> "We're delighted to share this insight into the past with a wider audience."
No links to the book in the article. There's a branded link to Ancestry.com in the article, though. But no indication of where to go once you get there. Incredibly irritating when the headline of the article is about something being published online.
Looks like you might have been reading Scott Adams lately. What "reality" are you describing here? The fact that there's an email regarding "Spirit cooking" (whatever that might mean) or the made up fact that the Clintons take part in blood orgies? Because those are two different things.
The reality that an email exists that mentions spirit cooking and the reality that there are way too many coincidences to "spirit cooking" not being confined to art. Also, you seem pretty offended. What's wrong with blood orgies?
What offends me is people completely turning off their bullshit filter just to fit some facts into a narrative they find compelling. It's literally the opposite of the scientific method, and the last thing I'd like to see in Hacker News.
If anything, this election has shown how many people are willing to dismiss reality just so they feel comfortable supporting a particular candidate. Both parties are guilty of it, but one party has perfected the method with decades of anti-intellectualism and pandering to the extreme factions in our society.
We are seeing what made America great (evidence-based, pragmatic decision making) dismantled in the altar of team loyalty. We should be extremely worried, not making light of it for some "troll points."
You are heavily implying that, somehow, because Donald Trump is crazy...that means Clinton is not capable of doing all the things revealed in those emails.
I am honestly really sick of this and people making those type of assertions.
Weird, I didn't mention Donald Trump at all. That chip on your shoulder is starting to look like a full log, huh?
I'm not even sure how you go from "trying to invent Satanic links out of thin air" to "Clinton can't be corrupt." I'm sure Clinton is very capable of corruption, but from there to making up some weird cult conspiracy theory... dude, repeating your own words:
"I am honestly really sick of this and people making those type of assertions."
I can't imagine how HN is ever going to beat back the flood of Trump cranks that Thiel's donation opened up.
Sanity had be nicely increasing for a good year there. But as I post this, there is exactly one technically interesting article out of the top 30. I'd been nice if the smart people who used to come here aren't permanently chased away or drowned out but if it happens, it happens.
You speak highly of pragmatic decision making yet claim roughly 50% of the nation is suffering from anti-intellectualism?
Sounds like you yourself are dismissing reality just so you can feel comfortable supporting a particular candidate or political view. I find it very disconcerting that a small violent leftist sect of the democratic party has been able to gain such a voice by bullying and character assassinations.
What do you call a section of the population that:
- Claims that creationism is as valid a theory as evolution
- Denies climate change just purely on anecdotal evidence (the perfect image of it being Senator Inhofe holding a snowball and claiming "It ain't warmer HERE!")
- Claims that the government is "going to put them in FEMA camps through a fake military exercise" (I guess we are still waiting for Jade Helm 15 to happen?) despite there being 0 evidence of that
- Builds a narrative of ghoulish dealing on body parts around Planned Parenthood selling fetal tissues for research
- Ignores reams of evidence that Reagonomics and trickle-down economics only increase the wealth gap and keeps claiming that's "the only way to fix the country"
- Claims that crime is at "the highest rate EVER" even though crime rates have decreased year over year for decades
- For crying out loud, literally claims there's a "scientific elite" (their term) trying to "bamboozle everyone" into all kinds of "socialism"
I don't know in the US, I've only lived here for 5 years, but anywhere else in the world we call that anti-intellectualism... but then, if you think Clinton's DNC is "a violent leftist sect" you are so divorced from reality that you are probably beyond all hope. Anyone who's lived abroad will tell you the DNC is barely one notch left of the RNC, they are just a bit more socially progressive.
Maybe stop getting your news from just Scott Adams and Fox News.
(BTW, funny that you mention "character assassination"... right after seriously trying to paint the DNC as some kind of Satanist cabal. The cognitive dissonance must really hurt, dude. Have you considered you might be one of the "moist robots" Scott Adams talks about?)
Ok, so where to start. First off, I guess we can go back to my original point that you completely ignored. Once again, you are assuming all of your claims above apply to every person who does shout the 2016 democratic party talking points. That belief is ignorant.
You claiming all people who hold conservative views or vote for a republican are racist, homophobic, bigoted, science deniers is no different than people in 08 who claimed Obama was some secret Muslim agent whose only purpose is to bring Sharia law to the US and destroy our way of life.
> if you think Clinton's DNC is "a violent leftist sect"
Did I say that? No, I sure didn't. First you make an ignorant claim about at least 50% of the US (and for some reason lump me into that group while knowing nothing about me), and then you put words in my mouth. What's next?
> you are so divorced from reality that you are probably beyond all hope
Oh that's what's next. Character assassination and bullying.
> Maybe stop getting your news from just Scott Adams and Fox News.
Maybe stop acting like you know me based off of hacker news posts. Oh wait, you are so intolerant that you believe those who do not hold the exact same opinions as you must all get their news from Scott Adams and Fox News. You know nothing about me yet you assume I am so divorced from reality that I must only get my news from two sources? That's quite intolerant.
> BTW, funny that you mention "character assassination"... right after seriously trying to paint the DNC as some kind of Satanist cabal
Did I ever do that? No, I did not. Did you...actually read my posts? I implied that are too many coincidences to upper level governmental politicians (you once again put words in my mouth by stating I claimed DNC only) being somehow related to spirit cooking in some unspecific terms other than mere art.
It seems to me you are only interested in making wild assumptions about who I am as a person, judging me based on the actions of others, being intolerant of my views, and verbally bullying me as a way to somehow excerpt your dominance over me. You clearly aren't concerned about having a rational discussion with someone who might not share your exact world view. Since that is the case, I won't be replying to any more of your comments. Hope you have a great night!
I'll just point two things, because they are kind of weird:
> You claiming all people who hold conservative views or vote for a republican are racist, homophobic, bigoted...
I never did that. I just said the Republican party panders to those demographics (which are not necessarily a 100% intersection.) I didn't even mention homophobia or race anywhere, but somehow you jumped to that conclusion because... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>> if you think Clinton's DNC is "a violent leftist sect"
> Did I say that? No, I sure didn't.
Read your previous comment? I'm not sure there's another possible reading of it. If you are talking about "gaining a voice" by engaging in "character assassination", you can only be talking about the people running the campaign, which is Clinton's DNC. Which is not the leftist part of the party. Pick one.
>> BTW, funny that you mention "character assassination"... right after seriously trying to paint the DNC as some kind of Satanist cabal
> Did I ever do that? No, I did not.
By saying "there are too many coincidences" you are promulgating this supposed Satanist link, even though a) there aren't "many coincidences" (there's one email) b) it's been debunked up the kazoo. It's your prerogative to believe whatever conspiracy theory you want to, but don't try to pass it as established fact and then get all huffy when I point out it's anything but. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that.
I agree, this conversation is better left to places like reddit. I'm just pleading with you, this close to the election, to try and do some introspection. And whoever you vote on, I hope the result is the best for everyone not just you or me.
The only coincidences are in the eyes of people who want really hard to find a connection. Just don't go into reddit these days, there are people claiming all kinds of "obvious connection" because X's cousin worked in the same company that Y worked at a decade before Y even graduated college. I just can't wait until the election is over.
Do you not accept the authenticity of DKIM-authenticated Wikileaks e-mails? It is written there, black on white, byte for byte.
EDIT: Just to clarify. The e-mail in question specifically contains "spirit cooking" so it is in no way a rumour. What that means exactly - well, yes, that is open to your interpretation and imagination.
The authenticity of the emails is one thing. The meaning of the authenticated words is quite another.
What is, apparently, authenticated is that John Podesta's brother invited him to a "Spirit Cooking dinner" (those are the relevant three words that are part of the authenticated email) hosted by a performance artist named Marina Abramovic. What is not authenticated at all is what "Spirit Cooking dinner" means. One possibility is that it is a Satanic orgy ritual. One possibility is that it is a perfectly normal dinner with normal human food, celebrating / related to a performance art project named Spirit Cooking (see, e.g., https://www.moma.org/collection/works/143945). The email doesn't rule either of those possibilities out.
The Satanic Orgy suggestions are just crazy people crazying, aren't they? I mean there's no sensible reason to think it's anything more sinister than a slightly insalubrious performance art thing.
It's not as crazy as someone suggesting (from the same leaked emails) that some amount of money spent on pizza was actually for prostitutes because pizza is a codeword for prostitutes. They need to hurry up and get this election over with because it's making the whole world stupider.
How would you describe something that is in no way based in reality? The only "reality" is an email that, as far as anyone can tell, is linked to a performance artist. Imagine if anyone in the campaign was invited to a transgressive art[1] exhibit! People would be talking about the Clintons eating fetuses! (Actually, never mind, there's people already doing that...)
"It gives us a fleeting view of a world beyond orthodox medicine and expensively trained physicians, in which people in small towns and villages looked for their own routes to understanding the world and came into conflict with the state for doing it"
It may be unpopular for me to say this, but I believe that the very same energy behind witchhunts is recapitulated today by overzealous "skeptics".
Speaking as a moderately zealous skeptic. Yeah, we can gang up on people, and sometimes talk down to them out of exasperation. And those are bad things.
But...
Unlike a lot of internet public shaming (and probably unlike these witchcraft cases), there's no sexual element or threats of violence.
Scientists don't blow up people for not believing in thermodynamics.
> Scientists don't blow up people for not believing in thermodynamics.
wrong example. you should be thinking about the way a certain particular faction ostracizes people for expressing views containing any content that might be considered "religion" or "spirituality".
No links to the book in the article. There's a branded link to Ancestry.com in the article, though. But no indication of where to go once you get there. Incredibly irritating when the headline of the article is about something being published online.
Eventually found it by looking on the Wellcome Library web site: http://wellcomelibrary.org/item/b19111319#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&...