The Hazards of Belief

Custardpi wrote: »

Tis the new religion alright - "superfoods", "wellness" & juicing the fúck out of everything in a three mile radius.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Kinda unrelated, but the term "boutique festival" really grinds my gears.

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, the law is there and it would appear that there is, at least, an arguable case. I will hold my outrage until he is, is he actually is, convicted and actually receives any punishment that is more than token.

HuffPo wrote:

German Court Rejects Erdogan’s Request To Stop Media CEO Repeating Insult

BERLIN, May 10 (Reuters) - A German court on Tuesday rejected a request by Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan for a preliminary injunction preventing the head of German publisher Axel Springer repeating a derogatory term. Erdogan‘s lawyer, Ralf Hoecker, told Reuters Erdogan had sought the injunction after Chief Executive Mathias Doepfner’s public support for a controversial poem read out by comedian Jan Boehmermann on German television in March. But the court said in a statement it had rejected it on the basis of “the defendant’s right to free expression of opinion.”

Erdogan is known for his sensitivity to criticism and Turkish prosecutors have opened over 1,800 cases against people for insulting him since he became president in 2014. That sensitivity has also made itself felt on the international stage, raising tensions with Germany at a time when the two countries are grappling with a huge influx of Syrian refugees. Erdogan‘s office was not immediately available for comment when contacted by Reuters. The Turkish leader has repeatedly said his opponents are free to criticize him but that those who stray into insult will face legal action.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has drawn heavy criticism for allowing German prosecutors to pursue a case against Boehmermann at Erdogan‘s behest. Under Germany’s criminal code, insults against foreign leaders are not allowed but the government can decide whether to authorize prosecutors to go ahead. In the poem, Boehmermann suggested Erdogan hits girls, watches child pornography and engages in bestiality.

Doepfner expressed solidarity with Boehmermann in an open letter published in Germannewspaper Welt am Sonntag in April, saying he had laughed out loud over the poem and “wholeheartedly” supported what the comedian had said. If the court in Cologne had agreed to grant the injunction, Doepfner would have been banned from repeating a sexually crude term to describe Erdogan that was first used by Boehmermann and subsequently quoted by the Axel Springer chief.

The court said its decision did not address the legality of the Boehmermann poem, which is still under investigation.

[...]

IFLScience wrote:

A new paper claims that people who think meaningless statements are profound are more sympathetic to Republican candidates in the current U.S. election. Delightful as this conclusion may be to anyone worried by the rise of Donald Trump, the authors caution against drawing too wide conclusions. On the other hand, the study, published in PLOS ONE, opens new lines of research in the emerging field of bullsh*t studies.

“In this contribution, bullsh*t is used as a technical term which is defined as communicative expression that lacks content, logic, or truth from the perspective of natural science,” write Dr. Stefan Pfattheicher and Dr. Simon Schindler. Working from this definition, the authors adopt the “Bullsh*t Receptivity scale (BSR)” to measure how likely people were to see bullsh*t statements as profound.

As the paper notes, “Various forms of bullsh*t exist.” The paper tests receptivity to only one of these, which the authors refer to as “pseudo-profound bullsh*t,” inspired by the work of Gordon Pennycock on the topic. This refers to statements that sound deeply meaningful at first, but are “actually vacuous.” The capacity to detect this sort of bullsh*t requires reflective and critical thinking.

A sample of 196 American adults were measured on the BSR and asked to rate themselves as liberal or conservative, and to give a 1 to 5 rating to six presidential candidates. The average age was 36, and 57 percent were male, but no information was collected on racial background or education level.

Possibly for safety's sake, both authors are based in Germany, comfortably out of reach of outraged Trump fans. Although Trump supporters aren't the ones with the greatest reason to be unhappy with the findings; the strongest correlating factor with BSR was liking Ted Cruz.

[...]