Organizations

From iGeek
Revision as of 00:57, 3 February 2019 by Ari (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Organizations.png
There are many good organizations, many bad organizations. I'm more likely to comment on organizations whose reputation doesn't match their reality. If I hear too much corporatism (corporate worship), whether that's a Union, University or "Non-partisan" organization... or too much corporate bashing (by the same folks that rationalize worse behavior of other companies), then I'm probably going to write something on it.


This section is not comprehensive analysis of all the complexities of a persons life, but more the points most often brushed over (the counter-balances to the myth-making/propaganda). So these are not meant to be read in isolation, but as complimentary aspects on people (or issues about them) that are on the road that's less travelled.
Licensing is a protection racket: the government takes away your right to something, then leases it back to you for a fee. Fuck with that, and the mafia will kill you, the government will give you life in prison (with no possibility of parole). That just happened to Ross Ulbricht for creating Silk Road (eBay for the DarkNet).
Unions and Organized Labor, what are they, to me? I've been a manager, and in a Union. My wife has been in a couple of Unions and currently belongs to one. I'm definitely not one of those people that think Unions are either good nor bad; because they are both. So I'm both pro-union and anti-union.

I understand history, and understand the need for organized labor. And there is no doubt that when most Unions were formed there was way too little power on the side of the workers. So that side is definitely good.

I also understand power and politics; and Unions prove that while too much power in the hands of greedy self-serving corrupt management may not be good, too much power in the hands of a greedy self-serving corrupt labor monopoly is no better. As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely; and this has been reflected in many scandals with Unions or the Management that Unions love to vilify. So like all things in life, Unions and organized labor is about balances.

United.jpg
Here's the basics of what happened: Overbooked plane, Poker-playing unethical doctor (who lost his license due to trading drugs for sexual favors) is asked to leave -- he takes the moderate response of calling his lawyer who tells him to make a scene. He ignores directions of the flight crew (a federal crime) and tells the airport police to drag him off, makes a scene, and injure himself in the fight. The media and the uninformed blame the airline.


📡If it bleeds, it leads, and these are the ambulance chasers, FakeNews outlets, faux journalists, with a couple of left over good guys, that call themselves the media today.


Bloomberg.png
Bloomberg is a privately held financial, software, data, and media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, founded by Michael Bloomberg in 1981.
BCTSGV.png
Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence is another FakeNews organization that exists to invent false numbers to dupe the gullible rubes. A cursory look at their numbers, and they fall apart -- they aren't based on subjective murder rates, gun ownership rates, or anything that would lead to the conclusions they draw: it's about whether they like the gun policies -- then cooking the numbers to invent a correlation that doesn't exist.
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.
ESPN.png
ESPN2.jpg
ESPN was told by common sense not to politicize sports, that they were just entertaining escapism. They chose to go the other way. Now they're damn near going bankrupt as viewership is way down, advertising is way down, and the trends for the future look way down. So what did we learn?
There's "facts" that people believe, but aren't. Worse are things that the Fact Checkers on the left have verified for people as true, that aren't true, or are completely biased or misleading. Those are things the herd followers believe because they got their dose of confirmation bias from their partisan sources, and so will argue to death using an appeal to authority fallacy, while anyone who cares about the truth can show how it is wrong.
Media-FoxNews.jpg
The left loves to hate. And there's little they hate more than Fox News. Why? If you ask them it's because it's biased, sloppy, and sensationalizes headlines. All true, but MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC are all at least as bad in all those areas, so we know they lie (either to themselves or us) about the reason. And the real reason they hate it, is why it is so needed. While they are sometimes biased, they counter-balance virtually all the other stations which slant from hard to harder left. By itself, Fox News would mostly give you the right-slanted view of things. But there's no way a right wing person can ignore all the other left wing stations: so they get a balance from Fox News. While a left wing person can avoid Fox News, and get only the far left view of things (with caricatures mis-represented in those same sources). So with Fox News, the world is more balanced. Without it, it is more imbalanced. And since the truth is often towards the middle, Fox New's scarcity of opinion, is the exact diversity of though that is needed to get a deeper understanding of every issue.
GLCTPGV.png
The GLCTPGV is part of the far-left disinformation campaign to dupe the gullible rubes. They either know nothing about the topic of guns, or are flamingly dishonest. This explains how.
HuffPo001.jpeg
HuffPo is a mockery of new journalism. The rules to get published seem to be (1) be popular (2) be wrong on everything you post (3) be sensitive to any corrections (4) have a flock of trolls.
Starting a section on MSNBC and their bias is like starting one on listing all the names in the Holocaust. This is a Sisyphusian task to try to create a comprehensive list -- so I won't do that. Heck, it'd be impossible to list all the failures of any on of their personalities alone (Ed Shultz, Chris Matthews, Tom Brokaw, Mika, Maddow, and the other Hurricane Katrina's of journalistic ethics). So I'll just cherry pick, and offer a few nuggets, links to aggregate sources, greatest misses, and things that can point out the obvious to those capable of getting it.
Media Matters: the big lie -- it's a hit list for David Brock's political enemies, masquerading as a 501c.

They are violating the law by existing.

They threw a hit piece on Tucker Carlson over comments made on a Shock Jock radio show, that frankly, don't seem that bad... just stuff that would offend snowflakes (even with all the context stripped out). But it turns out their own comments are worse. https://www.dailywire.com/news/44602/leftist-who-initiated-boycott-tucker-past-comments-hank-berrien


NPR.png
NPR.png
I so dread starting an NPR section, because I listen to them a lot, and hear at least 2 or 3 fuck-ups per hour, unless it's a weekend or later at night, then it's more like 10. Thus, starting this section would be a full time job of correcting much of what they say about Conservatives, Libertarians, or anything but left leaning feel good stories.
Netflix snippets.
NYTbullshit.png
A never great News Agency has become a shadow of their former self: admittedly biased by their own Ombudsman and editors, as well as exposed confessions. They still have occasionally good content, but that can't make up for their more frequent bad, or their willingness to deceive, commit lies of omission, or present things in a biased way. (Never trusting their readership with the whole truth). More than that, some insist on idol worship for what they publish, and abject denial of their obvious and omitted bias: and that fuels the backlash against them.
New Yorker.png
The New Yorker was once a renowned for their fact checking and quality. Then David Remnick took over as Editor and they became the cheap partisan low-quality mock-worthy rag that they are today. This details just a small portion of that.
Newsweak.jpg
A magazine that fell from mediocrity into the annals of incompetent partisanism. Once semi-reputable Newsweek started making supermarket tabloids embarrassed with articles like the following...
Politifact.png
List of evidence that supports the popular opinion that PolitiFact is biased partisan hackery. Worse than that, they act like angry grade schoolers when caught, which is fairly often. So there are basically two camps: those that think PolitiFact is non-partisan, and those who know what's going on in the world.
Politico started when left-of-center John F. Harris, and the slightly less left-of-center Jim VandeHei (who left to found Axios in disgust, and penned a FU I'm outta here letter), got funding for a DC tabloid journalism (rumor mongering) on the DC set. Sort of what HuffingtonPost was to Hollywood, but only for DC, if HuffPo had even lower ethical and journalistic standards. The point isn't that I dislike Politico -- its looser quality controls allows for some people to get a voice that they wouldn't have elsewhere. So to me, it's like reddit or twitchy -- sure most articles are full of shit, but they allow both sides turds, and you can find some treasures in the sewage, if you are willing to wade long enough.
Rolling Stone is an American monthly magazine that was founding in the late 60's San Francisco, and focused on music and pop-culture. But like many in entertainment, they forgot their goal is to entertain, become full of themselves and try to be more "relevant" -- and since that's not their core competency, they usually screw it up. Which is a shame, because we need shallow tripe and escapism, without SJW's trying to take everything over and make it important. Especially when they have a history of being not very good at their core competency (covering the music scene).
Skeptical Science is a FakeScience site created by not-a-scientists John Cook. It seems like his name is missing an 'r' somewhere. He created his site not to inform people, but to misinform them. You can tell by things he does on it: like omitting facts that he finds inconvenient, or censoring famous Climate Scientists that he disagrees with. It's fine that he has an advocacy site -- it's wrong that he plays it off as a Science site. Science is always about facts and skepticism.
Snopes.png
Snopes.png
All sources have a bias, and all make mistakes. I don't care that Snopes was created by California couple Barbara and David Mikkelson, who decided to covert alt.folklore.urban newsgroup into a website. Despite a cabal of liberal editors, most of Snopes isn't that bad. But mostly fair, isn't completely fair -- and they have plenty of bias, un-corrected errors, and unfair interpretations. Each article deserves separate scrutiny/skepticism, with many falling far below journalistic standards. So despite their voracity supported by partisans and rubes, Snopes is far from the paragon of objectivity that some pretend. This article offers a small sampling of errors and bias.
TheAtlantic.jpg
The Atlantic is a far-left Newspaper (not by ideology, just by bias), that occasionally lets a good article or two through, and even rarely has some diversity of thought. I had some hope when they hired the prolific conservative intellectual, Kevin Williamson, away from the National Review. But like so often happens in sheep flocks, they got nervous when someone unlike them came in, that the editors actually had to defend their position -- not because Kevin is a bomb-thrower, but because the snowflakes on staff, didn't want "one of them" in their clique. Then, less than a week in, he fired Kevin after his first article. Not because of its contents, but because of the content of his character: scrupulous, intellectual, and individualist (instead of collectivist progressive). Oh, and he committed a thought crime of saying abortion is a bad thing.
Time Magazine was once a respected publication, but like all things: liberals ruined it. Once they took over, they destroyed "journalism" and replaced it with propaganda. So while good articles occasionally get through their editorial bias, it's strictly by accident, and usually not touching anything vaguely political.
ChainsawBayonet.png
USAToday has a long history of dumb, and they should have been renamed USSA (United Socialist States of America) because that seems to be their bend/lean. But here's an example of their dumb.
ViceCovers.jpg
Vice is a hard left outlet, that exists to twist every news story from a hard left PoV. Like the worst of WaPo, HuffPo and a basement blogger, all screaming against the injustices of the anyone with a clue. Other than the bad journalism, they were created as a pump-and-dump scam, that seems to have been successful -- sensationalism sells, and this was dot-com version of website replacing the old stodgy ink-stained fingers, with younger and hipper writing (ignore the quality beneath SuperMarket tabloids): it's clickbait journalism Pied Piper, only instead of leading the rats out of the sewer, it lead the other so-called jouranlistic institutions down into them.
WaPo.png
A once great paper, now a liberal fake news rag that looks more like Bezos Blog (or the DNC's blog) than an objective Newspaper. To be fair, WaPo was always walking in the Grey Lady's (NYT's) shadow, and Jeff Bezos acquisition didn't change much... now that the NYT in the mud, it's no surprise that WaPo is crawling in the sewer. Here is a partial list of falsehoods, embarrassments, and mistakes.
WikiLeaks.jpg
Do I like Wikileaks? Not really. Do I respect them? Yes. Am I happy they exist? Mixed. I think they've done a service by exposing some bad things in the western countries (especially focused on the USA). They've also gotten good people killed, and harmed western (freedom's) interests. So they're a cost and consequence of being an open, diverse and free society. China/Russia/Saudi Arabia/and so on, are more closed, have more tolerance towards oppression of speech, a more cliquish culture, and people know that leaking there means their death (or ruination). Whereas the west it's a gamble towards attention, book deals and possible fortune or at least being provided for (Chelsea Manning, Eric Snowden). This means that Wikileaks and institutions like them will always do more harm to open countries (and their interests) than more closed ones, that behave worse and need this kind of thing the most. So they can be a force for evil and good at the same time.
Wikipedia.png
Wikipedia.png
Wikipedia is both hit and miss, with a lot more hits than misses. I reference it a lot, because most articles are pretty good, or at least good enough. But don't let that lull you into an "Appeal to Authority" or "Appeal to Celebrity" fallacy. Science is skepticism. Wikipedia is hegemony. Wikipedia has millions of articles, across hundreds of thousands of topics -- and each topic is a community (clique) of editors, but herd-think rules most of them. That means if one clique is bad, that whole area can be bad. And there are bad (biased) areas of wikipedia. Especially in History, Science, Politics, and anything that's controversial. And everything can be political and controversial to folks that focus on any topic.



List of riots and antifa attacks on free speech and other stupid and intolerant things that Berkeley does in the name of tolerance. You are what you do, and when you assault people because you don't like what they think or say, your actions are intolerant -- and that means far more than the flower prose about how you're beating them up out of love for your fellow man. When actions and deed conflict, trust the deed.
The CCC is what happens when community organizers run development planning: they "To protect, conserve, restore, and enhance the environment of the California coastline" by obstructing development and improvement of one of our countries great resources, saving it from humanity and the usefulness it might have to individuals or our country. Good for the locals who don't want to share. Bad for everyone who isn't already there. It's what tolerance looks like in California.
Pointing out that most of the clean-ups happened at the state level before we had an EPA, and many of the EPA failures may be true, but they will get you disinvited from many granola munchers parties in the People's Republic of Hollywood (or California). But heck, I care about the facts and how to really help the environment, more than watermelon agenda of using the environment as an excuse to create socialism. Not because I hate clean air or water, I think both are great. I just think that people need to understand that without a bureaucratic federal monstrosity, we'd still have state and local improvements (maybe more), with far less cost. Most companies don't clean up because of fear of the EPA, but fear of their customers or legal liability if they get caught.
The FCC (Federal Communications Commission), and later the "fairness doctrine", was created so FDR could bully any TV/Radio stations that did unfavorable pieces on the administration. It was also a way so that his son (who lived in the White House) could be paid rich consulting fees to get licenses fast-tracked, while those who didn't pay or the enemies could be blocked or slow-tracked.
FDA is the Food and Drug Administration. While I'm not against administration, if you look at what they do, and what it costs to do it, the rational and economic minded, understand that it could be done cheaper and better, if there was more accountability and less bureaucracy. It's not always how much you spend, but how well you spend it.
NEAforDummies.jpg

I have nothing against the NEA/NEH, except how it's funded.

  1. The NEA is “welfare for cultural elitists"
  2. Over half their funding goes to the 10 most liberal states (New York, California, etc).
  3. Places like the MET get $300M from private contributions, and have $4B in assets, why should rural taxpayers have to contribute anything to them?
  4. Then there's waste -- like grants for "Sitting with Cactus", or subsidizing productions of Julius Caesar where our President is assassinated.

So if you like it, fine -- contribute to it. Forcing others to contribute to it, is not what liberty looks like. So you can support Liberty or the politicization of the arts (Cultural Marxism), but not both.

NPR.png
I so dread starting an NPR section, because I listen to them a lot, and hear at least 2 or 3 fuck-ups per hour, unless it's a weekend or later at night, then it's more like 10. Thus, starting this section would be a full time job of correcting much of what they say about Conservatives, Libertarians, or anything but left leaning feel good stories.
GoldwaterUN.jpg
“The time has come to recognize the United Nations for the anti-American, anti-freedom organization that it has become. The time has for us to cut off all financial help, withdraw as a member, and as the United Nations to find headquarters location outside the United States that is more in keeping with the philosophy of the majority of voting members, someplace like Moscow or Peking.” ~ Barry Goldwater



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.
Apple logo.png
A list of various articles and topics of discussion around Apple. Since they're a secretive company, I tend to avoid opining on a lot of things about them, out of respect for their desire and right to control their own messaging. So I tend to only focus on the trivial for a reason.
FacebookHypocrisy.jpg
Facebook is 3 things: bad interface, bad management, and biased policies. I want a social network that gives me control of what I see and share -- both to my friends and to advertisers. I realize they need to make a buck, and my information is their product, but the point is you can still give users the illusions of control. But Zuckerberg seems to have falling into the egocentric pit that many young billionaires do, they think because they timed things well, and worked hard, and got lucky that they're smarter than everyone else. This makes them arrogant, less mature, and slower to grow than the average human: Dunning-Kruger, inflated by being surrounded by yes-men.
GoogleEvil.png
In 1995, two 20-something Ph.D. students from Stanford were looking for something to do their dissertations on, and decided that they should focus on a Web crawler and indexer research. Once they found funding and a revenue stream based on advertising, they became what's known in the Valley as a Unicorn: a multi-billion dollar company. And their saga from College Dormitory Culture to Corporate Cult began. Unfortunately, explosively rapid successes skip normal growth and maturing processes in corporations, and can create cults (or at least cult-like behavior). There's a line between corporate culture and conformity to the corporate line or expulsion, and that line seems to often get crossed at the Googleplex, without any of the normal checks and balances that might apply at a more moderate corporation.
MissCubicle.png
A bunch of startups didn't have money to create usable facilities, and they were often hiring students who didn't know better (about what private space was) and worked out of coffee shops, so they created "Open Offices".

Planners who failed at life decided that if Google/Facebook/etc. succeeded in spite of a horrendously distracted working environment, then everyone should suffer -- and Corporate America (especially Tech) started shifting to Open Office Floorplans; to the annoyance of tech workers everywhere. This was sold as "more collaborative", but there's no worker with a triple digit IQ that actually buys that, and there have been multiple studies that bear out the skepticism: workers get more quiet to keep from disturbing others (and hide away in meeting rooms or with headphones to create faux privacy). But the one-size-fits-all is attractive to the small-of-mind, paired up with the financial folks that could increase population density, without fixing facilities for parking, loading/unloading or eating. And the results have been productivity killing, increased employee friction, increased illness/sick-time, less face-to-face interaction, and more start working from home or as remote as can get away with. This will go down as proof that companies that ignore management fads operate much better than those that follow them.
QuarkXpress-1.0.png

Quark is a company that helped revolutionize Desktop publishing. But they should be a verb for how to fuck-up your business. They went from 95% market share in desktop publishing (thought the 1980's and 1990), to 25 percent within a few years after Adobe InDesign was released. And InDesign was released with fewer features, not to mention conversion costs. Why would 3 out of 4 customers pay money and time to convert? The answer is simple: they outsources their development to India, had some of the worst support in the industry, had the most annoying copy-protection (DRM / Digital Rights Management) that made it expensive/annoying to use/maintain/upgrade their programs -- and they basically pissed their customers off, that they would have paid more to get less, just to get out from under their thumb.

TwitterInfoWars.jpg
Twitter is an enemy of free speech and tolerance. Examples include them shadow banning conservatives (and admitting it, on-tape), some of their employees getting excited about violating their members privacy (assuming those members are conservatives/Trump), and how they suppressed anti-Hillary tweets during the election. That's scarily Orwellian. It's still their company and they get to be as dicky as they want to be with it (within the bounds of the law). But I'm going to point out their moral terpitude just so that consumers can make an informed choice -- not as any call to action (legal, governmental or otherwise).
YouTubeLogo.jpg
YouTube (a division of Google) has a specially abusive place when it comes to the world of selective censorship - that only seems to apply to truths liberals hate to hear.
  • PragerU's was suppressed/censored (silently), with no evidence offered that anything they have said it wrong, untrue, or racist. They do expose misleading beliefs of the far left, so that appears reasonable to block or punish them.
  • YouTube went on a crusade against guns, first you couldn't sell guns, then promote guns, and so on. They terminated gun parts channels, like Brownells. They're inventing laws and changing terms that are against the spirit of our constitution.
  • As part of an NYT Expose by Project Veritas (James O'keefe), they caught the NYT editor Nick Dudich explaining how he was using friendships and coordination with YouTube (Earnest Pettie) to manipulate social media to intentionally influence the news. YouTube was being a tool of evil, to work against a free election.

Every company has a right to decide who they support or not. But the problem is Google/YouTube PRETENDS to be an open platform (and community service). Yet, they're not doing what they advertise. If they openly admitted in their policies that they're a left-of-center advocacy site that will censor center/right positions at will, then at least that would be honest.



How to shoot yourself in the dick? Be a Sporting Goods store named Dick's, then alienate a large swath of your customer base and suppliers who are hunters and gun owners, by replacing the Constitution with your hypocritical corporate ethics. This move left a mark, in the short and long term. (To the tune of about $150M or 1.7% of annual revenue, in the first year alone... more to come).
List of riots and antifa attacks on free speech and other stupid and intolerant things that Berkeley does in the name of tolerance. You are what you do, and when you assault people because you don't like what they think or say, your actions are intolerant -- and that means far more than the flower prose about how you're beating them up out of love for your fellow man. When actions and deed conflict, trust the deed.
BLM.png
I refer to Black Lives Matter as the Black-Clan. Why? Because they're mask-wearing racist who have been more violent than the clan has been since the 1920’s. The "victims" are usually repeat felons with long rap sheets, getting shot by minority officers, for brandishing weapons. All to further a cause that's complete anti-American bullshit: that the white establishment shoots unarmed black men for no reason, despite evidence to the contrary. They're a waste of space that only lowers humanity and tolerance.
BCTSGV.png
Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence is another FakeNews organization that exists to invent false numbers to dupe the gullible rubes. A cursory look at their numbers, and they fall apart -- they aren't based on subjective murder rates, gun ownership rates, or anything that would lead to the conclusions they draw: it's about whether they like the gun policies -- then cooking the numbers to invent a correlation that doesn't exist.
FacebookHypocrisy.jpg
Facebook is 3 things: bad interface, bad management, and biased policies. I want a social network that gives me control of what I see and share -- both to my friends and to advertisers. I realize they need to make a buck, and my information is their product, but the point is you can still give users the illusions of control. But Zuckerberg seems to have falling into the egocentric pit that many young billionaires do, they think because they timed things well, and worked hard, and got lucky that they're smarter than everyone else. This makes them arrogant, less mature, and slower to grow than the average human: Dunning-Kruger, inflated by being surrounded by yes-men.
Factcheckers.jpeg
Annenberg's FactCheck.org is another lefty front posing as a non-partisan fact checker. Actually, since they started taking money from Facebook, they should be called Zuckerberg's FactCheck.org: follow the money. And Facebook is completely non-partisan and has no biases or agendas, right? LOL. History proves that FactCheck.org was partisan and bias, but since their acquisition by Facebook, it seems that they won't have even the false front of being a "J-School", which are all partisan, it's just Zuckerberg's sock-puppet.
GLCTPGV.png
The GLCTPGV is part of the far-left disinformation campaign to dupe the gullible rubes. They either know nothing about the topic of guns, or are flamingly dishonest. This explains how.
GoogleEvil.png
In 1995, two 20-something Ph.D. students from Stanford were looking for something to do their dissertations on, and decided that they should focus on a Web crawler and indexer research. Once they found funding and a revenue stream based on advertising, they became what's known in the Valley as a Unicorn: a multi-billion dollar company. And their saga from College Dormitory Culture to Corporate Cult began. Unfortunately, explosively rapid successes skip normal growth and maturing processes in corporations, and can create cults (or at least cult-like behavior). There's a line between corporate culture and conformity to the corporate line or expulsion, and that line seems to often get crossed at the Googleplex, without any of the normal checks and balances that might apply at a more moderate corporation.
Intuit makes the bad choice to punish companies for selling products they don't like. It backfires. I worked for Intuit and used their products before -- but if I have a choice, I never ever will again. It is certainly in a private companies purview to choose their customers -- but there's a responsible or douchey way to do it. And it's also within the customers purview to choose the companies they do business with. So the lash gets the backlash.
NPR.png
I so dread starting an NPR section, because I listen to them a lot, and hear at least 2 or 3 fuck-ups per hour, unless it's a weekend or later at night, then it's more like 10. Thus, starting this section would be a full time job of correcting much of what they say about Conservatives, Libertarians, or anything but left leaning feel good stories.
NikeAdidas.jpg
Nike decided to go all corporate slacktivism with a variety of efforts that don't seem to work out well for them. I certainly don't disagree with their right to hold a stupid opinion, but while we should all have free speech (and expression), we shouldn't have freedom from the consequences of those stupid opinions.
Occupy-Democrats.png
RMVP or Propagandaministerium of America. They exist to take things out of context, lie, distort, and feel that any means to their ends (of furthering the power of government over the people) is justified. At least based on their actions. If you can't look at anything they post, and find at least 10 things wrong with it, then you're not qualified to have a discussion.
Politifact.png
List of evidence that supports the popular opinion that PolitiFact is biased partisan hackery. Worse than that, they act like angry grade schoolers when caught, which is fairly often. So there are basically two camps: those that think PolitiFact is non-partisan, and those who know what's going on in the world.
SPLC Logo.png
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a far left site created to fear-monger for money. Their platform is used to attack anyone on the right, and by their own standards, they would qualify as a hate-group... if they applied their standards to left-of-center institutions.
Snopes.png
All sources have a bias, and all make mistakes. I don't care that Snopes was created by California couple Barbara and David Mikkelson, who decided to covert alt.folklore.urban newsgroup into a website. Despite a cabal of liberal editors, most of Snopes isn't that bad. But mostly fair, isn't completely fair -- and they have plenty of bias, un-corrected errors, and unfair interpretations. Each article deserves separate scrutiny/skepticism, with many falling far below journalistic standards. So despite their voracity supported by partisans and rubes, Snopes is far from the paragon of objectivity that some pretend. This article offers a small sampling of errors and bias.
TwitterInfoWars.jpg
Twitter is an enemy of free speech and tolerance. Examples include them shadow banning conservatives (and admitting it, on-tape), some of their employees getting excited about violating their members privacy (assuming those members are conservatives/Trump), and how they suppressed anti-Hillary tweets during the election. That's scarily Orwellian. It's still their company and they get to be as dicky as they want to be with it (within the bounds of the law). But I'm going to point out their moral terpitude just so that consumers can make an informed choice -- not as any call to action (legal, governmental or otherwise).