Meta

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

Meta (from the Greek meta- μετά- meaning "after" or "beyond") is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction -- something used to as part of, or to complete something else. While many of my articles may reference or borrow a section from other articles, meta-articles are articles that contain MANY other articles inside them (or are almost entirely made from other articles).

This is a list of meta-articles:

Amazon -
AmazonLogoCube.png
I'm neither advocate nor foe of Amazon. They are a company, that's doing their best to adapt to changing market demands. Some things they do, like offering me better selection at lower prices, is great. Other things they do, like censorship or partisan politics, is annoying. A company isn't made up of any one act or person, but the aggregate of all of them. This article is a list of different Amazon related topics/articles that touch on the Amazon Gestalt. While I have individual opinions on individual acts, I'm perfectly fine leaving it to readers to make up their own minds on those micro-acts, or the macro-organization and personalities.
CNN -
FNN.png
In 1980 Ted Turner started CNN, and put his left center spin on "the news". His later marriage to Hanoi Jane Fonda didn't help perceptions, nor did the newsrooms agenda convey a fully objective tone. He wanted to be the 24 hour version of the same left of center news outlets like CBS, ABC, NBC. So it was founded on his flavor of bias, and went downhill. It wouldn't be quite so bad, if they were just honest about it: but the faux air of objectivity, and denial of any bias, makes it worse.
Canada - Factoids about Canada
Climate Consensus -
Sheep1.jpg
To begin with, consensus isn't Science. Consensus is either the bandwagon fallacy or the appeal to authority fallacy. Consensus/popularity is politics. Science is skepticism.

Places that use the 97% Scientific Consensus for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) fall into one of two groups: (a) those completely unaware of where that comes from (b) those that are dishonest polemics who know how shoddy the claim is, but they publish them anyway. There really isn't a lot of middle ground on this one. The actual consensus is surprisingly small, and the studies that say otherwise are embarrassingly bad, and the one thing that most Scientists seem to have a stronger consensus on, is that IPCC and the media are misleading the public (and overhyping things).

Fake News -
FakeNewsmen.jpg

While the term goes back 100 years, Sharyl Attkisson sums it up in a video.

While our media has always had false narratives and bad stories that are Fake News (exampled include: Edward R. Murrow's "See it now" McCarthy'ing Joe McCarthy (1954), Richard Jewel story (1996), story about a plane crashing into Camp David after 9/11 (2001), Duke LeCross Rape Case (2014), Michael Brown and 'hands up, don't shoot' narrative (2014), and so on). We didn't use the term "Fake News", just liberal media bias or incompetence, but it's been around since the first liberal got sloppy or partisan at a newspaper.

Then on September 13, 2016 Hillary Clinton supporters Google and Eric Schmidt, used a shell charity (a non-profit called "First Draft,") to start seeding the term to attack right wing websites ("to tackle malicious hoaxes and fake news reports"). Hillary Clinton and her surrogate David Brock of Media Matters admitted in a campaign letter that they pressured Facebook to join the effort. Google warned Conservative websites to remove stories that Google didn't like, or they'd take away their ad revenue. And Barack Obama and the liberal media followed along, regurgitating what they were told: none were going to let this opportunity (to curate what information we could see) go to waste, all in the name of protecting free speech. All coincidentally done at the same time, in what could only be a coordinated campaign attack.

Unfortunately for them, it backfired when people noticed that the mainstream liberal media made more errors and was less honest, and started throwing it back in their face. Fake News applied more to the News, Google, Facebook, Obama and other curators and finger pointers than their victims. Donald Trump used that to hijack the term and use it back against them. The left tried to change the narrative and pretend that Trump had created the term, and they wanted to stop using it and claimed it was a hateful term and an attack on free press to point out the Presses bias or errors. And that's where we are today.

Fake News Orgs - While our media has always had false narratives and bad stories that are Fake News (exampled include: Edward R. Murrow's "See it now" McCarthy'ing Joe McCarthy (1954), Richard Jewel story (1996), story about a plane crashing into Camp David after 9/11 (2001), Duke LeCross Rape Case (2014), Michael Brown and 'hands up, don't shoot' narrative (2014), and so on). But Clinton supporters (Googe/Eric Schmidt) re-popularized the term to try to attack conservatives, and it backlashed against the mainstream liberal media big time: since they made more errors and were less honest.
Gun Controllers -
IsItLoaded.jpeg
This is a short list of some of the "smartest Gun-Controllers in the room". This isn't just "gotcha" type mistakes, this is about Gun Control advocates fundamental failure to understand the basics of what they're talking about. I'd be happy to find a gun-controller that could talk about the basic parts and operation without sounding like an idiot, but this article is about the examples of the 99% that are giving the rest a bad name. The things they said that make the informed gun-owners double-face-palm, and undermines the interests of any rational gun controllers. Some day I'll meet one of the latter.
Hillary Clinton - Here's a brief summary of Hillary's scandals (with links to more on each of them). This isn't meant as a balanced piece to show what good she's accomplished as a politicians or person (that would be a much shorter list), the intent is just to show the pattern of scandals that her detractors recognized and her proponents ignore. If you want the pro-Hillary spin just listen to her, the NYT, CNN or MSNBC, they carry her water for her.
Iraq War -
Iraq.png
This covers many of the fallacies and bad arguments about the Iraq War. Disagreeing over the cost/benefits of a war is fine, ignoring truths because they get in the way of your agenda is not.


Memes -
Memes : AOCLawsMemes:BLMMemes:ClimateMemes:EconMemes:GunsMemes:LogicMemes:MineMemes:PeopleUnited Airline Memes
Minimum Wage Laws -
Check2Check.png

The minimum wage and living wage warriors seem reluctant to accept the economic realities: price and wage controls almost never work. There are extremely rare cases where they can work (or do minimal damage) in one small location for short amounts of time, but there's no magic wage that's right for everywhere and everywhen at once. Thus wage controls start out bad and get worse over time.

I like to use thought experiments and the socratic method to try to get min-wage supporters to think:

  • What's a fair wage for both NYC and B.F. Idaho?
  • If $15/hr is good, why not $150/hr? (Every answer why $150 is bad also applies to $15)
  • If I raised your salary by 5%, but the cost of everything you buy by 10%, would you come out ahead?
  • If I’m willing to pay someone $10 to do something, and they’re willing to take $10 to do it, what business is it of the government or voters?
  • Who knows more what's a fair labor value for a job, in every market in the U.S.: the employer and employee involved, or a bureaucrat in D.C. or voter in Barstow? Why?

And so on. To understand minimum wage arguments, read on.

Unexplained Phenomena - People love to focus on how smart we are, and what we know. And that's fine and all. I love what we do know. But to keep one humble, it helps if you remember that there's stuff out there that we don't really know, some we understand what happens but not why it happens, and some stuff we may never really understand. A lot of this is just stuff we can't test, so can't understand. Some is stuff we can test, but still don't understand. The scientific method is great and all, but some things might be bigger than us. I'm OK with that. I'm just not OK with pretending we know things that we really don't.
VoterID and Voter Fraud - The purpose of this aimless article isn’t to convince people of any particular solution, it is to meander through the facts, eviscerate the fallacies, and give everyone the data to come to their own conclusions about Voter fraud and VoterID. There are a lot of fallacies and noise about voter fraud and whether voterID (requiring ID at voting places would fix it). I’ll list just a few of the many examples of voter fraud, and reasons for concerns below -- yet, there's are a lot of DNC fronts (media outlets) that claim there’s virtually none. Why the discrepancy? Well the reason is that voter fraud overwhelmingly benefits the Democrats (DNC). If you were them, would you want it to stop? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.