while already before the industrial revolution, but that our indiscriminate pollution of the air, coupled with massive deforestation has lead to a substantial acceleration of the process as a whole.

So I certainly think we need to limit our emissions dramatically for a whole range of reasons, making climate change more manageable being the main one, but that we're also not principally responsible for the change in climate as a whole. We're rather the catalyst than the cause, which I think is a pretty important distinction in how we see ourselves.

I know many folks (myself included) who have begun to ponder the question of whether or not depopulation was necessary to save the planet, out of sheer guilt towards future generations. Now I'm beginning to think that was the main purpose of the controversy all along, to encourage guilt and despair in the middle class, when the two culprits are corporations like BP and Exxon Mobil, as well as natural forces, spiraling each other into a frenzy.

It's cyclical over tens of thousands of years. Not less than a century. It comes down to simple physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window

CO2 increases the amount of infrared radiation that the atmosphere absorbs/re-emits. Fact, known to science, for really, really long time. This is both testable in the lab and observable on a planetary scale.

Fossil fuels->CO2->warming climate. This is not open for debate, unless you have some new evidence to present. That's what people don't get. The scientific community dismisses denier claims because they have no evidence, only hypothesis they never tested or have already been tested and produced no contrary results. They don't do primary research-they just pick at the edges to cause doubt so nobody does anything.

I agree, but as I've stated in other replies, I don't think it's a complete enough picture to base policy upon. I'm well aware of the effects of greenhouse gasses like CO2 and methane on the heating of the atmosphere.

Where I have much less confidence in is the predictive climate modeling used to determine the magnitude of influence on otherwise natural and cyclical processes. I certainly accept that industrial activity has vastly accelerated global warming, but I call into question how disastrous the effects will turn out to be, as well as who should get the blame. We're regularly blamed collectively, going as far as making depoluation an agreeable concept in the public mind, and guilt tripping people into living ever-smaller lives. This, I have a huge problem with.

Again, just to be clear, I agree the climate is changing, I agree it'll be difficult to curtail or to control its negative effects at this point, I agree we should reduce our environmental footprint dramatically, and I agree that big oil and gas needs to go quietly into the night or turn itself into big renewables sooner rather than later. What I disagree with is the politics of fear, guilt, and doom that we get bombarded with every day.

This is not open for debate, unless you have some new evidence to present.

Yes it always is open for debate. This is how science works. There are astrophysicists still trying to debunk Einsteins theories, unsuccessfully. If they can continue to do this and speak out, people can voice opinions on Climate Science. In fact many AGW detractors have been silenced or were unpublished for some time.

There are many scientists that also point out that even if we eliminated all the CO2 from the atmosphere, it would only change the temperature a few degrees.

There are many scientists to hypothesize that it is the Sun that is going in and out of solar maximums and minimums that may be effecting the temperature as well. Crazy to think that huh? Why would people not want this to be the case? Because its not possible to control or fleece money over it.

Im all for cleaning the environment, but lets not pretend its a 'settled science' only partisans or non-scientists would say this.

...Should I put it a different way? Produce the evidence. Until you do, what you have is at best a hypothesis (a testable question) and realistically an opinion. I don't care what your opinion is. I care what the evidence is, and you can't produce any. That's what I mean when I say "not open to debate". You want to challenge relativity? Gravity? In this case, the testable physical properties of gasses? By all means, perform an experiment or collect some data that can be reproduced. That's what scientific debate is. Evidence vs evidence. This is evidence vs opinion. "In fact many AGW detractors have been silenced or were unpublished for some time." Yeah, because what they want to publish doesn't meet this standard. Is it testable? Is it reproducible? Then no, it won't get into a peer reviewed journal.

I'd like to see a list of the "many" "scientists" with these ideas. My guess is they a)do no primary research b)belong to think tanks that spend their time trying to roll back any kind of regulation on business c)have a long track record of this kind of science free lobbying on many issues, likely also involving tobacco, acid rain, and CFC's.

"only change the temperature a few degrees" is a funny statement. Yes, a few degrees is exactly what we are talking about here. Pre industrial was 280. At 180 Earth is an ice ball. At 300 it's pretty nice. Right now we're at 406. and it's going up really fast. 2.5 over last year. Don't know any real scientist that isn't concerned by that and I'd love to see a link on that claim.

Solar maximums huh? You might want to expand your research to some actual science on that one. And it's amazing that you think there is more money to be fleeced from research than the commodity that underpins every aspect of modern life, and how uncritical you are of those people's baseless claims.

It's pretty settled. You can ask any glacier.

If you are correct why arent we underwater like we were told 20 years ago we would be? I don't see literally ANY of the harmful changes we were told would happen? Why? If you are correct, why were your scientists so wrong? How are we still here? Maybe you need to recheck your evidence and maybe start looking into other areas.

If you want people to believe that the 'science is settled' then lets see any of the projected cataclysms which were told to the public over the last 30 years to be true?

Everything is science is debatable, because science is about understanding and learning about the universe we live in. Science should never be politicized because the average person will want to use it like a weapon, when it should be used as a conversation. Science is never ever settled or beyond debate.

Which scientists were saying that, exactly? None. Cite some sources. That is a totally bullshit claim.

They force large corporations to either pay up or stop polluting. It isn't like residents have to pay a carbon tax to heat their homes.

That is just not how things work. If corporations aren't altruistic enough to literally stave off the end of the world, they're not going to pay a carbon tax out of their own pocket. You'd be paying the tax by proxy because the cost of almost everything will go up.

You are parroting the "tax the corporations" lie.

Corporations pass their tax burdens onto the consumer. Nothing is "free"

You don't know what you are talking about.

So how you would suggest governments force polluting companies to stop polluting?

Term limits.

Term limits on what?

Congress from taking bribes and kickbacks from polluters, and stop them from focusing on re-election and favoritism instead of serving the people. Remember the people are supposed to have a say - please spare me the voting rights BS - it's not working, as is evidenced by Trump Vs Hillary and even worse for asshats like Schumer and Hatch and Pelosi and McConnell...

I really think I am wasting my time here - you appear to be an alt-leftist who has a penchant for totalitarianism. One anti-liberal talking point after another.

Well you're a presumptuous kid huh?

Term limits for congress would be great, but as long as citizens united exists we're fucked. It doesn't matter who is in congress if this type of legal bribery is allowed to happen.

Right now the Koch brothers are creating a PAC with millions of dollars behind it. They said any Republican who votes no on the healthcare bill will have Koch backing in the next election. All of this is legal.

So rotating people isn't going to help. The new ones will be just as corrupt. If you think getting new senators and reps every four years will make a huge change then you're wrong. You don't think there are newly elected officials who actively try to let major corporations pollute?

Kid?

Wow.

What a well thought out and articulated response.

One answer would be to continue to subsidize green energy companies. Again, it would still be tax payer money. /u/Aye_or_Nay is right. Nothing is free.

A cleaner planet has to be something we're willing to pay for, one way or another. Putting the tax burden on polluting corporations will ultimately put the tax burden on us. Those "polluting companies" will continue to operate unphased, but Americans will have less money in their pocket.

I say let's take money out of our pocket and push to become independent of fossil fuels. Subsidies would flood the market with green energy companies, and that increased competition will advance technology faster, ultimately making green energy choices cheaper than fossil fuels for the consumer at a faster rate than if we let those companies fend for themselves.

Once enough people can afford to go solar/wind/renewable with powerful enough storage battery cells to maintain a consistent source of power, and once electric vehicles become as cheap to purchase/lease and maintain as their combustible engine counterparts, "polluting companies" won't be able to compete. They'll have to raise their prices to stay afloat, which will push even more people to renewable alternatives.

tl;dr - If you tax the polluters we will, in essence, be paying more "taxes" (their taxes from our pockets) and we'll still be stuck with the polluters. If you put our taxes directly towards green energy, it'll drive the polluters out of business.

Finally someone actually answering my question instead of calling me a zealot or a shill. Thank you for actually typing out a reasonable response. Your points do make a lot of sense.

Of course. While I recognize it is a problem on the internet these days, the shill accusations around here are ruining the in-depth conversations that we used to be able to have regarding diverse opinions and perspectives. I'd like to get back to that, especially on this sub.

yes, solar is viable and would grow and improve with subsidies or tax credits.

I was in Solar sector and when Obama's subsidies ran out, our jobs went to Europe. Bam.

Politics were not "sustainable" because it was merely a short term ploy for votes and kickbacks.\

Thanks.

Well, I look at it this way. Even if climate change isn't man made, we should still work to make our planet a cleaner place.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Nah man, don't you see? The real conspiracy is the ALL POWERFUL college professors and their upper 5-digits salaries. The poor, helpless fossil fuel conglomerates are struggling to get the suppressed truth out with just hundreds of billions of dollars and the majority of politicians in their pockets.

Those poor oil oligarch billionaires. Who will think of them?

The entire argument that climate change isn't real is manufactured by multinational oil and gas companies to keep the world dependant on fossil fuels.

Not true. There are numerous people who don't believe the hype. Faked data, specious funding, neglect of other issues, especially reforms in government and pollution control.

When I read, "there is no debate" I know I am looking at an irrational zealot.

There is no debate? Really??

Sure there is debate if you think 97% of scientific agencies in the entire world are wrong. Just because some people disagree does not invalidate the huge majority of people who agree.

I am far from an irrational zealot. But you can call me that if it makes you feel Superior.

But if you think believing oil companies instead of scientists is a good plan than you are truly brainwashed. Open your eyes.

Does it matter if humans caused it? I say no. Can you at least agree that humans are making it happen way faster than it naturally would? If you can't say yes to that then I don't know what to tell you.

97%? - where does that come from.

Big companies - there you go again.

You just explained and showed everyone here how government and oil/gas company propaganda looks and works. Thank you for doing their work for them, this will save them even more money since they don't have to hire as many propagandists

Which one is it, government propaganda or oil/gas company propaganda, as the two are very much opposed (except you're already talking about the stances of the newly formed gov that is largely aligned with the oil and gas agenda.

If you read my other responses, I think you'll see that my views are more nuanced than either of these sides. I'm prepared to stand corrected if you have something of substance to add.

I think the issue that I'm approaching with your argument is that the cyclical nature of the Earth's climate occurs over thousands of years, rather than 100 or so years. Take the "Hockey Stick" graph for example. From ice core data we can see the basic climate data from millennia to see the proof of cyclicality of our climate, as you said. However at the point of the industrial revolution, the speed of climate change increased rapidly, and as more nations began to hit their own "industrial revolution" (India, china), the amount of greenhouse gasses and aerosols entering the atmosphere increased as well. The rapidity of the change isn't allowing for the Earth's adaptation. The exacerbation of climate change has been strictly caused by human activities stemming from greenhouse gasses as well as the increased use of chemical fertilizers that seep into both localized and global ecosystems altering the environment.

I agree, and have stated as much in other replies. Personally, I know of very few "deniers" who go as far as to claim that humans have no negative impact on the climate. There's a few at the Heartland Institute, but they're corporate whores of the oil and gas lobby.

My main view is that the climate does change very regularly over relatively long periods of time and that we're currently on a warming trend which is exponentially accelerated by a combination of athmospheric pollution through natural and man-made greenhouse gasses and an aggressive deforestation agenda.

Inaction on this issue is by no means an option in my view, but what irks me is when politicians and industrialists push a narrative that basically guilt trips the poor and the middle class into virtuously abstaining from prosperity and happiness. We are not responsible. We have always wanted cleaner goods, cleaner air, and cleaner resources. It's industrialists and profiteers who decided they didn't care about our future enough to pay for the technology and knowledge that would be required for such sustainable actions.

It won't do us any good if we all buy solar panels, when the Amazon rainforest continues to be culled the way it is. Sure, we as individuals should aim to reduce avoidable waste and consumption, but it's vastly more important for corporations to pay for their own externalities like waste and pollution, forcing them to find cleaner technologies, should it become untenable to continue paying for oilspill cleanups.

Well seeing how Trump is a firm believer in the 'fact' that climate change is a hoax created by the chinese, and that he also hired and has good connections with Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson I'd say both.

My personal belief is that we can slow down the process of climate change with enough government incentives, regulations and global cooperation. I believe that your thoughts on the subject are that we won't be able to make a difference/our consumption of our resources aren't impacting the environment?

I get what you're saying if I'm understanding it correctly. I just personally believe that we should at least try to slow down the process by not being so destructive. I think all this trash burning and fuel burning isn't healthy for our planet, and that if we keep this up for two hundred years that this planet will get fucked up on many different levels.

That's just me though, I respect your beliefs but It just left a bad taste in my mouth knowing that all the oil CEO's, execs and Trump are saying the same thing.

I very much agree with you. And that's exactly what irks me so about this topic. We're constantly coerced to believe in precisely one narrative, and if you dare to call aspects of it into question, you're promptly put in a box that says "Climate Denier" in large, not-so- friendly letters on it. But if we make an effort to debate the subject matter without resorting to such labels, we may actually realize there's mostly common ground between us. And if we keep debating our diagreements, who knows, we might even reach a consensus.

Of course I don't believe we have no impact on the environment, in fact we're devastating to flora, fauna and the entire support system of life. We're responsible for entire populations of animals and people going extinct after mercilessly exploiting entire regions of its resources and leaving nothing but pollution and waste behind.

I don't disagree that we need to drastically reduce our environmental footprint if we want to keep enjoying our planet's generosity and patience, or else this living support structure will collapse and take us down with it. We need to hold corporate polluters of all kinds accountable so that they pay for their own externalities. They profit from being allowed to pollute and keep sending us the bill for the cleanup. This cannot stand. And it's the reason why I'm against a carbon tax, as they would simply roll that cost on down to the consumer as is always the case.

I don't think very highly of Trump or his advisors, but I consider him to be a currently necessary... I don't wanna say evil, but ugliness. His administration, in a way, has been pretty transparent in its views in contrast to his predecessors and thus can be held accountable in real time. It forces the people of the US and the world to pay more attention. As to how exactly climate change is supposed to be a hoax "by and for the Chinese" still eludes me, but frankly his views don't concern me all that much.

For me, my disagreement with the general climate change evangelists is the common theme that "humanity is to blame for its own downfall" and deserves to die if it cannot control itself, when in my view very few people can actually be considered responsible for the current situation. If venture capitalists were honest people, consumers wouldn't have allowed things to spiral out of control this quickly and would have demanded sustainable energy and production much earlier. We would still experience a period of warming, but far less extreme and unpredictable, at least that's my take on it all.

Which one is it, government propaganda or oil/gas company propaganda, as the two are very much opposed

Republicans are just as much "the government" as Democrats.

Fair enough. Luckily I don't live in a country that has made the Hegelian Dialectic its primary political structure. That also means I only really get one official state agenda, though, and it is usually aligned with what goes for Democrats in the US.

Either way, I disagree with Republican talking points too. Both sides on this speak in doom and hyperbole.

Here you have stated my conclusions to the "debate" very clearly...

These people are ignorant and dangerous, blindly following reports developed by "academics" who's funding and popularity is dependent on the conclusion they are drawn to.

Man-made C02 based global warming (oops, climate change) is not a rational conclusion to anything but a contrived pseudo-science prophecy.

Well said.

Contrary to the 97% of scientists consensus, it's is still an open debate and a manufactured conclusion that should make you suspicious.

Honest question that I'm stealing from a meme I saw....

If you went to see 100 doctors and 97 of them told you that you had colorectal cancer, and said that you needed immediate colon surgery to remove the tumor, would you get the surgery done? Or would you still want to debate whether or not the majority of those 97 doctors were expressing manipulated and/or manufactured opinions about the cancer actually being colorectal cancer?

On an entirely different note, it's always shocking to me that it only takes one whistleblower from a contractor for the NSA to show evidence of intelligence agencies invading our privacy for the entire world to acknowledge that it's actually happening. Yet 97 out of every 100 scientists who study our climate and have cared to study the evidence have agreed that man-made air pollution is speeding up and intensifying our blatantly erratic climate change, and yet there is still a debate on it?

And one more question from a different perspective... would it be easier to manufacture the conclusions of 3 out of every 100 scientists, or the other 97 of them?

These aren't necessarily questions directed at you, they're more just rhetorical ponderings for whoever might be passing by this thread.

I very much appreciate the questions. I had precisely the same ones not too long ago.

My first point would be that you are misrepresenting the "97% of scientists" meme, as it isn't the case that 97% of CLIMATE scientists agree that humans cause global warming, but rather 97% of ALL scientists. Once this distinction is made, you should logically ask, well what percentage of that does actually study the climate, and what is the rate of agreement in that special field of science. I wasn't able to find any numbers on this yet, but you may have more luck.

My point is, similar to the recent "97% of intelligence community agree that Russia hacked the election", it carries little meaning once you acknowledge that the majority of people and agencies included in that consensus are no more experts in the specialty field than the general public, and no less prone to parroting a perceived consensus than we are either.

If it were the case that 97% of CLIMATE scientists agreed that humans are to blame for climate change, I would certainly change my tune, and again, if you can find reliable numbers on this, I'd love to have more certainty on this issue. The statements I have found only served to cast doubt on that certainty, though. I linked to an interview by Dr. Judith Curry earlier, for example, calling the accuracy of climate models into question, or here is one of Dr. Roy Spencer that I literally just came across, which mirrors my impressions exactly. He makes the point that he's being called a climate change denier in the public and on the media for studying the magnitude of our effect on the climate, while at the same time being included in the "97% of scientists" consensus for acknowledging in his papers that humans must have at least some effect on the climate, which no serious person would deny. This is hypocrisy and spreads nothing but confusion.

Your second question is mostly answered above, but then you make an interesting statement.

Yet 97 out of every 100 scientists who study our climate and have cared to study the evidence have agreed that man-made air pollution is speeding up and intensifying our blatantly erratic climate change, and yet there is still a debate on it?

Why yes, hardly anyone denies that the way we have polluted air, water and life support systems has a rather dramatic effect on our environmental stability and contributes to the rate and severity of our current climatic period of change. So the debate isn't whether or not the climate is changing, but rather about the actual magnitude of contribution and influence our actions have on this global, and even cosmic climatic system (as the sun's activity is by no means constant and undeniably has a strong influence on global temperatures on earth), and then leading off of that debate, what to do about it.

My understanding is that the debate isn't settled yet, and it irks me that we're told to pretend that it is. Whenever that happens, there are people pushing an agenda which the general public wouldn't otherwise agree to. I'm not certain what it is at this point, but a carbon tax (which would effectively primarily target the most vulnerable groups of people in developing nations and the middle class around the world), as well as being a good source of fear and uncertainty to avoid the masses being too comfortable and noticing things about their world those in power wouldn't want them to notice.

Your last question operates on the same assumptions as the first two, which I tried to demonstrate to be too flawed to maintain, but I'll add this. Scientists and academics, while brilliant on so many levels, are no less prone to deception, peer pressure, coercion, bribery, misunderstanding and confirmation bias than the rest of us.

This post has gotten way too long, but perhaps you see now that the supposed consensus is far less in agreement when it comes to some critical details than what we're made to believe, and that should raise huge red flags.

Thanks for you response. You're taking a level headed approach to the debate (regardless of whether the debate should be continuing or not) which is more than one usually finds in these discussions, and I applaud you for that.

If you'll allow me one more set of questions surrounding one topic...

Why?

I just don't see the point and/or purpose of nefariously manipulating the public opinion to believe that we need to change our methodology of how we obtain energy, at least not one that I might disagree with. Taking out the "Oil-igarchy", cleaning up the air of the planet, and even potentially helping slow the pace of climate change all seem like positive ventures that we should be moving towards, anyway. So why press that issue through manipulated and manufactured narratives?

It's out now that many facets of the fossil fuel conglomerates suppressed information about carbon emissions' effects on the climate (one of them being our current Secretary of State), so it's now even more obvious where the counter argument is stemming from.

But for those who are pushing the narrative that man-made emissions are effecting climate change... what's the end goal here, and where do you believe the manipulation of the narrative is coming from? What do you see as the benefit for those narrative manipulators to push this particular narrative? What, in your opinion, are the "red flags" warning us of?

Thank you, and thanks for your perspective as well.

Why push the narrative that human activity is alone to blame for climate change?

It's not an easy question to get a grip on. It'll fan out into a pretty large-scale description of how I see the world unfolding, but I'll give it a go.

There are several motives I find plausible, as well as some I've heard that I struggle to entertain, but most likely it's done for a host of reasons, as always.

In our world, the one thing those at the top of the proverbial pyramid have realized is that there will be far too many of us here far too soon. Take the notion that our planet is overpopulated and unsustainable, combined with the understanding that human labor will become less and less necessary very soon through automation and robots and you have a recipe for a view on the general population as a dispensable and redundant resource.

So how, as a powerful class of people getting together, do you go about depopulating the masses (all in the name of the greater good called sustainability of course) without going full-on genocide and end up looking bad? Several ideas. First, tell them it's great not to have kids, second, embrace homosexuality (not a judgment in the least about homosexuality, but I'm saying it's embraced to reduce the birthrate), make contraception the norm and pretend that abortions are not really a big deal (I'm for the right to choose, but despise how normal it is being made. It's still a tremendous tragedy every single time.), and lastly spread the idea like a virus that having kids is bad for the environment. People will depopulate themselves willingly, and unwittingly.

That's what I see is going on at the base level, all across the board. Climate Change – and I specifically mean the narrative that we are to blame for it all – is the perfect tool for total control. The perfect uniting cause, only trumped by perhaps an alien invasion. All that sounds good in theory if they were truly saving the world, but what exactly is the IPCC doing? They agree that we need to stop polluting and exploiting our planet. Fine. What are they gonna do about it? Have you heard any of them propose viable ideas of how to solve our global predicament without killing slowly depopulating 60% of the people? Cause I have ideas!

Let's start with solar arrays in the poorest nations to feed their energy needs to become self-reliant again through local agriculture. That's all they've wanted in all this time, they'll do the rest themselves. Don't fuck with their leaders, they'll handle it. So now the poor are less poor, let's build bigger solar arrays in the deserts and other arid lands and keep expanding a bit until everyone is modestly happy. Support solar roofs in richer countries and invest in green public transport, as well as electric cars (but dramatically fewer on the whole). Invest in free education at any age everywhere through great online courses on everything, as well as more and better brick and mortar schools for anyone who wants to attend them. Then, let's build a fucking space elevator (absolutely doable, before you say anything else), start to rid ourselves safely from nuclear fuel cells, build a couple of great nuclear reactors to bridge the last energy gap, and then place a solar array in the space between earth and the sun in a few decades and send that energy home. It'd be more energy than we could conceivably need for centuries. I've read a concept proposing that we could recycle our garbage down to the molecular level using the centrifugal forces we could achieve on an orbital ring.

It could literally be done now for something on the order of $450billion, so chump change for a nation like the US, or a global conglomerate, and could solve almost all of our problems within just a few decades. Why are we not moving in that direction? What's keeping us? If the problem is as immediate and perilous to our existence, why are we not moving to face the challenge now? We obviously can.

Because that would lead to prosperity for all, something those who call the shots just won't accept willingly.

Sorry, this went on too long, and I haven't got to the scientists. In short, I think most of them are genuine in their interest but often guided by the already accepted and ingrained understanding that we are to blame for climate change. So if the data starts to point in a different direction than you expected, you may be tempted to make the data fit, and not your conclusion.

But as I've said, there are plenty of scientists who have factored in things beyond just CO2, and the data suddenly appears to make more sense on its own, leading them to believe that the climate has long periods of climatic change and that our activity accelerates this process. If you listen to them too, you might get a sense that the whole issue has led to an unreasonable panic, even among scientists, after reaching catastrophic predictions based on flawed or false assumptions, and that this climate change, while rapid, could easily be managed if we tried. At least that's my view.

It seems you and I agree on where almost every piece of the puzzle fits in but disagree what the final picture is, if you get my meaning.

First, and this is a bit besides the main point, but the overpopulation narrative is most definitely a piece of the puzzle, but it's being manipulated in much the same way you see the man-made climate change being manipulated. Yes, there are way more of us here than is necessary, but population isn't going to continue to grow and grow unabated. It has a limit, and we're damn near close to it (I can try to dig up the sources for that, if you're interested).

More to the main point:

Why are we not moving in that direction? What's keeping us? If the problem is as immediate and perilous to our existence, why are we not moving to face the challenge now? We obviously can.

Money, or more specifically, the people who control the money. Seriously, every one of your ideas is completely feasible now and absolutely should be happening now. I even made another comment in this thread calling for continuing to subsidize green energy companies, so we're on the same page. But there are men and women who are running a racket within the planets' governments who make ridiculous amounts of money by drilling, processing, and burning up fossil fuels. They give government officials ridiculous amounts of money to not only allow them to continue to do so, but also to not invest in green energy and/or sustainability projects (like the ones you listed above) that would endanger their ability to make ridiculous amounts of money. We even have some of them on record manipulating the conversation on the impacts of carbon emission on the climate.

I guess it just makes more sense to me that these would be the people who are preventing any obvious, necessary, and feasible actions from being taken, that these are the people manufacturing the counter-narrative against the majority opinion of scientists, and that the manipulation of the conversation is simply the small wealthy minority of the elite (the "Oiligarchy") who are claiming that we should still be debating instead of taking action.

In the grand scheme of things, I suppose all this talk doesn't matter. Whether or not the conversation is being manufactured from one side or another, the point we all need to get to is action. You seem to think that we should be taking these actions, regardless of how big of an impact man has or does not have on the changing climate, and I fully agree with you there.

Very succinctly put, and your final paragraph especially hits home. And I do agree we are looking at two sides of the same coin, which gives credence to another angle, namely that the whole controversy is the most elaborate application of the Hegelian Dialectic yet.

This is pure speculation, of course, but the Hegelian Dialectic (Thesis + Antitheses = Synthesis) is everywhere we look nowadays. Democrats VS Republicans, who will win? Politicians. Capitalism VS Communism, who will win? Bankers and Oligarchs. Climate Change "Evangelists" VS Climate Change "Deniers", who will win? Corporations. I don't think one side is right or the other in any of those cases, and that reason and free will is always thrown out the window when we're only presented with two opposing choices.

In parenting class they will tell you, "Don't ask your kid if he wants to go to bed, he won't want to. Instead, ask him if he wants to wear the batman or the spiderman PJ's. Having made this pointless decision, he will do what you wanted him to do willingly." This is how humanity is governed now, just with more fear and guilt applied to keep us from looking towards our own thoughts and decisions.

Couldn't agree more.

"the facts"

There you go again....

I will however roll my eyes at you.

How liberal of you, do you also keep your nose up high while you do the thing with your eyes?

As long as my nose is higher than yours, then yeah....you know, because you're scum and you stink of greasy food and sewer like the rat people you truly are.

the rat people you truly are

And what kind of people are you referring to? Republicans? You assume I'm conservative for alluding to the snobbishly condescending nature of your comment?

I was assuming you were the kind of person to fly into a fit of rage because the world's general consensus is contrary to your stupid, stupid beliefs.

You're projecting.

You're reaching.

Lol. Man-made climate change doesn't rely on the non-existence of cyclical climate change.

They can coexist. But

1. CO2 levels have a measurable impact on temperature,

2. man-made CO2 has a distinct radioactive signature (it came from the ground so it's less radioactive than CO2 that's been in the atmosphere), and

3. The amount of man-made CO2 corresponds well to the increased global temperature (with a 20 year delay)

Admitting that 1+2=3 does not deny the existence of 1+1. It supercedes it.

Lol. Man-made climate change doesn't rely on the non-existence of cyclical climate change.

I did not say it did.

My point is that some of the studies are specious and I don't trust politician funded science to chart a course of legislative action in the US when we have seen mistakes made in the past.

I don't trust the data or the conclusions or the proposed solutions.

We should be focusing on water pollution and military dumping of munitions - not funding Al Gore and entertainers to travel the globe making fundraising speeches about contrived hockey sticks.

Solar is where it's at. Nuclear needs to end. So does Coal.

Perhaps we can agree on that.

[removed]

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Amazing though, a sub with 54,000 users and posts quickly up to 45,000 upvotes!

When I mention Libertarian ideals or any rational objectivisn, it is decried as Trump support.

Every mention of anything against Democrats, Clintons, or MSM is decried as Trump support.

These people are disingenuous, paid traitors of The Republic of the United States and wouldn't care about the truth if it landed on them.

Long live the republic. (not as in "republicans" - as if they would understand the difference....)

Not even American - still find it hilarious/sad that anyone could elect that dickhead into office.

I live in Ohio. I cannot believe these were the "choices"

It's a real mess - recently suffering some infighting between FBI and legislative branch.

I was in WA years ago. You were a nice lot.

Lol, because those ideologies are philosophical jokes. They are very naive and show your lack of perspective.

Liberty is a philosophical joke?

Objectivism lacks perspective?

You are being facetious, I hope, Right?

No one with a viable position on politics can possible be that ignorant.

How are these people traitors exactly?

Actively using disinformation to overthrow the elected executive branch.

I don't like Trump either, but dishonesty is not a rational solution to dissatisfaction.

So in that case Republicans would all be traitors for obstructing him and spreading disinformation about him, and thus be trying to overthrow him? And exactly what disinformationare they spreading

Strange that a libertarian is advocating for people that disagree with a president to be labeled as traitors

I did not side with anyone because they belonged to a republican or democrat party.

An organized disinformation campagn transcends disagreement.

ummmm so some people think that all them upvotes are not that special or important.... umm wtf are you thinking. or am i missing something? if post can be manipulated up and down..... the whole of reddit is a disinfo programme.

I truly don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand that many many many people across the world absolutely abhor and fear Trump. Why is there the need to manufacture ridiculous "psy-op" theories in order to protect the "god-emperor", seems like a distraction if anything.

"People dont like Trump and neither do I, so I am going to ignore everything that OP pointed out."

You mean the mindless conjecture trying to protect Trump and his supporters' fragile egos?

How does it "protect Trump" to point out that reddit is being manipulated? Information manipulation isn't a partisan issue.

How does it "protect Trump" to point out that reddit is being manipulated?

Because it's nonsense conjecture with no evidence except for 'feels'?

Information manipulation isn't a partisan issue.

Nobody is saying that it is.

So reddit being heavily manipulated is "conjecture" now?

Thats funny because there have literally been articles written about it describing exactly how it happens and websites that you can visit where you can buy upvotes.

But yeah, "its against Trump so its okay with me!"

Great critical thinking skills.

Because this is all mindless conjecture. I know for a fact that there are people out there who accept money in exchange for killing people, but when my beloved grandpa died I didn't go on a rampage looking for his assassin. This is ranting and raving against a sub they don't like, because they don't like it. That's sure some critical thinking.

So reddit being heavily manipulated is "conjecture" now?

No, making it seem as though it's one-sided is what is conjecture. How many posts make the front page from T_D?

Thats funny because there have literally been articles written about it describing exactly how it happens and websites that you can visit where you can buy upvotes.

I guess I never heard that they've somehow managed to sell these services to only one side.

But yeah, "its against Trump so its okay with me!"

Trump is an unintelligent pawn who needs to be exposed, so yes, it's okay with me.

Great critical thinking skills.

Thanks!

Most of reddit is liberal, and yet T_D has hundreds of thousands of users and nearly every post has hundreds or thousands of karma.

And here we've got shill accusations because a subreddit is hitting the front page once a day?

There was a really believable accusation a while back that hte mods stickied, pointing out a pattern of one post per day on the front page, except for weekends for a month.

Except r/reallifedoodles had the exact pattern. The front-page algorithm promotes diversity between subreddits, so every subreddit that isn't filtered gets a huge boost to one post per day.

Fragile egos? When the left is silencing free speech and cowering in safe areas? Its hilarious you think this, all I see is libs trying to silence anything that doesn't fit their narrative. LOL they riot over Milo, yet we are the fragile ones.

Go to T_D and post something anti-Trump. You'll get banned. Because it's their safe space. I hate how people rail on "libtards" for being anti-free speech and snowflakes when conservatives do the exact same fucking thing.

I have a hard time seeing the logic between comparing a publically funded area and an internet website as being equal. Riots at Berkley compared to the echo chamber of T_D aren't one in the same.

The Donald is meant to be a constant Trump rally, Scifi is a sub for scifi, and pics is a sub for pics.

But there ARE a ton of subs right now who will ban people JUST because they point in T_D even if they follow the rules of the sub.

Whats worse is reddit has an algorithm to keep people from seeing T_D posts. Its being said that reddit is even fudging the numbers of the total subscriber base.

Yes silencing of people is a problem huh. You know better, stop it.

But there ARE a ton of subs right now who will ban people JUST because they point in T_D even if they follow the rules of the sub.

Any confirmed reports of this? Because I would be against banning people from subs just because they post in T_D, but T_D does the exact same. Hence the hypocrisy.

Whats worse is reddit has an algorithm to keep people from seeing T_D posts. Its being said that reddit is even fudging the numbers of the total subscriber base.

Is there evidence of this outside of speculation on T_D? If this is true, whoever is doing it is doing a shit job because I still see T_D posts all the time in r/all and their posts are still consistently upvoted thousands of times.

Let's look at some numbers (albeit not exact because I'm on mobile.)

T_D has ~300,000 or so subscribers. Let's be super generous and say that Reddit has suppressed 500,000 subscribers. So with ~800,000 subscribers, the posts on its front page are rarely under 1000+ upvotes.

r/trees has ~900,000 subscribers. The front page has typically 3-5 max posts with more than 1000+ upvotes.

Yeah, two different cultures in two different subs, but to say T_D is being suppressed isn't very accurate when they're so much more upvoted than a sub with at least 200,000 more members. And that's assuming the subscriber count is being suppressed.

I truly don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand that many many many people across the world absolutely abhor and fear Trump.

It's easy to understand. He doesn't pander to your fee fees.

It's easy to understand. He doesn't pander to your fee fees.

Nobody is asking him to do that, they would simply like him to appear somewhat competent and perhaps even intelligent when holding the most powerful position on the planet.

Trump's whole campaign was "pandering to fee fees". Or are you gonna say he was all about fleshed-out, realistic policy proposals?

right he panders to the fee fees of old people who've never left their white town and are in paralyzed fear of mexicans and muslims invading and blowing up their minivan because they've been brainwashed by am radio and fox.

r/esist is the most obvious astroturf sub I've ever seen. The almost complete lack of comments on the articles, except for the ones that end up on the front page is a dead given away.

For real, and illustrates why I don't believe in Soros conspiracies. Because most all of the Democrats efforts suck hard.

The end result between the clash of The Joker (Trump) and Darkseid (Hillary) is the end of America.

That place is a cesspool. Although they call This sub TD2..

I got downvoted here for being critical of Trump, so I'm not sure.

How funny, the only place you get called a shill for being critical and hateful of our government and president is a conspiracy sub...

To admit you've actually been fooled by the people you despise is too hard for Trumpets.

Tools to the end. Reminds me of AKP supporters.

Reminds of literally every single Dem/GOP voter

THIS ENTIRE WEBSITE IS A MODEL FOR DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

Just look at this sub. Spend so much time arguing over being for/against Trump.

It just pisses me off when i continue bashing the Clintons (which began far before she was running for president) and I get labeled as a trumpet. People need to understand that that bitch was corrupt as fuck long before the election, and it's good to remind everyone. It's not my fault that the trump Russia shit is built on toothpicks, why the hell would any of us spend time trusting the CIA just because they say trump is Russian? Especially after the lat 60+ years of CIA malfeasance and power consolidation.

The CIA haven't commented on Trump.

Omgg you misogynists, Hillary lost! Stop picking on her! Let's just focus on the important issues now, there is literally a literal Satan in charge now, why bring up the past?

/s

That'a not this sub. That's daily life.

There are like 15 of those types of subreddit now and their users always snake their way in here. Like...we can see their post history, who do they think they're fooling?

Also, one of the things that sucks about Trump being president is that no one will take any conspiracy discussion seriously because you will just be called a Trump supporter/hack no matter what.

And if you dare to talk about a conspiracy that isn't anti-Trump, you get people saying:

Why aren't we talking about Trump's cabinet?

_

This is r/the_d2

_

Of course this is being discussed to distract from [Trump scandal being discussed on the front page in 5 different sub-reddits

Here's the deal. The Trump/Russia story is a conspiracy theory. True. The thing is, all other conspiracy theories are supressed, ignored, or ridiculed by the MSM.

The fact that this one is so strongly supported by the MSM screams false narrative rather than plausible conspiracy theory.

Wait hold on, let me better understand this. So you're saying that once a major network finally recognized a conspiracy theory, it makes it untrue? Could it be that the conspiracy theories were mocked because they lacked evidence?

I think he's just saying that if the MSM picks up a story, you have to take it with a grain of salt.

The MSM is controlled and provides information that it's handlers want seen.

So the question is, is the Russian/Trump connection simply a story out out there by the MSM to throw up flak?

Well put. People tend to jump to conclusions very quickly

I got comments deleted here for calling out someone who was posting here that had a whole history of mostly posting just at r/esist. You tell me what that means.

You probably broke rule 10? Maybe rule 5?

Same happened to me, except the poster literally only posted to T_D and this sub instead of r/esist . Happens on both sides.

Yes. T_D is JUST like r/esist. Only ONE post with tens of thousands of updates a day, and the rest with an average of 10. Totally the same!

So you're saying the shills at r/esist are just so lazy they only use their shill power to massively upvote one post per day? Is that your argument? The more realistic reason is that only occasionally does something from r/esist make it to the front page where more people see it and more people upvote it.

T-D is literally just low effort shitposting where you can get 10k+ upvotes for saying anything that agrees with their agenda.

Both subs are absolute shit and I honestly don't know how you could defend T_D for being any better than r/esist.

How does a post a day, every day, make it to the front page organically when the rest have an average of maybe 10 upvotes and one or two comments?

Who cares? r/esist is just a reaction to r/the_donald....both garbage.

how do I show i don't care? by not responding to trolls and shills?

I subbed to resist because of posts like this. Take issue with the actual information, not poster history and karma.

I subscribe to r/esist and post there regularly. It's a great sub

Why is it a default sub anyway? I posted in there to say how much of a joke that sub was and got banned, small victory for me!

8 days old account with 5 posts.

redditor for 8 days

this sub is probably a psy-op by now jesus fuck

Has been for years...

Why is a nine day old account calling out a one month old account?

Because this is all mindless conjecture. I know for a fact that there are people out there who accept money in exchange for killing people, but when my beloved grandpa died I didn't go on a rampage looking for his assassin. This is ranting and raving against a sub they don't like, because they don't like it. That's sure some critical thinking.

So reddit being heavily manipulated is "conjecture" now?

No, making it seem as though it's one-sided is what is conjecture. How many posts make the front page from T_D?

Thats funny because there have literally been articles written about it describing exactly how it happens and websites that you can visit where you can buy upvotes.

I guess I never heard that they've somehow managed to sell these services to only one side.

But yeah, "its against Trump so its okay with me!"

Trump is an unintelligent pawn who needs to be exposed, so yes, it's okay with me.

Great critical thinking skills.

Thanks!

I was assuming you were the kind of person to fly into a fit of rage because the world's general consensus is contrary to your stupid, stupid beliefs.