SoylentNews

Hi-Rez president compares new ‘Overwatch’ hero to a ‘Paladins’ protagonist

Just bookmarking so I can check out the videogamedunkey video later.

Nintendo Holds Off on Switch 2.0, Looks to Peripherals for More Sales

It would be bizarre to release a new version of Switch so soon. They talk about a slimmed down version (rather than a mid-cycle upgrade like PS4 Pro or Xbox One X). Compare to PS4 (Nov 2013) and PS4 Slim (Sep 2016), and Xbox One (Nov 2013) and Xbox One S (Aug 2016). In fact, the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X didn't come out very long after the slimmed down versions.

What they could do is drop in newer ARM CPUs and Nvidia GPUs. Even if they underclock and keep performance almost the same, the console would benefit from lower power consumption since it is battery-powered in handheld mode.

I saw this the other day and found it quite interesting, given a lot of the 'arguments' being put forward here on SN.

what strikes me about the reaction to this growing backlash is not just its vileness, but its lameness. Trump’s response to Parkland — let’s arm teachers! — wasn’t just stupid, it was cowardly, an attempt to duck the issue, and I think many people realized that. Or consider how the Missouri G.O.P. has responded to the indictment of Gov. Eric Greitens, accused of trying to blackmail his lover with nude photos: by blaming … George Soros. I am not making this up.

Or consider the growing wildness of speeches by right-wing luminaries like Wayne LaPierre of the N.R.A. They’ve pretty much given up on making any substantive case for their ideas in favor of rants about socialists trying to take away your freedom. It’s scary stuff, but it’s also kind of whiny; it’s what people sound like when they know they’re losing the argument.

(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/opinion/the-force-of-decency-awakens.html )

I see it over and over again here. Something's going on? It's George Soros' fault, of course! Don't like the argument someone makes, they're "socialists" who hate America, want to take away all your rights, and are worse (or at least as bad) as Stalin.

Care about your fellow humans or sick of crony capitalists, regulatory capture or xenophobic trashing of anything that's different? You're a Marxist who hates capitalism and pines for a land of gulags, collectivized everything and iron-fisted suppression of speech and expression.

It's pretty sad. If there's an argument to be made for/against stuff like municipal FTTP, single-payer healthcare, civil rights for all, gun control, women having control of their bodies, etc., etc., etc., then make a relevant argument.

"You're a socialist/marxist/anti-capitalist/SJW who wants to destroy $X and are just like Stalin." and other semantically null bullshit aren't arguments. It's just posturing and value-free (although apparently quite satisfying) name calling.

I'm not suggesting that folks not be allowed to spew whatever crap they wish to spew, rather I'm wondering aloud if there aren't more folks who, if they think about it (or at all), might opt for actual arguments rooted in logic and evidence rather than semantically valueless name calling.

He livestreamed his own murder on Facebook in a North Carolina town

Man fatally shot on Facebook Live had been outing suspected drug dealers, sources say

LiveLeak.

Melania Trump re-emerges amid marriage scrutiny

Can Trump succeed where FDR and Bill Clinton failed?

Several Broward deputies waited outside during Florida school shooting, report says

Coral Springs cops who responded to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School say several Broward sheriff’s deputies waited outside rather than rush in as the killer was gunning down students, according to reports.

The allegations emerged a day after veteran Broward deputy Scot Peterson resigned under fire for failing to enter the school during the Valentine’s Day shooting. President Trump on Friday said Peterson, who was assigned to guard the school, “did a poor job.”

The Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that according to police sources at least three Broward deputies, including Peterson, waited outside. The Broward Sheriff’s Office said Friday it is investigating the Coral Springs officer's claims.

The allegations add to a series of failures that have emerged since 19-year-old gunman Nikolas Cruz killed 17 students and staff, and wounded 16. Cruz was arrested and charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder.

Two additional Broward deputies are also under investigation over whether they mishandled warnings about Cruz in the months leading up to the shooting. The FBI has admitted it failed to investigate similar claims, and Florida child welfare agency looked into concerns about Cruz, but concluded he wasn’t a risk to himself or others.

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel told the Sun-Sentinel that three Coral Springs officers said one or more sheriff’s deputies did not go into the school building when they should have, and their concerns were relayed to the sheriff’s office by the Coral Springs police chief.

“If our investigation shows that our deputies made no mistakes or did things right, or it’s not corroborated, there will be no issue,” Israel said.

“If we find out, as we did with Peterson, that our deputies made mistakes and didn’t go in, I’ll handle it like I always have. I’ll handle any violations of policy or procedures or whatever accordingly.”

This is a primary reason for contempt of police. These cops milled about smartly, outside of a school building, knowing full well that someone was wandering the halls, killing people. Why? Because they are COWARDS!

Oh, I'm sure they can legally justify their actions with policy, and procedure. And, none of them were actually ordered to go inside of the building. Blah, blah, blah - they can defend themselves in a court of law.

But out here, in real life, each of these people stood by while a marauder was taking lives, several feet away from them.

Military veterans? I don't know, maybe some of us would have leaned on policy and procedure. Many, if not most, of us would have charged into the building. We have a tradition of "whatever it takes". A common comment in evaluations (when justified) is "Petty Officer Whoever is mission oriented, and willing to make sacrifices to see the mission through."

The "mission" in this case, would have been to end the carnage, and to save lives. These cops seemed to be content to allow the carnage to continue, until enough of a police force had collected to ensure their own personal survival.

That is a damned good definition of cowardice.

If you aren't willing to put your own life on the line, you are unworthy of respect. You have no right to wear that uniform. You have no right to your paycheck. You haven't even the right to compare yourself to a lowly dog. Many dogs have readily, and willingly, sacrificed themselves in defense of their masters, or children, or even strangers in some rarer instances.

Cops. We've often mentioned that the police force attracts authoritarian, abusive assholes. We need to attract more people who are willing to risk themselves for their fellow man.

It would be interesting to review these coward's service records. How many of them have been abusive pigs, who singled out defenseless (homeless, prostitutes, female, minority, minors, etc) to abuse?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/24/several-broward-deputies-waited-outside-during-florida-school-shooting-report-says.html

I was about to install the Tor Browser into a new VM, but found that https://www.torproject.org is down as of ~0000 on 25-Feb-2018 GMT.

I checked with several browsers on several hosts, but no soap. What's more,
http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/torproject.org.html and https://isitup.org/www.torproject.org both agree.

Is this a DDOS? Recovery from a hack? Fallout from the recent announcement?

I searched around the web and didn't find anything about this, except for a July, 2017 Reddit post complaining that the site was down.

The browser is still available on Github and, I assume, other download sites/mechanisms.

I wonder what's going on?

Okay, the Eds, using the term losely, in their infinite wisdom, again, terms used loosely, rejected a submission from your loyal and faithful Soylentil, aristarchus. This is not unusual, or unexpected, and normally I do not resort to journal entries for rejected submission, but in this case, I actually spent a fair amount of time putting it together, and despite what the eds fear most, that reality has a well known liberal bias, reality has a well-known liberal bias, and the subject matter of this particular rejected submission needs some discussion. I turn it over to you, my fellow trusted and loyal Soylentils, persons of rapier wit, and steel-trap minds, charity to a fault in debate, real Lentils of Soy!

Original Submission (this is going to hurt, and lose stuff.)

aristarchus [soylentnews.org] writes:

A post on the American Philosophical Association blog [apaonline.org]offers some insight into the popularity of a certain Canadian academic, Jordan Peterson, who seems much beloved by the alt-right.

Peterson’s work invites a much more extensive critique than I have the space (or inclination) to offer here, and there have been numerous excellent critical pieces (including this recent article in The Guardian) [theguardian.com], but what’s more interesting to me is the question of why so many young men are drawn to his work, specifically what need his pseudo-intellectual misogyny fills for these men, some of whom I’ve found to be otherwise quite intelligent and reasonable in one-on-one interactions.

Evidently, Peterson just published a book, and controversy has ensued. But our author here thinks it is nothing to worry about.

However, I think it is more likely, given that we have largely integrated the pain of those collective traumas, that this regressive moment will be relatively brief, and we will soon see a progressive wave of compassion, justice, sustainability, and even kindness in reaction to the Trump-Peterson era. I suspect this regressive movement will be viewed by history as the final death rattle of the older mode of relation, making way for the emergence of a qualitatively novel historical era. As Whitehead writes, “new epochs emerge with comparative suddenness,” and the tragic regression we’re currently enduring may ultimately be understood as the factor that finally propelled us into a novel mode of relation.

And of course there is much more commentary available, as in The Guardian article referenced, and many other places.

Digg [digg.com] reviews the book:

David Brooks writes in The New York Times that Jordan Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, is having a moment, and that he may be the "most influential public intellectual" alive. The man that Brooks, a writer known for missing the mark on cultural criticism, calls "the perfect antidote to the cocktail of coddling and accusation in which" young men are raised today has revealed himself over the last year to harbor a bevy of regressive ideas on sex and gender that turn out to be grounded in his own psychological theories.

Some Canadians [macleans.ca] are rather disapproving:

University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson was in the news this week—and one imagines this makes the university sad. Peterson first made the news and became a belle of the alt-right when, in September 2016, he announced that he would not use a student’s preferred pronoun if he were asked to, except that he might if he felt the request was “genuine,” and no one had asked him that anyway.

        What that poor man has been through.

And she adds more:

“Postmodern neo-Marxism” is Peterson’s nemesis, and the best way to explain what postmodern neo-Marxism is, is to explain what it is not—that is, it is entirely distinct from the concept of “cultural Marxism.”

        “Cultural Marxism” is a conspiracy theory holding that an international cabal of Marxist academics, realizing that traditional Marxism is unlikely to triumph any time soon, is out to destroy Western civilization by undermining its cultural values. “Postmodern neo-Marxism,” on the other hand, is a conspiracy theory holding that an international cabal of Marxist academics, realizing that traditional Marxism is unlikely to triumph any time soon, is out to destroy Western civilization by undermining its cultural values with “cultural” taken out of the name so it doesn’t sound quite so similar to the literal Nazi conspiracy theory of “cultural Bolshevism.”

        To be clear, Jordan Peterson is not a neo-Nazi, but there’s a reason he’s as popular as he is on the alt-right. You’ll never hear him use the phrase “We must secure a future for our white children”; what you will hear him say is that, while there does appear to be a causal relationship between empowering women and economic growth, we have to consider whether this is good for society, “‘’cause the birth rate is plummeting.” He doesn’t call for a “white ethnostate,” but he does retweet Daily Caller articles with opening lines like: “Yet again an American city is being torn apart by black rioters.” He has dedicated two-and-a-half-hour-long YouTube videos to “identity politics and the Marxist lie of white privilege.”

What the poor man has been through!

Finally, from the pages of The New Statesman [newstatesman.com]:

In recent weeks, I have become mesmerised by a clinical psychologist who is the darling of the alt-right. That is not a sentence I ever thought I’d have cause to write, but Jordan Peterson is something else.

        I had seen some of his lectures before that notorious interview with Cathy Newman of Channel 4 News in January, the one that gave him particular notoriety in the UK for his comments on the gender pay gap. As Stephen Bush wrote last week, Peterson’s book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, is at base a self-help guide, and like every other contribution to that bloated canon contains a mixture of the persuasive and self-evident.

Dark Enlightenment or dank memes, it does seem that the intellectual pretensions of the alt-right are somewhat less than solid. But in a world of changing and confusing roles and self-identities for males, I usually refer to The Art of Manliness [artofmanliness.com] for more actually useful information, without all the rightwing agitprop, and very handy mustache grooming tips.

Original Submission

Pushing 30 is exercise enough.

        Home About FAQ Journals Topics Authors Search Polls Submit Story Subscribe Preferences Log Out Atom feed RSS feed

Alright, clunky, but most links restored. Have at it, and knock the TMB off his high horse!
*****
Update, of sorts. I have received a message from the TMB his own self, one of those things, again, that lowly normal Soylentils do not have, bragging about how he now has two journals with over a hundred comments. Well, lah-de-dah! Do we really need to turn journals into a popularity contest? This is one reason why, normally, I just let rejected submissions lie. If Soylentils are not interested enough to have it on the front page, in the estimation of the eds, then it probably does not belong there, or in a journal. And I would direct everyone to NotSanguine's journal on rational debate, it is much more interesting than this one. Unless you are a incel with a Red Pillar who voted for Trump.

Florida governor Rick Scott's three-point plan requires gun buyers to be 21 and up

Scott's plan also includes prohibiting a person from having or buying a firearm if he or she is subject to an injunction for protection against stalking, cyberstalking or domestic violence.

Cyberstalking is serious business.

Kylie Jenner just wiped $1.7 billion off Snap’s market cap, and the worst isn’t over for the stock

In One Tweet, Kylie Jenner Wiped Out $1.3 Billion of Snap’s Market Value

Why Kylie Jenner May Be to Blame for Snap's Recent $1 Billion Loss in Value

Tweet

Would you like to see this story on the front page of SoylentNews?

I've heard this theme several times after a mass shooter has acted out. One, two, maybe three news sources blame the shootings on drugs - but the media doesn't really pick up on it. Well, I've just heard it again, in regards to Cruz, the Florida shooter. Drugs are to blame. Hmmmmm . . . let me search for SOME kind of source, I can't just take a radio DJ's word for it, right?

http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/media-ignoring-1-crucial-factor-in-florida-school-shooting/ Yep, depression. All the other conduct I've seen attributed to Cruz ranges from normal, to weird, to maybe a little crazy. But, he WAS being treated over several year's time for depression. Interesting . . .

Paddock, the Vegas shooter - likewise. https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/las-vegas-strip-shooter-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-in-june/

Adam Lanza, of Newtown, ditto. https://ssristories.org/the-antipsychotic-prescribed-to-adam-lanza-has-a-troubled-history-all-its-own-business-insider/

Ok, I'll try to be fair here - and honest. Those links aren't exactly "mainstream", and they may or may not be "credible". I don't place a helluva lot of credibility in any of the media, to be honest.

But, how about psychologytoday? Is it credible? Unlike some Soylentils, I'm not a part time psychoanalyst. I have no degree in pretending to understand people. I see the title, and hope that it is more credible than say . . . The National Enquirer. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/obsessively-yours/201212/newtown-shootings-caution-about-violence-and-ssris

Newtown Shootings: A Caution About Violence and SSRIs
SSRIs rank high in the top ten drugs that cause violence
Posted Dec 20, 2012

As the debate moves forward about how to keep events like the shooting in Newtown from happening, the inevitable topic that comes up is how to best detect and treat young people with mental illness.

Many of our politicians have opined on this subject, sometimes as a way of deflecting from the issue of gun control. While it is obvious that better screening and treatment of troubled adolescents can be of enormous benefit, we also have to exercise caution.

The reason for the note of caution is that when a typical young person is diagnosed with depression and/or a host of anti-social conditions, the standard treatment offered is SSRI’s [Selective Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors] also known as Prozac-like drugs. There has recently been a great deal of debate about the effectiveness of such medications.

But more relevant to the discussion, is that these very drugs we hope can treat mental illness are at the same time drugs that cause violent behavior including suicide and aggression toward others. In fact, SSRI’s are the leading drugs in a recent list compiled of the Top Ten Drugs that cause violent behavior.

It’s been well known that adolescents and young people have an increased risk of suicide when they begin to take SSRIs. But what we may forget is that suicide is an impulsive behavior that is turned against oneself. But impulses, particularly violent ones, can be turned against others.

An accompanying effect of SSRI’s is the dulling of feelings that cause depression—and one of the main feelings in this line is empathy. If empathy is dulled and violent impulses increase when young people are on SSRI’s, then certainly that is a recipe for causing harm to others.

With every shooting, the hoplophobes resume screeching and squawking about the need for gun control laws. We never hear them even ASK about psychotropic drugs.

As I say, I've heard this question asked, several times, over the years. Aren't the psychotropics suspect? Maybe they're to blame? But, I've never really looked at it. Call it some naive faith that if the drugs were to blame, then someone is working to expose that fact. Except - that is a terribly naive thing to believe. Big Pharma is in the business of making money - even when it creates an opium addiction crisis.

So, what about those shooters? Are they picking up their guns because the guns removed all their natural(?) inhibitions?

Can anyone find an account of a shooter who WAS NOT on anti-depressants or some other psychotropic?

This really is worrisome. The shrinks tell us that one in four, or one in five, or one in seven Americans have mental health issues. Let me find something on that . . . Newsweek claims one in five - that is, 20% of all Americans are nuts, to some degree or another - http://www.newsweek.com/nearly-1-5-americans-suffer-mental-illness-each-year-230608 (no, of course they don't use the word "nuts" - I can paraphrase them however the hell I like)

So, the shrinks claim that 1/5 of all the people you meet are nuts. FFS, are they really nuts, or are the shrinks the ones who are nuts?

Seemingly, people who are NOT vititing shrinks, don't shoot people at random. While, seemingly, people who routinely see shrinks, and take the drugs offered them, are far more likely to pick up a weapon, and start spraying everyone in sight.

So, WTF is going on here? Ideas? Opinion? Should we stop demonizing guns, and start demonizing drugs and Big Pharma?

What is the possibility that the drugs actually MAKE people crazy? From my experience with friends and family who are prescribed drugs for ADD/ADHD, hyperactivity, and other "problems" - they often turn zombie-like. Once close acquaintance described feeling "angry" whenever he was on his drugs. As the drugs wore off, he was much less angry. Of course, that is just one example - one person who felt free to talk to me about his experience.

Are shrinks what is wrong with America today?