3 Million!

Jan. 22nd, 2017 05:11 am
marahmarie: Love In Chains (keychain)

3 million of you (estimated) attended a march yesterday (for a myriad of reasons that might do anything from bore to scare one to death - including my phobias and the mostly rotten political climate of my particular swamp state - I did not). But I love every one of you, women, man, and child, who had what I didn't in order to be there. ♥

ETA: I think The Hill might've fubared the link. Directly after posting I noticed the URL has "womens-marches-draw-estimated-25-million-across-country" in its wording. That's not substantiated anywhere in the article, and I did doublecheck in case the URL was more accurate. There were marches across the world; maybe that's what the URL refers to, but the article doesn't break out numbers and the last word in the URL is "country", not "world".

marahmarie: Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell (Default)

Sample comments, not usually in reply to each other, and sometimes slightly changed to keep divisiveness off of my blog. See if you can spot the errors - be they factual, logical, grammatical or otherwise. This is not a grammar, punctuation, style nor civics lesson, more of a deep dive into the right-wing hive mind. It might read like spam and won't form a coherent thought; it's an amalgamation of comments I saw in the last five minutes on a single blog (left-leaning and well-written - these commenters are tending to invade them, lately, I guess because they WON!), but are representative of comments I've read ceaselessly across the Web over the last 11 years:

In the mean time , OUR president did not whine,cry,or play golf nor fund terrorism.
ALL you can see is racism.
This is all lies I guess you only listened to CNN do your research.
Don't forget the lies he told about OBAMACARE.
We have ruled you snowflakes.
You don't like it….and yet you read the entire thing….and then commented on it.
Let's show he hit the mail on the head.
Nuff said, California was the reason for the popular vote.
No they did not they elected Donald Trump
I’m scared but I’m Not rioting Not burning cars.
None of you respect anyone not even the American Flag.
So support him to try and make our country GREAT again!
Am I to assume that you are a Psychologist?
Wow this is well said !!!!
We as a Country are responsible to help make this country a better place instead of crying a and being angry out your energy into working on making this Country want it was!!!!!!!!
Quit your dam whining!!
Shut up and go home and tell your comments to your self.
You Democrats are being mean.
If you stood I felt by while obama shredded the constitution and circumvented the congress to impose his will, your complaint now means less than nothing, asshat.

After 11 years of viewing similar word vomit I've decided millions of commenters are actually all the same person. And I might not be that far off, though you might have to look to genetics and Russians other influences to explain it.

From the top:

In the mean time , OUR president did not whine,cry,or play golf nor fund terrorism. Commas have three and half defaults: 1) absent 2) surrounded by enough white space to fit more words on either side, 3) jammed betwixt words without any space, 3 1/2) jammed into the words, li,ke so.


Don't forget the lies he told about OBAMACARE. How can I when it's called the ACA? Obamacare, Obongocare, Obamocare, Obiongocare, ad nauseum.

This is all lies I guess you only listened to CNN do your research. CNN is to blame for EVERYTHING GOD EMPEROR's opinion FACT so there

We have ruled you snowflakes. In this game, everyone not worshiping the orange is the snowflake, but enough snowflakes drifting together can ruin an orange, so the object of the game is to drive off snowflakes by chanting the words "snowflakes" and "great again".

You don't like it….and yet you read the entire thing…. What is going on with the periods? Seriously. Do they have special keyboards in the United Keyboards of Emperor? Because I cannot recreate whatever the fuck just happened.

Let's show he hit the mail on the head. Why does this person wish to harm postal workers?

Nuff said, California was the reason for the popular vote. So if we "just" leave off flyover country then Trump lost. Great! Again! Also, about "Nuff": I had a dog that made that sound.

No they did not they elected Donald Trump Ah, the rarest case of right-wing infighting ever seen: the hive mind can't decide if California won or lost the popular vote for Hillary, so is losing its punctuation and its shit. Could someone please tell them it did both.

OK, I'm kidding. (It did not do either. Math, people.)

I’m scared but I’m Not rioting Not burning cars. Why super-randomly capitalize "not"? Was this person t,oo lazy to use ALLCAPS

None of you respect anyone not even the American Flag. The American flag's obtained personhood? Why didn't someone tell me?

So support him to try and make our country GREAT again! Some people are easy "sloganized" (taught to wield random words as weapons). Weaponized human blog spam intended to destroy snowflakes, badly designed. Possibly eight more years of GREAT. AGAIN! Sad! Except he's trademarked his 2020 slogan: "Keep America Great!" Or else! So. GREAT!

Am I to assume that you are a Psychologist? The correct answer is "No" until the day "psychologist" isn't capitalized.

Wow this is well said !!!! Like commas, exclamation points can turn up (or !!!! disappear) at any time.

Exactly……. One writer. One keyboard. Two kinds of periods (right-click/view source. Two kinds.) Almost as creepy as constant random allcaps.

We as a Country are responsible to help make this country a better place instead of crying a and being angry out your energy into working on making this Country want it was!!!!!!!! Sort of like a Greatest Hits.

Quit your dam whining!! But I like whining about dams. Dam it!

Shut up and go home and tell your comments to your self. Should I do that out loud or silently?

You Democrats are being mean. Anything Trump says about other people is actually him projecting onto others personality traits of his own. Looks like the rabble's trained well.

If you stood I felt by while obama shredded the constitution and circumvented the congress to impose his will, your complaint now means less than nothing, asshat. This was sort of like saying, "See, I just smashed my keyboard and pressed "send", so I win!"

I could have quoted more (I quoted maybe 1/1,000th of possible candidates for this post) but after copying and pasting the last few I got so terribly exhausted. So, while it's a small sample, and while almost every sentence is from a different person (presumably), it might be the only data set you need. I'd guess roughly 6 out of every 10 right-wingers, conservatives or Trump supporters writes in one or more of the above fashions (sometimes all of them at once).

Something tells me these comments seem similar not because they're from the same person, but because the genetics on the bloodlines responsible for them are so closely intertwined you'd need a tweezers to pick them apart. Because it's such a weird, yet predictably patterned way of writing (also: very childish) it's highly imitable, which worries me because there are two kinds of periods coming from one keyboard and you know, Russian influence campaigns underfoot.


marahmarie: Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell (Default)

Or, how to hack search results from the comfort of your mom's basement

Since learning Jews are maligned and misrepresented in Google's search results thanks to white supremacists' SEO manipulations which pushes hate speech above facts, I've grown resigned to how this search company in particular, which is owned and run by Jews, lets any hate group, including those that specifically hate them, hack their search results just to make money.

Was this how Germany fell? Jewish newspapers letting their pages fill with hate speech about themselves because, "Wow, this sort of speech sells more papers than ever before, you SEE that guys?"? Was it?

Selling yourselves and your own people out just to make money is fine until the haters who hate you, whom you made this money off of so indifferently, seize it along with your lives, which is exactly how Nazi Germany turned out. A bit chilling? Sure. But hey, it's all fun and games until no one but the haters can laugh about it anymore, amirite?

In that spirit - one of pre-ackowledging defeat not at the hands of the enemy, but thanks to the indifference of some powerful and influential members of the very group of people in most compelling need of defense - I've kept a jaded but watchful eye over the racial, religious and political slant of Google's results.

While I've seen many instances of right-wing slant, there have usually been enough left-wing or simply neutral websites (such as factcheck.org and/or snopes.com) mixed in to keep me from speaking out. So I waited for a more egregious and flagrant violation of both my intelligence and common sense. And I finally got it.

Background: last night; myself and another person discussing politics. Opening salvo: the other person asked what I thought of the Clinton Foundation shutting down. My response: silent open-mouthed disbelief, then one word: "WHAT???"

So began my Google search to learn the truth. Here's how it went.

Google lets SEO experts employed by right-wing websites hack their search results - a picture of Google's search results for [clinton foundation] being hacked by SEO experts]

In the above picture the top three results - framed and centered across the top of the page in big, gorgeous, drop-shadowed lightboxes with splashy pictures included for each website in question - point to three right-wing websites with the following articles:

  • National Review - The Clinton Initiative's Ignominious End
  • Fox News: - Clinton Global Initiative to Lay Off Employees, Shut Down Amid Dwindling...
  • NewsBusters - Silence From Networks As Clinton Global Initiative Shuts Down

But wait, I thought the person I was speaking with said "Clinton Foundation". Yes, he said "Clinton Foundation"; I'm quite sure of it. Maybe Google's having an algorithmic brain fart of some sort, giving results for Clinton Global Initiative instead of Clinton Foundation. So I tried again, using [Clinton Global Initiative] this time as my search query.

Google lets SEO experts employed by right-wing websites hack their search results - a picture of Google's search results for [clinton global initiative] after being hacked by SEO experts]

In the above picture the top three results - drop-shadowed lightboxes with splashy pictures included for each website in question - point again to two of the same three right-wing websites, and one other besides, running the following articles:

  • National Review - The Clinton Initiative's Ignominious End
  • Breitbart: - Peter Schweizer: Clinton Global Initiative Folded Because They Can N...
  • NewsBusters - Silence From Networks As Clinton Global Initiative Shuts Down

Well, given these titles at the top of the fold in search results, it certainly looks like the person I was speaking with was right; the Clinton Foundation has indeed shut down.

At a loss for what to think, I scrolled down the page to the so-called "organic" results, but those were just a strange mixture of the same right-wing websites and a few more, besides, with similar titles on their articles, along with some links to the Clinton Foundation and a Wikipedia page.

Not really wanting to, still I scrolled back up and decided to click on the Fox News article, considering them the father of, but still the lesser of most online evil you'll see around distorted news these days. Well!

From the article (archived version, in case they rewrite, move or delete it):

The Clintons are moving ahead with plans to downsize their controversial foundation’s network of offshoots, a decision carried out as the powerful family’s political influence wanes and its once-lengthy donor list shrinks.

Wait, "downsize"? I looked again at the article title: Clinton Global Initiative to Lay Off Employees, Shut Down Amid Dwindling.... The title says "shut down", but the first sentence says "downsize". So this already looks misleading. But hey, let's give it a chance; maybe the "shutting down" part is further down the page, "below the fold".

In a decision announced last week, 22 additional employees are being laid off from the Clinton Global Initiative – known for its annual glitzy gathering of high-powered leaders and celebs. The layoffs are tied to a decision to shutter CGI that originally was announced in an Aug. 22 letter from former President Bill Clinton.

Here we have a big problem: "22 additional employees". Additional? How many - if any - were laid off in the past?

At the time, the Clintons were under pressure to explain how they would handle potential conflicts of interest with their namesake foundation if Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton were to win the White House.

OK, unlinked and unsourced, but probably considered (disputed) common knowledge.

Bill Clinton wrote in his letter at the time: “Nine years ago in my book ‘Giving,’ I wrote, ‘I want to continue these meetings for at least a decade, with the objective of creating a global network of citizen activists who reach across the divides of our interdependent world to build real communities of shared opportunities, shared responsibilities, and a genuine sense of belonging.’ ... That is exactly what CGI, its members, and its dedicated staff have done.”

OK, but Bill Clinton does not, in that specific quote, say that the Clinton Foundation is about to "shut down". Does he?

Clinton lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump -- but the family is proceeding anyway with its CGI plans, and those “dedicated staff” are getting the ax.

The 22 staffers are part of a wave of layoffs.

The last sentence appears to be, at best, an unsubstantiated rumor.

Syracuse.com reported on Oct. 4 about a WARN notice announcing 74 employees would be laid off. Another notice was issued on Jan. 12 stating 22 more employees would be let go. WARN is the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires employers to give 60-days advance notice of business closings.

The Syracuse.com article isn't linked to; because it's not, there's no way to verify what Fox News claims they've reported. So I right-clicked and googled the first half of the sentence about the WARN notice, which is where this gets a bit interesting. The Syracuse.com article says, and I quote:

The Clinton Foundation will lay off 74 employees at its Clinton Global Initiative office in New York City at the end of the year, according to a notice filed with the state.

The notice, required under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), said the 74 employees at the initiative's offices on the 42nd floor at 1271 Avenue of the Americas will be laid off on Dec. 31.

But the link to the WARN notice gives this message: This is an invalid WARN Notice ID. So there is no valid WARN Notice that Syracuse.com has linked to to prove their claim.

While I won't speculate if Syracuse.com created a false WARN number just to lie about what the Clinton Foundation is up to, it's quite possible. Getting back to the Fox News article, it goes on to say:

Under the form’s “Reason for Dislocation” section, a staffer wrote: “Discontinutation (sic) of the Clinton Global Initative (sic).”

Yep, sure they did.

The “layoff date” is set for April 15.

It’s unclear how many employees will be left at CGI after the latest round of layoffs, or if any of those workers will be shifted to other Clinton projects. A spokesperson for the Clinton Foundation declined to comment on the record for this story.

Again, the article's title is: Clinton Global Initiative to Lay Off Employees, Shut Down Amid Dwindling.... It says "shut down". Yet this far in we're still discussing 22 layoffs - in addition to 74 previous layoffs that supposedly occurred on Dec. 31st - and linking to another website which offers only an "invalid WARN Notice number" on yet another website as "proof".

Oh, and a Clinton spokesperson declined comment, so let's report this as the total annihilation of the Clinton Foundation, because they did. Moving on to the rest of the article to find any shred of linkage between this 22-person layoff and the Foundation going *poof*:

CGI, which began in 2005, is not a direct-action charity like the Clinton Foundation, but instead brings power players together to address “significant global challenges” through their own commitments to action.

While Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects were quashed mere months after Bill Clinton penned his August letter, other factors may have contributed to CGI’s ending despite the disappearance of looming conflict-of-interest issues.

OK, so now we learn that "CGI" (the Clinton Global Initiative, which Fox News cleverly disguises behind an acronym to make it seem like it's the same - or just another arm of - the Clinton Foundation) is in fact a separate entity, and that "other factors may have contributed". These are "weasel words", strung together to seemingly substantiate a claim without presenting any facts.

Here we go with the speculation, unlinked sources and unsubstantiated rumors again (seen behind the cut, from the front page):

Here lies the body of the Clinton Foundation - wait...nope, 'fraid not )

I quote the entire article to prove that not once did it explain Fox News's use of the title, which was, again: Clinton Global Initiative to Lay Off Employees, Shut Down Amid Dwindling... It says "shut down". But there's no proof of any shutdown linked to or spoken of, nor offered in any way, shape or form. Nothing.

Google allows - and expects - the entire Internet to believe the Clinton Foundation has already shut down, even returning results for the Clinton Global Initiative shutting down (which is in itself an unsubstantiated claim) when one merely searches for the "Clinton Foundation". "Desire to broadcast the actual truth 404, that's all we know!" And they don't care if that's all you know, either.

Not only do they not care what you believe, they're actively working against your ability to even know what to believe by highlighting lies, distortions, and twisted facts in their big, beautiful, fully photo-enhanced lightboxes along the very top of their results. If that's not caring, then I don't know what is.

Who's actually said (or even suggested) the entire Clinton Foundation - including the Clinton Global Initiative - is shutting down? So far, just some right-wing websites. Not any WARN Notice, not Bill Clinton in his above-quoted letter, not Hillary Clinton at any point in time, not any spokesperson for the Clinton Foundation, nor any unnamed source speaking for the Clinton Foundation.

But if right-wing sources say it (or merely suggest it, or enhance their search engine "signals" to "prove it" by showing up in Google's top results) then it must be true, so let's take their word - rumors, unsourced speculation, and invalid WARN Notice numbers included. Google takes their word, and expects you to do so, too! Google returns almost nothing but their articles in search results, which are all some flavor of the same words - SHUTTING DOWN - up in those big, fancy boxes, so it must be true, right?

Most people won't question that. They'll say, yes, you're right, it must be, simply because they trust Google that much.

My over-arching message: if Google won't fact-check what they let SEO experts push into their big fancy lightboxes at the top of results then they need to get out of the search business, because their results are misleading everybody, which is actively harming users while threatening Google's existence through hate speech about the very people who own and run the search engine.

Objectivity draws in audiences and is much more trustable, believable, quotable, and verifiable then left or right wing slant or any form of hate, so why not leave slant and vileness to bloggers, leave bloggers out of the results, and start either holding news organizations accountable via search placement and ranking penalties, or else start fact-checking search results before pushing them out to users?

Or does Google really want to restrict their entire US search business to the SEO-enabled right wingers and white supremacists? If they won't change their results to more accurately reflect reality, that's the only audience they'll have left.

marahmarie: Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell (Default)

(He means "flaming pile of garbage", more commonly known as a "trashfire", aka, what the next 2-8 years of his presidency will certainly resemble, but fuck it) you need to take it as a...


Ideally - as a news organization, government official, or a progressive, liberal or even socially moderate activist - every day of your life you're aiming for Trump not to like you as much as possible. The less he likes you, the better you're doing at representing him accurately to the American people.

CNN is FAKE NEWS? Drinks on me, folks - you're doing a great job!

Always take Trump's insults as a huuuuuuge contraindication of our shared reality. DON'T do this, aka "turn on each other". It's not necessary to rip Buzzfeed's head off and spit it out on Twitter merely to appease Trump or prove to the "public" yours is the more ethical news outfit. There is no "public". Most Trumpsters don't believe either outfit is any "good". Most progressives, liberals and moderates don't believe Buzzfeed or CNN is in any way "bad".

Don't toss each other to the wolves over an already-divisive, so-called "leader" and his minions, aka "political base". If ethical news outfits (and by that I'm including Buzzfeed, so get used to it) don't stick together, they'll eventually pull the entire free press apart. You need to work with, support, and when needed, correct each other in a civilized fashion, not toss each other's bodies out to the lions in the Twitterena. You people fucking crazy or what?

Incidentally, when people, such as John Lewis, express their genuine feelings or share legitimate facts that seem critical of Trump, he's not "hitting back" (hard! So hard! The hitting's getting so huuuuge!) by knee-jerk reacting in crybaby "UNFAIR!" victim fashion or by telling lie after lie about the person or organization being critical of him - he's doing what's routinely called "throwing a fit", which should always be reported in the press as such:

Trump throws HUUUUUGE FIT after John Lewis merely says what most Americans are thinking

*yawn*...like we've never see this before

Maybe I should just go work for one of these news outfits myself. I'd get fired on my first day of Trump coverage..."She keeps adding "D'Orange Twittolini just threw another HUGE FIT over [...]" to her post titles, we can't have that..."

While I'm on the subject of Twitter (it's where Trump throws fits, so it just keeps coming up) you need this browser extension called RealDonaldContext, created by the Washington Post. It takes the entire flaming pile of garbage D'Orange Cheetolini passes off as "truth" and fact-checks it, or if you simply have no idea why, out of nowhere, Trump attacks a respected Freedom Fighter, it does what it says on the tin and adds the missing context.

Most importantly, you don't need to sign into Twitter for RealDonaldContext to work. Here it is in action in the pic below.

RealDonaldContext browser add-on in action right on Donald Trump's Twitter page

Live RealDonaldContext example: Trump tweets, "Congressman John Lewis should finally focus on the burning and crime infested inner-cities of the U.S. I can use all the help I can get!" Hmmmm, what the fuck brought that on, you wonder. Well, RealDonaldContext to the rescue! Right under the tweet it says: "On Friday, excerpts from 'Meet the Press' were released in which Lewis calls Trump's election 'illegitimate.' Lewis, a hero of the civil rights movement, has been in the House since 1987. [LEARN MORE]"

If all else fails, rather than praise Trump for "hitting back" (hard! So hard! It's huuuuuge, folks!) a title I've seen 456,000 times if I've seen it once, why not do as this guy did (a Republican, no less!) and tell him: Dude, just stop? Because seriously, wtf, knock if off. Can't KellyAnne take his Twitter away, again? We're up to our eyeballs in the lying word-vomit he keeps projectile puking out of it and it's not even Day One of his selling us off to Russia and China. America did nothing to deserve this.

Lastly, I believe there are two keys to understanding Trump - and eventually toppling him, because hope truly does spring eternal, and I'm optimist-in-your-face like that:

  • He hates being made fun of
  • He adores being flattered (more importantly, flattery will instantly turn off what little critical thinking he's capable of like an actual off-switch)

If these are the only two things you know then it's possible to get what you want. Fortunately, we know more about him than two things, but what we think we know is sometimes wrong. For instance, it's often said he's vain and egotistical, but someone who hates being made fun of doesn't have a strong ego. He might have a very huge and obvious one, but it's superficial. He's the kind of person schoolyard bullies probably reduced to tears all the time ("Waaaahh that's so UNFAIR!"). I mean, I hate to sound cruel, but it certainly sounds fairly likely.

The flattery thing's a bit more tricky. If you don't want to trip him into acting like a crybaby for the lulz - say at his next State of the Union address - then your next-best bet is to flatter him. I've seen it reported that certain press organizations did so in public settings and everyone else was like, "Ew, you're just sucking up to him for access!"

No. They're ensuring it. It's that simple. Once you're in, you certainly don't have to be as nice as you were to begin with; you just have to choke down your bile long enough each day to get the job done.

marahmarie: Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell (Default)

This, more or less, is an impromptu and quite informal Bible sermon. If you're itching to invade the comment section to say you don't believe in my stupid, fairy tale god/goblin (which is a completely off-topic thing to even bring up!) then go away. If you won't go away then buh-bye, because you're buh-banned.

I'm tired of evangelicals dragging Christianity around on "their" Republican platform like it belongs to them. There is nothing un-Christian about not being Republican.

Democrats believe "judge not lest you be judged", "do unto others as you'd have done to you", and "...the greatest of these is love". Atheists, agnostics, and other stripes of non-believer or uncertain-what-to-believe have similar moral codes which rule their lives.

Similar moral codes rule no evangelical life, ever.

Evangelicals have a single, overweening and quite twisted moral code that translates into something like this:

"Judge, or be even more harshly judged and ostracized by the rest of us".

As a mostly white, middle-aged, middle class and rather noisy, if not immensely powerful, voting bloc they've been trying for well on 50 years now, if not longer, to force their views upon this country - which is to say, to force everyone they don't like, don't "want" or don't feel things in common with to either leave the country or else to check their right to exist.

Do you have the right to exist?

Forget checking your privilege, especially if you're white. You think that's so bad. Try being black, brown, Jewish, disabled, LGBTQ or a woman in this country. Try it. Check your right to exist if you can tick one or more of those boxes, because evangelicals don't guarantee it. They're working against your own interests every day of your life, to make your paths as difficult as possible.

Why? Because they judge you.
What basis do they judge you upon?
Not looking, acting, being or living like them. Alternately, for the seditious act of disagreeing you should. That really is enough, these days. The in-group identity politics are strong. Even the children are indoctrinated early-on and in myriad ways, which is really kind of sickening.
What's the basis for this criteria?
Believe it or not, the Bible.

The Old Testament pisses on about Sodom and Gomorrah and slaying enemies if they're not God's chosen, while the New Testament pisses on about how women should be seen but not heard, keep their "place" and head covers on and keep away from the pulpit, turns a supernatural birth into the original Madonna/whore story, glorifies slavery, and hints that only Poors might possibly ever inherit the Earth.

Which means the middle class and rich must inherit Heaven, so yay, let's make lots of Poors! Evangelicals and even non-evangelical Republicans might see this as a way to secure their place in the afterlife, where they probably envision getting thanked by God for oppressing All The Rest.

If that doesn't sound like a cult to you...

Evangelicals twist the above-noted passages (note I'm not giving exact chapter/line references because I'm no theologian nor am I Joyce Meyer, but I entreat people to look these things up and welcome any corrections) while conveniently forgetting the equally important passages in my opening paragraphs and many others, such as doing good works, healing the sick, paying taxes ("give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"), not charging interest and welcoming people of all ethnic origins into the fold.

The above is just a short list of Biblical directives evangelicals will never willingly acknowledge nor consider as ways to ensure the well-being of their own people, society or the entire world. These are perfectly Christian directives pulled from the New Testament, a book solely about Jesus Christ, which they ignore entirely.

The most important of these ignored messages, given our political landscape, is the one to "judge not lest you be judged". There are nary evangelicals (and precious few non-evangelical Republicans) who give any credence to that. They're here to judge. They think it's their calling.

They judge if you're poor. Disabled. Don't have a job. Don't have a better job. For being "too" educated, or knowing how to spell, which is entirely too "elite". For being black or brown. For not making fun of blacks or browns. For being a woman. For not minimizing the roles of women. For being LBGTQ. For not hating LGBTQ. For being too PC, but only where PC means "disagreeing evangelicals should judge". Otherwise you're not being PC enough, not in their version of PC, which is ugly and brutal.

For thinking people should live their own lives. For thinking dignity, respect, and self-agency belong to all humans. For the audacity of anyone thinking those they don't like are human.

For all these things and more they judge because God and thunder and brimstone, Sodom and Gomorrah and chosen and hell, I tell you, this is Hell.

Does any of this sound very Christian to you?

But they can't just leave it at that. They not only judge, they control. Remember I said a lot of Biblical wars were fought against those who weren't God's chosen? Well, let me add a qualifier: those wars, according to the Bible, were fought by God's chosen. The evangelicals make the mistake of choosing themselves to act as God's chosen, cherrypick the criteria for judgment, then enforce it by using the law to shove what they (falsely) believe down everyone else's throat.

This is how you get the next eight years of people dying so we can cancel the ACA without putting something comparable in place ("the meek shall inherit the Earth", so get busy meeking or get busy dying). This is how you get fights over who gets to use which bathroom turned into laws stating birth certificates must be produced just to go powder your nose (Sodom and Gomorrah).

This is how you get the minimum wage repealed (because the Bible says "be the best slave you can be"), women's rights rolled back ("seen but not heard"), blacks treated like second class citizens (see the slave thing), anyone brown or non-Christian rounded up, interred and/or deported (the self-chosen get to choose whomever they want for exclusion; it's what God would want).

These are just some of the things evangelicals think "their" Bible puts them on a God-given mission to accomplish. It's like a holy war. Or simply another strange cult.

The Bible has many inconsistencies, a history of being re-written to help the rich profit from the mind and income control of the masses, and a wealth of good and bad morality tales. So I'll just say this to evangelicals: if you're going to base your religious power-politics upon the Bible, then take everything it says as a whole - whether it agrees with your particular brand of identity politics or not - or stop calling yourselves Christians.

marahmarie: Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell (Default)

So - and I have to mention this for old time's sake, because I do - AOL's (fairly) new parent company, Verizon, is dissolving Yahoo as we know it and changing the name on what will remain after the company's gone (mostly investments) to Altaba, which I thought, at first glance, was some strange portmanteau of AOL and Alibaba, but the truth's worse: the name's a portmanteau of "alternative" and Alibaba.

Yep...Alternative Alibaba! Just rolls right off the tongue!

Now that it's known Yahoo was hacked not once but twice over the last few years - to the tune of 1 billion compromised accounts the first time, though just a mere half billion the second time - Verizon's dealing with warmth-challenged feet. Does this give you feels? Yeah, me neither.

So goodbye Marissa, maybe go back to Google where they know how to either contain or eliminate the damage you cause. I actually kind of liked Yahoo! before she got there. She's done so many things to destroy morale and to make end-user experience so bad that I can't even.

First she allowed the user interface to be back-filled with so many scripts, ads, popovers and other trash that on slower computers the online email was unusable. It would freeze, emails would fail to load when opened, popovers telling me what to do would fill my screen, and there really was too much purple and too many garish little icons and emoticons strewn all over the screen.

The interface became something it never was before: an unusable mess. And I only say "was" because a few years before learning of the hacks, I deleted every Yahoo! account I had (probably about three). I didn't delete my accounts in time to avoid being hacked, only in time to find out I'd deleted them too late.

Secondly, she treated Yahoo's security like an afterthought. This is why we were hacked (in some cases thrice counting this 2012 hack): she didn't care. This is why we never reset our passwords: she feared losing us over it. Someone who cut her teeth at a company that takes security seriously (one of the few things I'll give Google mad props for) shrugged off her own security team's concerns.

The arrogance - and the ignorance - are pretty spellbinding.

On a more personal note, there was a time (mid-aughts) where maybe a lot of us thought being a closet feminist or announcing we were not feminist was, like, the best idea. No doubt many of us noticed online men didn't like the online wimins so much, so we tried to accommodate the male predilection to dislike us and to fight the "feminazi" label we got pretty much just for logging on by claiming we were post or anti-feminism. I went through some of this.

I might have even believed renouncing feminism solved the whole problem. In a more ideal, femme-friendly world, of course we could afford to be past it. But it's like any ground an opponent tries to wrest away: if you give it up voluntarily, you might not be getting it back. In light of fracases like GamerGate and some say it's direct result: the misogynistic and hate-filled candidacy and election of Donald Trump, one could argue this might be true.

Luckily, I claimed (or reclaimed) the right to bask in my own feminism years before GamerGate happened or Trump ran for office. I can only wish more of us did before any of that occurred.

People who were not helpful on this front included Marissa Mayer, who many of us looked to for a good example of, well, anything, as she was one of the few women perched atop the daily operations of one of the most powerful companies in the world. Back when I was all, "Oh feminism, who needs it" she used to say she didn't consider herself a feminist.

I used to think this was the greatest line. The last few years I've come to re-think that, because firstly, it's impossible to say if it's true that misogyny never harmed her (she claimed she never noticed she was the only woman in science or math classes, for example, seeming to imply her gender didn't affect her).

More importantly, I don't think she can say if it affected her. For example, it could have cost her opportunities she was never presented with because she was a woman. I'm not saying she asked for such opportunities, only that she might have wanted them if they were put on the table, but perhaps they never were merely because of her gender. How can you speak to something no one would willingly admit to?

But none of this is to diss Marissa, only to point out where she's most visibly lacked. To her credit, she's smart and has permanently affected a lot of my web design choices; it's the one area where I think she shines in a really pure, unfettered fashion. But holy smokes, she could look at listening more to others (including feminists) before she speaks and before she fails to act in the best interests of users, which wound up screwing so many of us on Yahoo.