Lady Rackets Ass
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2022
I’m not gonna start a slap fight with you but Muh climate change lmao
reddit General
- Thread starter SpessCaptain
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
The farms are one of the few places on the internet where you still find a lot of people who think global warming isn't real because they are also one of the few places where you still find people who think Nick Fuentes is a viable politician. Or at least you did a while back.
Anyway, as for Reddit I wonder how long r/WorldNationalists will stay up. It seems like the kind of place that breaks the strict rules on speech over there.
Anyway, as for Reddit I wonder how long r/WorldNationalists will stay up. It seems like the kind of place that breaks the strict rules on speech over there.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
There's also a very bizarre and rigidly imposed set of orthodox reddit beliefs that are so ridiculously uncommon in the normal population that you can literally tell a redditor within minutes, sometimes the instant they open their mouths if the first thing out of their mouth is basically "reddit reddit reddit." They look so pissed when you get all "so what's your reddit account?"
It's not even normal politics, where you can get a general idea where someone is after a few minutes if they're being candid, but a lot more specific like a fingerprint, except they all have the same one. For instance, most people who would call themselves "liberal" would have some kind of warm fuzzies about trans people but redditors would all make very specific arguments like "sports is a human right" or other similar hivemind memes.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
That reminds me of when some of r/rugbyunion went into total meltdown after the UK and Ireland said biological men couldn't play women's rugby, which is obvious common sense. I didn't get banned for saying this was completely reasonable and even got some upvotes, but I found that a pleasant surprise given how insane the site usually is.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2019
Same thing as that meme pretending to hate the French because it's funny to be racist against "white" countries. No, you should hate the French instead because they promote degeneracy.
![LinkinParkxNaruto[AMV]](http://uploads.kiwifarms.st/data/avatars/l/61/61177.jpg?1699571951){kind=avatar}
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2020
at the rate France is going hating on it would just be islamophobic
MichałDrzymała
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2022
r/news is pretty much filled to the brim with hivemind redditors. They're all barking like seals about DeSantis and other red state governors "trafficking" illegals to Martha's Vineyard at the moment.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2021
Considering 4chan is like 50% fed-ops and futa porn now, I'm surprised your average leftist hates it.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2022
Leftists are (ironically) stuck in the past, they still think 4chan is the home of evil nazis or whatever and don't care to change their minds.
Lady Rackets Ass
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2022
Reddit is big mad about the Texas bill about internet censorship so of course they do the cringiest thing possible
Donald trump tweets and Reddit projects harder than ever. Can you even tell me what racist word they think he meant?
A Reddit mod schizo posts about some Ubisoft job posting
Donald trump tweets and Reddit projects harder than ever. Can you even tell me what racist word they think he meant?
A Reddit mod schizo posts about some Ubisoft job posting
Attachments
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2020
It seems a fellow TI mod over at /r/Gangstalking is revelling at the fact Kiwifarms' domain getting seized in Iceland and being down for a while...
www.reddit.com
If you see this, enjoy this video:
We are always watching...
YOU!
r/Gangstalking - Iceland seized Kiwifarms' domain lol
38 votes and 9 comments so far on Reddit
www.reddit.com
If you see this, enjoy this video:
YOU!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2022
Jigaboo/Jiggaboo, a classic slur for nogs. I doubt Trump would be so daring to use slurs that openly and the "Peekaboo" relates to some political mishap by that Attorney General instead.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2021
Thats typical reddit. They cant handle something they dont agree with so it has to be banned. Really makes you think if their progressive or just mini tyrants.
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2022
That subreddit is something else. Members appear to be under the delusion they are being "gangstalked" and talk about being attacked by things like V2k (I don't know wtf that is), mind hijacking, energy weapons, random shit like that. They all seem to be literal schizos suffering from schizophrenia.It seems a fellow TI mod over at /r/Gangstalking is revelling at the fact Kiwifarms' domain getting seized in Iceland and being down for a while...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Gangstalking/comments/xb3wb9/iceland_seized_kiwifarms_domain_lol/ https://archive.md/dsHqQ
source (a)
source (a)
source (a)
source (a)
As a bonus it could just be an elaborate troll, all the usernames have numbers on the end.
source (a)
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2021
I wish these fags would make up their minds already about social media. Either its a private company and they can do what they want or its a public forum and the government regulates it. Fucking pick one.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2021
They can't and you know that. They cant have their cake and eat it so they have to flip flop.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2022
The idea of not wanting people you don't like to suffer and die is foreign to Redditors.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2022
Not sure if anyone mentioned it yet, but r/ChurchofCurrentThing bit the dust recently thanks to the usual suspects. All that remains is r/ChurchofCOVID and r/libsofreddit, along with a couple that support contentious political figures.
RE: @Pointless Pedant
I'll bite.
What climate change skeptics question is "Science" as an institution's ability to not be held accountable for what it says. That it can change its message on a whim, that its past message was wrong and yet hypocritically also right.
There is almost NO-ONE on the face of the Earth that directly denies climate change is happening. But there are millions of people who validly question how much of its extent is provably attributable to humans, and who question the motives and connections of its most vocal proponents. No science is ever truly "settled", and I don't give a fuck about the credentials of anyone who tries to say otherwise. If scientists held all the answers, there would be no point in living or learning. The answer to cleaner skies and oceans is not and will never be genocide, lockdowns, and cheating people out of their adulthood to think about the unborn chilluns. Not when you have countries that don't agree to any accords and do stuff like this:
I'm pretty sure this does far more damage to the environment than a Dutch farmer's cows does in the latter's lifetime. Same applies for diesel-powered cargo ships emptying its filth directly into the ocean against cars.
Many people, myself included, can remember reading in our science textbooks that acid rain would be a legitimate problem in the 21st Century. That roofs would melt as though sulphuric acid itself was raining from the sky, yet would be relatively harmless to people, merely turning their hair green. This oddly-specific effect was so prevalent at one time it was even the plot for an episode of Diff'rent Strokes. And yet, it never happened. But if you try and bring this up, a devout acolyte of "The Science" will accuse you of making stuff up. That no accredited scientist actually said that. Well, it had to come from somewhere, surely?
In regards to the record temperatures people were freaking out over, no-one talks about how January 2021 was no different in London from a 29 year average recorded from 1981 - 2010 (42F). But boy did a lot of people scream loudly for the 10 or so days where the UK experienced what is normal off-season temperature in places such as Florida and Arizona. And it is funny how there's been close to zero mainstream media coverage over the record growth of the coral reef, for instance.
The way news and "The Science" reports on climate-related news is deliberately selective and manipulative. Any time it's proven wrong, it's like a troon making an internet archive wipe an embarrassing tweet. Signs like these were quietly pulled from various sites and disposed of, since well, the glaciers in question were still standing tall by 2020:
The Doran Survey, essentially the Holy Bible of modern climate theory, is a flawed piece of work that was created by essentially disregarding any scientist that didn't espouse his views. 10,000 scientists were asked, 6,000 sent a response with an almost even split of 3,000 on each side, and yet only 79 were sampled for the final result, 76 of which were in favour of Doran's hypothesis versus just 3 against it, out of the original 3,000. Even the official deboonk admits only 82.5% of those surveyed agreed with him, and the fabled 97% figure only applies to those who are climatologists. They freely throw out the "expert" argument without taking into consideration a myriad of other reasons why a consensus might exist. Those 31,000 scientists opposed to the whole thing obviously exist, so who are they and why were they deplatformed? Why is "Science" as an institution so readily kicking out previously-respected figures like Peter Ridd and Robert Malone simply because they don't agree with the consensus?
Say, on a completely unrelated note, remember Climategate? Climategate should have been the biggest scandal of the 21st Century, thoroughly earning its impromptu "gate" suffix. When it originally happened, I was absolutely lost for words. It showed me that no-one, no matter how altruistic they'd seem on the surface was truly above corruption. The only problem was those tasked with investigating any wrongdoing was themselves, and of course, they found none. Everyone forgot about Climategate before the usual suspects "deboonked" those who remained vocal about it, like they would do with the Podesta emails. Whether it's drugs or children, you cannot say that the language used in those emails was odd and suspect to say the least. But no. Official discourse will say until the end of time that there was nothing suspicious in those emails and "playing walnut sauce dominoes on maps" is a perfectly normal sentence to say. Anyone that says otherwise is a schizophrenic loon that's also a Nazi.
97% of climate models have made predictions that failed to match reality:
Temperature has only fluctuated by less than half a degree since 1979. But, because the temperature has definitively increased, even if it's by a small amount that is still subject to discretion, that means the 95% inaccurate observations were in fact correct.
And that's how "The Science" has been written for the last several decades; take a bunch of convenient outliers and spin a tale about how something is happening in the technical sense, when in actuality little to no change is occurring.
Being a scientist does not magically absolve you from scrutiny in the event where you are proven wrong, nor is it an "immunity" from people who don't hold the same qualifications as you do. I don't understand how difficult that is to wrap one's head around, since it should be second nature to anyone in any field. One of the biggest misconceptions people have is that the days of this are long behind us:
https://www.trtworld.com/life/7-times-the-medical-establishment-got-it-wrong-167992
They aren't. It's just the interests pandering to those in the establishment are more candid about what they do nowadays. Instead of Big Oil, it's Big Tech. Instead of the Military Industrial Complex, it's the Medical Industrial Complex.
It doesn't help that the climate change crowd has been filled with pseudoscientific quacks like Paul Ehrlich since day 1. I cba to copy exactly what he said so here's a link to one of my favourite sites on the internet, Extinctionclock. People "vapourising in a cloud of blue steam" by the 1980s, but not before being devastated by global famines and droughts in the decade leading up to it. Obviously, none of this ever happened, yet Ehrlich remains a respectable figure within climate science to this very day.
I have not seen a single scientific journal or scientist disavow Ehrlich for being an insane lunatic with ridiculous "predictions" that could never have happened due to violating basic laws of physics. Even Wikipedia blows smoke up his nonagenarian ass if you check his article (the 1932 Ehrlich, that is). Rather than call him out as a full-blown lunatic, they steer clear of the issue at hand and just say "hee-hee, his expectations were a little over-ambitious!"
To conclude, I have more than my fair share of reasons to remain skeptical over anthropocentric climate change, without even mentioning the sun and its many spots. A lack of focus on large corporations and countries with little to no environmental regulations in order to fuck over the common man. WEF and other undesirables promoting "sustainable" pod-living with synthetic meats and no cars (unless you're rich). Predictions failing to match observations. Manipulated surveys where any dissenting opinion was summarily tossed out. Deplatforming thousands of figures within science who do not agree with your hypotheses. Lionising figures that belong in a mental asylum.
And Climategate. Especially Climategate.
RE: @Pointless Pedant
I'll bite.
What climate change skeptics question is "Science" as an institution's ability to not be held accountable for what it says. That it can change its message on a whim, that its past message was wrong and yet hypocritically also right.
There is almost NO-ONE on the face of the Earth that directly denies climate change is happening. But there are millions of people who validly question how much of its extent is provably attributable to humans, and who question the motives and connections of its most vocal proponents. No science is ever truly "settled", and I don't give a fuck about the credentials of anyone who tries to say otherwise. If scientists held all the answers, there would be no point in living or learning. The answer to cleaner skies and oceans is not and will never be genocide, lockdowns, and cheating people out of their adulthood to think about the unborn chilluns. Not when you have countries that don't agree to any accords and do stuff like this:
I'm pretty sure this does far more damage to the environment than a Dutch farmer's cows does in the latter's lifetime. Same applies for diesel-powered cargo ships emptying its filth directly into the ocean against cars.
Many people, myself included, can remember reading in our science textbooks that acid rain would be a legitimate problem in the 21st Century. That roofs would melt as though sulphuric acid itself was raining from the sky, yet would be relatively harmless to people, merely turning their hair green. This oddly-specific effect was so prevalent at one time it was even the plot for an episode of Diff'rent Strokes. And yet, it never happened. But if you try and bring this up, a devout acolyte of "The Science" will accuse you of making stuff up. That no accredited scientist actually said that. Well, it had to come from somewhere, surely?
In regards to the record temperatures people were freaking out over, no-one talks about how January 2021 was no different in London from a 29 year average recorded from 1981 - 2010 (42F). But boy did a lot of people scream loudly for the 10 or so days where the UK experienced what is normal off-season temperature in places such as Florida and Arizona. And it is funny how there's been close to zero mainstream media coverage over the record growth of the coral reef, for instance.
The way news and "The Science" reports on climate-related news is deliberately selective and manipulative. Any time it's proven wrong, it's like a troon making an internet archive wipe an embarrassing tweet. Signs like these were quietly pulled from various sites and disposed of, since well, the glaciers in question were still standing tall by 2020:
The Doran Survey, essentially the Holy Bible of modern climate theory, is a flawed piece of work that was created by essentially disregarding any scientist that didn't espouse his views. 10,000 scientists were asked, 6,000 sent a response with an almost even split of 3,000 on each side, and yet only 79 were sampled for the final result, 76 of which were in favour of Doran's hypothesis versus just 3 against it, out of the original 3,000. Even the official deboonk admits only 82.5% of those surveyed agreed with him, and the fabled 97% figure only applies to those who are climatologists. They freely throw out the "expert" argument without taking into consideration a myriad of other reasons why a consensus might exist. Those 31,000 scientists opposed to the whole thing obviously exist, so who are they and why were they deplatformed? Why is "Science" as an institution so readily kicking out previously-respected figures like Peter Ridd and Robert Malone simply because they don't agree with the consensus?
Say, on a completely unrelated note, remember Climategate? Climategate should have been the biggest scandal of the 21st Century, thoroughly earning its impromptu "gate" suffix. When it originally happened, I was absolutely lost for words. It showed me that no-one, no matter how altruistic they'd seem on the surface was truly above corruption. The only problem was those tasked with investigating any wrongdoing was themselves, and of course, they found none. Everyone forgot about Climategate before the usual suspects "deboonked" those who remained vocal about it, like they would do with the Podesta emails. Whether it's drugs or children, you cannot say that the language used in those emails was odd and suspect to say the least. But no. Official discourse will say until the end of time that there was nothing suspicious in those emails and "playing walnut sauce dominoes on maps" is a perfectly normal sentence to say. Anyone that says otherwise is a schizophrenic loon that's also a Nazi.
97% of climate models have made predictions that failed to match reality:
Temperature has only fluctuated by less than half a degree since 1979. But, because the temperature has definitively increased, even if it's by a small amount that is still subject to discretion, that means the 95% inaccurate observations were in fact correct.
And that's how "The Science" has been written for the last several decades; take a bunch of convenient outliers and spin a tale about how something is happening in the technical sense, when in actuality little to no change is occurring.
Being a scientist does not magically absolve you from scrutiny in the event where you are proven wrong, nor is it an "immunity" from people who don't hold the same qualifications as you do. I don't understand how difficult that is to wrap one's head around, since it should be second nature to anyone in any field. One of the biggest misconceptions people have is that the days of this are long behind us:
https://www.trtworld.com/life/7-times-the-medical-establishment-got-it-wrong-167992
They aren't. It's just the interests pandering to those in the establishment are more candid about what they do nowadays. Instead of Big Oil, it's Big Tech. Instead of the Military Industrial Complex, it's the Medical Industrial Complex.
It doesn't help that the climate change crowd has been filled with pseudoscientific quacks like Paul Ehrlich since day 1. I cba to copy exactly what he said so here's a link to one of my favourite sites on the internet, Extinctionclock. People "vapourising in a cloud of blue steam" by the 1980s, but not before being devastated by global famines and droughts in the decade leading up to it. Obviously, none of this ever happened, yet Ehrlich remains a respectable figure within climate science to this very day.
I have not seen a single scientific journal or scientist disavow Ehrlich for being an insane lunatic with ridiculous "predictions" that could never have happened due to violating basic laws of physics. Even Wikipedia blows smoke up his nonagenarian ass if you check his article (the 1932 Ehrlich, that is). Rather than call him out as a full-blown lunatic, they steer clear of the issue at hand and just say "hee-hee, his expectations were a little over-ambitious!"
To conclude, I have more than my fair share of reasons to remain skeptical over anthropocentric climate change, without even mentioning the sun and its many spots. A lack of focus on large corporations and countries with little to no environmental regulations in order to fuck over the common man. WEF and other undesirables promoting "sustainable" pod-living with synthetic meats and no cars (unless you're rich). Predictions failing to match observations. Manipulated surveys where any dissenting opinion was summarily tossed out. Deplatforming thousands of figures within science who do not agree with your hypotheses. Lionising figures that belong in a mental asylum.
And Climategate. Especially Climategate.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021