info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Comparisons of Freedom of Speech in different places online and offline
29 views
Skip to first unread message
Ender2070
Sep 27, 2011, 9:09:24β―PM9/27/11
to
I've been here a short time but I already have a comparison between talking here, identi.ca, Techrights IRC (for almost 2 years iirc) and Twitter.
COLA: All maniacs have equal ground and everyone has the right to say what they want as long as it is legal. If you don't like what someone says you can ignore them using your client.
IRC: All maniacs do not have equal ground and a select few hold the reins of power. If they don't like what someone says, instead of ignoring them with their client; they silence them completely.
Identi.ca: All maniacs have equal ground and everyone has the right to say what they want as long as it is legal. If you don't like what someone says you can ignore them using your client or the website.
Twitter: All maniacs have equal ground and everyone has the right to say what they want as long as it is legal. If you don't like what someone says you can ignore them using your client or website.
In real life: All maniacs have equal ground and everyone has the right to say what they want as long as it is legal. If someone doesn't like what someone says they could walk away or talk to someone else.
Authoritarian Countries: All maniacs do not have equal ground and a select few hold the reins of power. If they don't like what someone says, instead of ignoring them with their client; they silence them completely.
Nazi Germany: All maniacs do not have equal ground and a select few hold the reins of power. If they don't like what someone says, instead of ignoring them with their client; they silence them completely.
Communist USSR (pre1991): All maniacs do not have equal ground and a select few hold the reins of power. If they don't like what someone says, instead of ignoring them with their client; they silence them completely.
Russia: All maniacs do not have equal ground and a select few hold the reins of power. If they don't like what someone says, instead of ignoring them with their client; they silence them completely.
China: All maniacs do not have equal ground and a select few hold the reins of power. If they don't like what someone says, instead of ignoring them with their client; they silence them completely.
Get the picture?
COLA: All maniacs have equal ground and everyone has the right to say what they want as long as it is legal. If you don't like what someone says you can ignore them using your client.
IRC: All maniacs do not have equal ground and a select few hold the reins of power. If they don't like what someone says, instead of ignoring them with their client; they silence them completely.
Identi.ca: All maniacs have equal ground and everyone has the right to say what they want as long as it is legal. If you don't like what someone says you can ignore them using your client or the website.
Twitter: All maniacs have equal ground and everyone has the right to say what they want as long as it is legal. If you don't like what someone says you can ignore them using your client or website.
In real life: All maniacs have equal ground and everyone has the right to say what they want as long as it is legal. If someone doesn't like what someone says they could walk away or talk to someone else.
Authoritarian Countries: All maniacs do not have equal ground and a select few hold the reins of power. If they don't like what someone says, instead of ignoring them with their client; they silence them completely.
Nazi Germany: All maniacs do not have equal ground and a select few hold the reins of power. If they don't like what someone says, instead of ignoring them with their client; they silence them completely.
Communist USSR (pre1991): All maniacs do not have equal ground and a select few hold the reins of power. If they don't like what someone says, instead of ignoring them with their client; they silence them completely.
Russia: All maniacs do not have equal ground and a select few hold the reins of power. If they don't like what someone says, instead of ignoring them with their client; they silence them completely.
China: All maniacs do not have equal ground and a select few hold the reins of power. If they don't like what someone says, instead of ignoring them with their client; they silence them completely.
Get the picture?
cc
Sep 28, 2011, 8:50:51β―AM9/28/11
to
On Sep 27, 9:09Β pm, Ender2070 <blo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Get the picture?
Freedom of speech does not apply to the comments section of privately
owned websites. Your right to freedom of speech guarantees you that
you can start your own website and post whatever dumbass shit you want
to (in reality there are limits on that even). It does not guarantee
that you can say whatever you want whereever you want. Even in reality
you can't say what you want whereever you want. You can always be
removed from private property. So I get the picture that someone
banned you from something and you're going to cry like a bitch about
it and complain that they're violating your right to free speech. I
also get the picture that you have no idea what freedom of speech
means. IRC is not like China because you can always host your own
channel and say idiotic things like "IRC is like China" on there.
--
"I wonder if I could take him to small claims court over this." - Snit
>
> Get the picture?
Freedom of speech does not apply to the comments section of privately
owned websites. Your right to freedom of speech guarantees you that
you can start your own website and post whatever dumbass shit you want
to (in reality there are limits on that even). It does not guarantee
that you can say whatever you want whereever you want. Even in reality
you can't say what you want whereever you want. You can always be
removed from private property. So I get the picture that someone
banned you from something and you're going to cry like a bitch about
it and complain that they're violating your right to free speech. I
also get the picture that you have no idea what freedom of speech
means. IRC is not like China because you can always host your own
channel and say idiotic things like "IRC is like China" on there.
--
"I wonder if I could take him to small claims court over this." - Snit
Ender2070
Sep 28, 2011, 9:54:05β―AM9/28/11
to
I agree with you to a degree. Sure, you can restrict freedom of speech in your own places. Why pretend to be a freedom advocate then?
My point was that their IRC channel had just as much freedom as authoritarian countries.
It takes a special kind of person to advocate freedom of speech and rights for users, but then deny those same things in their own IRC channel.
My point was that their IRC channel had just as much freedom as authoritarian countries.
It takes a special kind of person to advocate freedom of speech and rights for users, but then deny those same things in their own IRC channel.
cc
Sep 28, 2011, 10:44:22β―AM9/28/11
to
an IRC channel and requesting you take your topics to another channel,
and denying you the right to speak about what you want at all. So
their IRC channel has much more freedom than authoritarian countries
in that they are unable to prevent you from taking your speech
elsewhere (as evidenced by this thread). Is it hypocritical of them? I
don't know nor do I care what you were trying to say that they
prevented so I don't know the answer to that question. I do know
you've demonstrated how much free speech you have by whining like a
bitch about it.
Herd Watch
Sep 28, 2011, 12:52:35β―PM9/28/11
to
Ender2070 stated in post
20691299.652.1317218046046.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqbu18 on 9/28/11
6:54 AM:
If I understand you correctly: you are not saying one does not have the
*right* to do so, but given the nature of the channel and the philosophy of
free speech and the like present there, you find it hypocritical.
--
Herd Watch posts are posted by Snit.
20691299.652.1317218046046.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqbu18 on 9/28/11
6:54 AM:
*right* to do so, but given the nature of the channel and the philosophy of
free speech and the like present there, you find it hypocritical.
--
Herd Watch posts are posted by Snit.
Sinister Midget
Sep 28, 2011, 8:15:13β―PM9/28/11
to
On 2011-09-28, Ender2070 <blo...@gmail.com> claimed:
> I've been here a short time but I already have a comparison between
> talking here, identi.ca, Techrights IRC (for almost 2 years iirc) and
> Twitter.
> Get the picture?
Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to say something. Freedom of
speech does _NOT_ guarantee you a right to an audience.
Freedom of speech always has its limits. You have the right to say
anything, until such right causes someone to be harmed (like the fire
in the crowded theater analogy).
You also give up your right to free speech whenever you enter the
private domain of someone else.
1. You can bitch about me out on the street, and my recourses are limited:
I can call the cops to have you removed for disturbing the peace, but
that won't work if you aren't yelling; I can come out and argue my side
with you; I can advise anyone you complain to about me that you are
wrong, and give them my side of the story.
2. If you come into my house or on my property, invited or not, and
bitch about me, I can throw you out, forcibly if necessary. It's my
property and your right to free speech ends at the property line.
There are other cases where you volutarily give up free speech (even
without being warned in advance, it still applies). You can't gripe
about a lot of political things as a member of the miltary. You can't
go into a public church and start preaching Satanism. There are other
cases.
The things you named (Twitter, irc, etc), while they may be very
public-appearing in nature, are still private property. Violate the
terms of any one of those and you're gone. The only real difference is,
some of them will provide a list of the terms of service to protect
themselves in a business environment. Non-businesses usually don't.
A private entity, even one that operates publicly, isn't the same as a
government. A government can fine you, jail you, even kill you for
violating their requirements. A private person's only real recourse is
to prevent you from using their resources to abuse them, their purposes
and/or their customers/followers.
You were shut out of an irc thingy. Wah! Move on to something else,
because they have every right, and those still there at least appear to
agree with their decision.
COLA isn't private, unlike the others you named. There's no moderator.
Each person does their own personal moderating. It doesn't really
compare with any of the rest.
Now, if you want to go on griping about a few people and what you think
they did unjustly here, feel free. I use slrn, and slrn has the best
filtering I've ever seen. It won't affect me more than a few more times
before I moderate you out of my view for good.
_THAT'S_ democracy in action.
--
A composer is a guy who goes around forcing his will on unsuspecting air
molecules, often with the assistance of unsuspecting musicians.
-- Frank Zappa
> I've been here a short time but I already have a comparison between
> talking here, identi.ca, Techrights IRC (for almost 2 years iirc) and
> Twitter.
Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to say something. Freedom of
speech does _NOT_ guarantee you a right to an audience.
Freedom of speech always has its limits. You have the right to say
anything, until such right causes someone to be harmed (like the fire
in the crowded theater analogy).
You also give up your right to free speech whenever you enter the
private domain of someone else.
1. You can bitch about me out on the street, and my recourses are limited:
I can call the cops to have you removed for disturbing the peace, but
that won't work if you aren't yelling; I can come out and argue my side
with you; I can advise anyone you complain to about me that you are
wrong, and give them my side of the story.
2. If you come into my house or on my property, invited or not, and
bitch about me, I can throw you out, forcibly if necessary. It's my
property and your right to free speech ends at the property line.
There are other cases where you volutarily give up free speech (even
without being warned in advance, it still applies). You can't gripe
about a lot of political things as a member of the miltary. You can't
go into a public church and start preaching Satanism. There are other
cases.
The things you named (Twitter, irc, etc), while they may be very
public-appearing in nature, are still private property. Violate the
terms of any one of those and you're gone. The only real difference is,
some of them will provide a list of the terms of service to protect
themselves in a business environment. Non-businesses usually don't.
A private entity, even one that operates publicly, isn't the same as a
government. A government can fine you, jail you, even kill you for
violating their requirements. A private person's only real recourse is
to prevent you from using their resources to abuse them, their purposes
and/or their customers/followers.
You were shut out of an irc thingy. Wah! Move on to something else,
because they have every right, and those still there at least appear to
agree with their decision.
COLA isn't private, unlike the others you named. There's no moderator.
Each person does their own personal moderating. It doesn't really
compare with any of the rest.
Now, if you want to go on griping about a few people and what you think
they did unjustly here, feel free. I use slrn, and slrn has the best
filtering I've ever seen. It won't affect me more than a few more times
before I moderate you out of my view for good.
_THAT'S_ democracy in action.
--
A composer is a guy who goes around forcing his will on unsuspecting air
molecules, often with the assistance of unsuspecting musicians.
-- Frank Zappa
Ender2070
Sep 28, 2011, 8:27:47β―PM9/28/11
to
On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:52:35 PM UTC-4, Herd Watch wrote:
> If I understand you correctly: you are not saying one does not have the
> *right* to do so, but given the nature of the channel and the philosophy of
> free speech and the like present there, you find it hypocritical.
>
> --
> Herd Watch posts are posted by Snit.
Yes that was my point. They have the right to ban me but they shouldn't act like they support freedom by running a channel with more restrictions than China.
> If I understand you correctly: you are not saying one does not have the
> *right* to do so, but given the nature of the channel and the philosophy of
> free speech and the like present there, you find it hypocritical.
>
> --
> Herd Watch posts are posted by Snit.
Ender2070
Sep 28, 2011, 8:36:08β―PM9/28/11
to
On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:44:22 AM UTC-4, cc wrote:
> There's a difference between restricting speech to a certain topic on
> an IRC channel and requesting you take your topics to another channel,
> and denying you the right to speak about what you want at all.
Nobody in charge ever formally asked me to leave. In fact in another thread I mentioned that Goblin almost talked me into leaving on my own but then he banned me to make a point when I wouldn't support the idea of government. Then Roy lied about me in a place where I could not respond while he preached to his mass.
> There's a difference between restricting speech to a certain topic on
> an IRC channel and requesting you take your topics to another channel,
> and denying you the right to speak about what you want at all.
Herd Watch
Sep 28, 2011, 9:40:02β―PM9/28/11
to
Ender2070 stated in post
12076005.415.1317256068206.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqbr29 on 9/28/11
5:27 PM:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:52:35 PM UTC-4, Herd Watch wrote:
>
>> If I understand you correctly: you are not saying one does not have the
>> *right* to do so, but given the nature of the channel and the philosophy of
>> free speech and the like present there, you find it hypocritical.
>>
>> --
>> Herd Watch posts are posted by Snit.
>
> Yes that was my point.
Ah, completely different than the straw man rants about how free speech
protections do not apply. I thought so.
> They have the right to ban me but they shouldn't act
> like they support freedom by running a channel with more restrictions than
> China.
12076005.415.1317256068206.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqbr29 on 9/28/11
5:27 PM:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:52:35 PM UTC-4, Herd Watch wrote:
>
>> If I understand you correctly: you are not saying one does not have the
>> *right* to do so, but given the nature of the channel and the philosophy of
>> free speech and the like present there, you find it hypocritical.
>>
>> --
>> Herd Watch posts are posted by Snit.
>
> Yes that was my point.
protections do not apply. I thought so.
> They have the right to ban me but they shouldn't act
> like they support freedom by running a channel with more restrictions than
> China.
Peter KΓΆhlmann
Sep 29, 2011, 3:02:19β―AM9/29/11
to
And forget your lunacy about "free speeech". You don't have any such right
on someone elses computer platform.
You are free to climb into the next sewer and shout there all day long
cc
Sep 29, 2011, 11:18:24β―AM9/29/11
to
Herd Watch
Sep 29, 2011, 12:42:27β―PM9/29/11
to
cc stated in post
9eaf5c5b-2e18-4d8e...@18g2000yqz.googlegroups.com on 9/29/11
8:18 AM:
> Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Just another of your typical posts.
9eaf5c5b-2e18-4d8e...@18g2000yqz.googlegroups.com on 9/29/11
8:18 AM:
> Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Just another of your typical posts.
Kelsey Bjarnason
Sep 29, 2011, 11:25:40β―PM9/29/11
to
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 06:54:05 -0700, Ender2070 wrote:
> I agree with you to a degree. Sure, you can restrict freedom of speech
> in your own places. Why pretend to be a freedom advocate then?
>
> My point was that their IRC channel had just as much freedom as
> authoritarian countries.
Really? You mean if you don't like an authoritarian country, you can
> I agree with you to a degree. Sure, you can restrict freedom of speech
> in your own places. Why pretend to be a freedom advocate then?
>
> My point was that their IRC channel had just as much freedom as
> authoritarian countries.
just go set up your own country, with its own rules?
Herd Watch
Sep 30, 2011, 12:34:22β―AM9/30/11
to
Kelsey Bjarnason stated in post kepfl8-...@spankydtr.localhost.net on
9/29/11 8:25 PM:
Are you purposely taking the comparison too far or did you really not get
the point he is making?
9/29/11 8:25 PM:
the point he is making?
Homer
Sep 30, 2011, 2:46:34β―AM9/30/11
to
Verily I say unto thee that Ender2070 spake thusly:
enemies. You have no particular "freedom" to impose yourself on those
who don't want you.
--
K. | A lively young damsel named Menzies
http://slated.org | Inquired: "Do you know what this thenzies?"
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on Ε‘ky | Her aunt, with a gasp, replied: "It's a wasp,
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 129 days | And you're holding the end where the stenzies."
>
> Sure, you can restrict freedom of speech in your own places. Why
> pretend to be a freedom advocate then?
Freedom includes the freedom to choose your friends and cast out your
> Sure, you can restrict freedom of speech in your own places. Why
> pretend to be a freedom advocate then?
enemies. You have no particular "freedom" to impose yourself on those
who don't want you.
--
K. | A lively young damsel named Menzies
http://slated.org | Inquired: "Do you know what this thenzies?"
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on Ε‘ky | Her aunt, with a gasp, replied: "It's a wasp,
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 129 days | And you're holding the end where the stenzies."
Herd Watch
Sep 30, 2011, 3:48:57β―AM9/30/11
to
Homer stated in post a75gl8-...@sky.matrix on 9/29/11 11:46 PM:
> Verily I say unto thee that Ender2070 spake thusly:
>>
>> Sure, you can restrict freedom of speech in your own places. Why
>> pretend to be a freedom advocate then?
>
> Freedom includes the freedom to choose your friends and cast out your
> enemies. You have no particular "freedom" to impose yourself on those
> who don't want you.
Nor to kick out those you do not like - not in a public forum, anyway.
Yet at least one of the COLA "advocates" is trying and you do not speak
against this. Why not? Why not stand up for what is right?
> Verily I say unto thee that Ender2070 spake thusly:
>>
>> Sure, you can restrict freedom of speech in your own places. Why
>> pretend to be a freedom advocate then?
>
> Freedom includes the freedom to choose your friends and cast out your
> enemies. You have no particular "freedom" to impose yourself on those
> who don't want you.
Yet at least one of the COLA "advocates" is trying and you do not speak
against this. Why not? Why not stand up for what is right?
Ender2070
Sep 30, 2011, 8:20:33β―PM9/30/11
to
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> Really? You mean if you don't like an authoritarian
country, you can
> just go set up your own country, with its own rules?
> Really? You mean if you don't like an authoritarian
country, you can
> just go set up your own country, with its own rules?
You did miss the point, however:
If you don't like being in communist China, you can leave. If
you stay and try to keep your opinion you will be removed.
I'm sure the Techrights crew would love it if they could make
me disappear like the Chinese government does with its
discontented.
The fun point I love to bring up is that I was in the channel
for 2 years. They didn't mind me until I stopped being
socialist. Look at the IRC logs, they get pissed whenever I
pointed out new world order agendas that were intertwined with
international socialism. After being banned, they started
being more open about being a left wing only operation.
I'll explain my original point more clearly:
Techrights is supposed to be a site dedicated to exposing
corporations who are trying to subvert freedom and lock people
into proprietary solutions. Techrights often fights against
those who impose censorship and Roy himself has said in the
channel itself that he doesn't like to ban people because it
could be considered censorship. He has this argument with many
people in the channel.
So, what does group dedicated to freedom do? Ban someone who
speaks their mind in their place of left wing socialist
rhetoric. No room for non-left wing ideas in a channel for
free software advocacy.
Why I think techrights is left wing (and you doubt?):
Techrights attacks Fox, Murdoch, Rich people and corporations.
It promotes climate change propaganda, population control
propaganda and internationalism.
--
QubitArkhive.com
Herd Watch
Sep 30, 2011, 11:06:26β―PM9/30/11
to
Ender2070 stated in post m1thq.1200$eF7...@newsfe20.iad on 9/30/11 5:20 PM:
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> Really? You mean if you don't like an authoritarian
> country, you can
>> just go set up your own country, with its own rules?
>
> You did miss the point, however:
>
> If you don't like being in communist China, you can leave. If
> you stay and try to keep your opinion you will be removed.
>
> I'm sure the Techrights crew would love it if they could make
> me disappear like the Chinese government does with its
> discontented.
Look what Roy did in terms of blocking me (his right - but that does not
mean it is right) and what TomB is trying to do now.
Censorship.
It is a good thing says the herd.
> The fun point I love to bring up is that I was in the channel
> for 2 years. They didn't mind me until I stopped being
> socialist. Look at the IRC logs, they get pissed whenever I
> pointed out new world order agendas that were intertwined with
> international socialism. After being banned, they started
> being more open about being a left wing only operation.
>
> I'll explain my original point more clearly:
> Techrights is supposed to be a site dedicated to exposing
> corporations who are trying to subvert freedom and lock people
> into proprietary solutions. Techrights often fights against
> those who impose censorship and Roy himself has said in the
> channel itself that he doesn't like to ban people because it
> could be considered censorship. He has this argument with many
> people in the channel.
>
> So, what does group dedicated to freedom do? Ban someone who
> speaks their mind in their place of left wing socialist
> rhetoric. No room for non-left wing ideas in a channel for
> free software advocacy.
>
> Why I think techrights is left wing (and you doubt?):
> Techrights attacks Fox, Murdoch, Rich people and corporations.
>
> It promotes climate change propaganda, population control
> propaganda and internationalism.
--
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> Really? You mean if you don't like an authoritarian
> country, you can
>> just go set up your own country, with its own rules?
>
> You did miss the point, however:
>
> If you don't like being in communist China, you can leave. If
> you stay and try to keep your opinion you will be removed.
>
> I'm sure the Techrights crew would love it if they could make
> me disappear like the Chinese government does with its
> discontented.
mean it is right) and what TomB is trying to do now.
Censorship.
It is a good thing says the herd.
> The fun point I love to bring up is that I was in the channel
> for 2 years. They didn't mind me until I stopped being
> socialist. Look at the IRC logs, they get pissed whenever I
> pointed out new world order agendas that were intertwined with
> international socialism. After being banned, they started
> being more open about being a left wing only operation.
>
> I'll explain my original point more clearly:
> Techrights is supposed to be a site dedicated to exposing
> corporations who are trying to subvert freedom and lock people
> into proprietary solutions. Techrights often fights against
> those who impose censorship and Roy himself has said in the
> channel itself that he doesn't like to ban people because it
> could be considered censorship. He has this argument with many
> people in the channel.
>
> So, what does group dedicated to freedom do? Ban someone who
> speaks their mind in their place of left wing socialist
> rhetoric. No room for non-left wing ideas in a channel for
> free software advocacy.
>
> Why I think techrights is left wing (and you doubt?):
> Techrights attacks Fox, Murdoch, Rich people and corporations.
>
> It promotes climate change propaganda, population control
> propaganda and internationalism.
--
Kelsey Bjarnason
Oct 1, 2011, 5:06:43β―AM10/1/11
to
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:20:33 -0400, Ender2070 wrote:
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> Really? You mean if you don't like an authoritarian
> country, you can
>> just go set up your own country, with its own rules?
>
> You did miss the point, however:
No, actually, I didn't.
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> Really? You mean if you don't like an authoritarian
> country, you can
>> just go set up your own country, with its own rules?
>
> You did miss the point, however:
> If you don't like being in communist China, you can leave. If you stay
> and try to keep your opinion you will be removed.
> I'm sure the Techrights crew would love it if they could make me
> disappear like the Chinese government does with its discontented.
> The fun point I love to bring up is that I was in the channel for 2
> years. They didn't mind me until I stopped being socialist.
until you decided to be a disruptive pest. However, I haven't followed
the issue for umpteen years, so that's just an off-the-cuff poke at it.
> Look at the
> IRC logs, they get pissed whenever I pointed out new world order agendas
> that were intertwined with international socialism. After being banned,
> they started being more open about being a left wing only operation.
> I'll explain my original point more clearly: Techrights is supposed to
> be a site dedicated to exposing corporations who are trying to subvert
> freedom and lock people into proprietary solutions.
> Techrights often
> fights against those who impose censorship and Roy himself has said in
> the channel itself that he doesn't like to ban people because it could
> be considered censorship.
like jackasses". I'm not seeing the problem yet.
> He has this argument with many people in the
> channel.
grasp that "Linux advocacy" doesn't involve telling people how wonderful
Windows or OSX are. We have similar issues in alt.atheism, with the
rampaging retard theists who can't figure out from "alt.atheism" that
their garbage isn't wanted.
> So, what does group dedicated to freedom do? Ban someone who speaks
> their mind in their place of left wing socialist rhetoric. No room for
> non-left wing ideas in a channel for free software advocacy.
would not be banned simply for speaking one's mind. For being a
disruptive, pestering jerk, yes, but that's a different animal.
> Why I think techrights is left wing (and you doubt?): Techrights attacks
> Fox, Murdoch, Rich people and corporations.
saying one cannot be right wing and believe in generically in concepts
such as fairness? Okay, works for me, but then the righties have no
basis to whine when things aren't fair, so anyone being a rightie and
whinging about things being unfair can go cry in the corner and stop
bothering the grown-ups.
> It promotes climate change propaganda
techrights promotes the rightist propaganda that climate change isn't
happening, or is but insignificantly, doesn't need to be monitored and
dealt with?
Okay, I don't get it; you seem to be whining that TR is a leftie outfit,
but if they're spewing the rightist line, their notional leftism is
largely irrelevant. So, they're too right wing for you? But you just
said they were lefties. Very, very, confusing.
Do let us know when you figure out whether TR is supposed to be right,
left, or something else, and which one you're going to fault them for.
Homer
Oct 1, 2011, 3:29:13β―PM10/1/11
to
Verily I say unto thee that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly:
> Okay, I don't get it; you seem to be whining that TR is a leftie
> outfit, but if they're spewing the rightist line, their notional
> leftism is largely irrelevant. So, they're too right wing for you?
> But you just said they were lefties. Very, very, confusing.
Actually it's pretty simple. With one or two exceptions, which I've
previously noted (and won't labour the point), Techrights is mostly
centrist. Sensationalist, yes, but centrist nonetheless. The problem is
extremists on both the left and right of politics view centrism no
differently than their diametric opposition. To a Marxist, a centrist is
just another capitalist. To a fascist, a centrist is just another
socialist. That isn't a contradiction in centrism, it's just the bigotry
of extremists who see everything else as extremist opposition. That's
why modern liberals (or progressives, as they're referred to in the US)
are stigmatised as "loony lefties" by the right-wing faction, even
though their politics are actually centrist. Extremists recalibrate the
scale of politics to suit their own biases.
But as you've noted, Ender2070 can't seem to make up his mind if
Techrights is left or right oriented. Frankly he doesn't really seem to
understand politics at all, or even what qualifies as left and right. At
some point he apparently started ranting extremist diatribes, was
consequently kicked out of Techrights, and now he's reaching for
anything to lash out with, even if it makes no sense.
I could think of plenty of ways to criticise Roy and Techrights, such as
Roy's malicious streak, and Techright's sloppy research, but I'd be
hard-pressed to label him or his site as either left or right wing.
AFAICT it's mostly about fighting corruption, and AFAIAC that's always a
good thing. But apparently Ender2070 seemed to interpret that as an
attack on the basic premise of capitalism itself, and thus Roy must be a
"commie", when in fact many of his views are right-leaning, and most of
them are just centrist, AFAICT. But Ender2070 had to Red-bait Roy to
strike a blow for whatever extremist doctrine he supports, and at some
point Roy and others got fed up with it, then booted him out. Big
surprise.
I guess the moral of the story is: if you don't want to lose friends,
then keep your extremist and bigoted opinions to yourself.
Of course, that works both ways, but then some people would rather
remain loyal to their principles (extremist, centrist or otherwise) than
loyal to those who previously seemed to be their friends. That's not an
endorsement of extremism, it's just an endorsement of having the courage
of one's convictions.
Ender2070 has just learned the hard lesson that friends and principles
are often mutually exclusive. Hopefully he'll grow up now, and move on.
--
K. | A lively young damsel named Menzies
http://slated.org | Inquired: "Do you know what this thenzies?"
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on Ε‘ky | Her aunt, with a gasp, replied: "It's a wasp,
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 131 days | And you're holding the end where the stenzies."
> Okay, I don't get it; you seem to be whining that TR is a leftie
> outfit, but if they're spewing the rightist line, their notional
> leftism is largely irrelevant. So, they're too right wing for you?
> But you just said they were lefties. Very, very, confusing.
previously noted (and won't labour the point), Techrights is mostly
centrist. Sensationalist, yes, but centrist nonetheless. The problem is
extremists on both the left and right of politics view centrism no
differently than their diametric opposition. To a Marxist, a centrist is
just another capitalist. To a fascist, a centrist is just another
socialist. That isn't a contradiction in centrism, it's just the bigotry
of extremists who see everything else as extremist opposition. That's
why modern liberals (or progressives, as they're referred to in the US)
are stigmatised as "loony lefties" by the right-wing faction, even
though their politics are actually centrist. Extremists recalibrate the
scale of politics to suit their own biases.
But as you've noted, Ender2070 can't seem to make up his mind if
Techrights is left or right oriented. Frankly he doesn't really seem to
understand politics at all, or even what qualifies as left and right. At
some point he apparently started ranting extremist diatribes, was
consequently kicked out of Techrights, and now he's reaching for
anything to lash out with, even if it makes no sense.
I could think of plenty of ways to criticise Roy and Techrights, such as
Roy's malicious streak, and Techright's sloppy research, but I'd be
hard-pressed to label him or his site as either left or right wing.
AFAICT it's mostly about fighting corruption, and AFAIAC that's always a
good thing. But apparently Ender2070 seemed to interpret that as an
attack on the basic premise of capitalism itself, and thus Roy must be a
"commie", when in fact many of his views are right-leaning, and most of
them are just centrist, AFAICT. But Ender2070 had to Red-bait Roy to
strike a blow for whatever extremist doctrine he supports, and at some
point Roy and others got fed up with it, then booted him out. Big
surprise.
I guess the moral of the story is: if you don't want to lose friends,
then keep your extremist and bigoted opinions to yourself.
Of course, that works both ways, but then some people would rather
remain loyal to their principles (extremist, centrist or otherwise) than
loyal to those who previously seemed to be their friends. That's not an
endorsement of extremism, it's just an endorsement of having the courage
of one's convictions.
Ender2070 has just learned the hard lesson that friends and principles
are often mutually exclusive. Hopefully he'll grow up now, and move on.
--
K. | A lively young damsel named Menzies
http://slated.org | Inquired: "Do you know what this thenzies?"
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on Ε‘ky | Her aunt, with a gasp, replied: "It's a wasp,
Herd Watch
Oct 1, 2011, 3:51:37β―PM10/1/11
to
Homer stated in post 996kl8-...@sky.matrix on 10/1/11 12:29 PM:
> Verily I say unto thee that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly:
>
>> Okay, I don't get it; you seem to be whining that TR is a leftie
>> outfit, but if they're spewing the rightist line, their notional
>> leftism is largely irrelevant. So, they're too right wing for you?
>> But you just said they were lefties. Very, very, confusing.
>
> Actually it's pretty simple. With one or two exceptions, which I've
> previously noted (and won't labour the point), Techrights is mostly
> centrist.
It is anti-MS and anti-Apple. Not sure if that really fits into any
political "side"... it mostly about promoting Linux through deception and
dishonesty.
> Sensationalist, yes, but centrist nonetheless. The problem is
> extremists on both the left and right of politics view centrism no
> differently than their diametric opposition. To a Marxist, a centrist is
> just another capitalist. To a fascist, a centrist is just another
> socialist. That isn't a contradiction in centrism, it's just the bigotry
> of extremists who see everything else as extremist opposition. That's
> why modern liberals (or progressives, as they're referred to in the US)
> are stigmatised as "loony lefties" by the right-wing faction, even
> though their politics are actually centrist. Extremists recalibrate the
> scale of politics to suit their own biases.
>
> But as you've noted, Ender2070 can't seem to make up his mind if
> Techrights is left or right oriented. Frankly he doesn't really seem to
> understand politics at all, or even what qualifies as left and right. At
> some point he apparently started ranting extremist diatribes, was
> consequently kicked out of Techrights, and now he's reaching for
> anything to lash out with, even if it makes no sense.
Techrights is less politically left or politically right than it just is
whacked out promote Roy and, secondarily, promote Linux at *any* cost - no
matter how dishonest.
> I could think of plenty of ways to criticise Roy and Techrights, such as
> Roy's malicious streak, and Techright's sloppy research, but I'd be
> hard-pressed to label him or his site as either left or right wing.
Agreed.
> AFAICT it's mostly about fighting corruption, and AFAIAC that's always a
> good thing.
If it is about fighting corruption it is doing so by fighting fire with
fire... fighting corruption with corruption. And that makes Linux look bad.
> But apparently Ender2070 seemed to interpret that as an
> attack on the basic premise of capitalism itself, and thus Roy must be a
> "commie", when in fact many of his views are right-leaning, and most of
> them are just centrist, AFAICT.
Roy is *very* anti-corporate when the corporations are in any way tied to MS
or Apple. Heck, he is anti-OSS when the OSS is tied to Apple or MS. Just
whacked.
> But Ender2070 had to Red-bait Roy to
> strike a blow for whatever extremist doctrine he supports, and at some
> point Roy and others got fed up with it, then booted him out. Big
> surprise.
>
> I guess the moral of the story is: if you don't want to lose friends,
> then keep your extremist and bigoted opinions to yourself.
>
> Of course, that works both ways, but then some people would rather
> remain loyal to their principles (extremist, centrist or otherwise) than
> loyal to those who previously seemed to be their friends. That's not an
> endorsement of extremism, it's just an endorsement of having the courage
> of one's convictions.
Sadly COLA is a hot-bed of cult-like support of "friends". You, to your
credit, broke out of this when you spoke honestly about Roy's dishonesty and
irrationality.
> Ender2070 has just learned the hard lesson that friends and principles
> are often mutually exclusive. Hopefully he'll grow up now, and move on.
--
> Verily I say unto thee that Kelsey Bjarnason spake thusly:
>
>> Okay, I don't get it; you seem to be whining that TR is a leftie
>> outfit, but if they're spewing the rightist line, their notional
>> leftism is largely irrelevant. So, they're too right wing for you?
>> But you just said they were lefties. Very, very, confusing.
>
> Actually it's pretty simple. With one or two exceptions, which I've
> previously noted (and won't labour the point), Techrights is mostly
> centrist.
political "side"... it mostly about promoting Linux through deception and
dishonesty.
> Sensationalist, yes, but centrist nonetheless. The problem is
> extremists on both the left and right of politics view centrism no
> differently than their diametric opposition. To a Marxist, a centrist is
> just another capitalist. To a fascist, a centrist is just another
> socialist. That isn't a contradiction in centrism, it's just the bigotry
> of extremists who see everything else as extremist opposition. That's
> why modern liberals (or progressives, as they're referred to in the US)
> are stigmatised as "loony lefties" by the right-wing faction, even
> though their politics are actually centrist. Extremists recalibrate the
> scale of politics to suit their own biases.
>
> But as you've noted, Ender2070 can't seem to make up his mind if
> Techrights is left or right oriented. Frankly he doesn't really seem to
> understand politics at all, or even what qualifies as left and right. At
> some point he apparently started ranting extremist diatribes, was
> consequently kicked out of Techrights, and now he's reaching for
> anything to lash out with, even if it makes no sense.
whacked out promote Roy and, secondarily, promote Linux at *any* cost - no
matter how dishonest.
> I could think of plenty of ways to criticise Roy and Techrights, such as
> Roy's malicious streak, and Techright's sloppy research, but I'd be
> hard-pressed to label him or his site as either left or right wing.
> AFAICT it's mostly about fighting corruption, and AFAIAC that's always a
> good thing.
fire... fighting corruption with corruption. And that makes Linux look bad.
> But apparently Ender2070 seemed to interpret that as an
> attack on the basic premise of capitalism itself, and thus Roy must be a
> "commie", when in fact many of his views are right-leaning, and most of
> them are just centrist, AFAICT.
or Apple. Heck, he is anti-OSS when the OSS is tied to Apple or MS. Just
whacked.
> But Ender2070 had to Red-bait Roy to
> strike a blow for whatever extremist doctrine he supports, and at some
> point Roy and others got fed up with it, then booted him out. Big
> surprise.
>
> I guess the moral of the story is: if you don't want to lose friends,
> then keep your extremist and bigoted opinions to yourself.
>
> Of course, that works both ways, but then some people would rather
> remain loyal to their principles (extremist, centrist or otherwise) than
> loyal to those who previously seemed to be their friends. That's not an
> endorsement of extremism, it's just an endorsement of having the courage
> of one's convictions.
credit, broke out of this when you spoke honestly about Roy's dishonesty and
irrationality.
> Ender2070 has just learned the hard lesson that friends and principles
> are often mutually exclusive. Hopefully he'll grow up now, and move on.
--
Ender2070
Oct 1, 2011, 10:56:17β―PM10/1/11
to
> > Why I think techrights is left wing (and you doubt?): Techrights attacks
> > Fox, Murdoch, Rich people and corporations.
>
> That doesn't make it left wing, that at most makes it anti-abuse. You're
> saying one cannot be right wing and believe in generically in concepts
> such as fairness? Okay, works for me, but then the righties have no
> basis to whine when things aren't fair, so anyone being a rightie and
> whinging about things being unfair can go cry in the corner and stop
> bothering the grown-ups.
The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox, while accepting news from every other left wing news media without question. Fox is one of the smaller media conglomerations when you factor in Time Warner and GE.
> > Fox, Murdoch, Rich people and corporations.
>
> That doesn't make it left wing, that at most makes it anti-abuse. You're
> saying one cannot be right wing and believe in generically in concepts
> such as fairness? Okay, works for me, but then the righties have no
> basis to whine when things aren't fair, so anyone being a rightie and
> whinging about things being unfair can go cry in the corner and stop
> bothering the grown-ups.
> > It promotes climate change propaganda
>
> techrights promotes the rightist propaganda that climate change isn't
> happening, or is but insignificantly, doesn't need to be monitored and
> dealt with?
>
> Okay, I don't get it; you seem to be whining that TR is a leftie outfit,
> but if they're spewing the rightist line, their notional leftism is
> largely irrelevant. So, they're too right wing for you? But you just
> said they were lefties. Very, very, confusing.
> Do let us know when you figure out whether TR is supposed to be right,
> left, or something else, and which one you're going to fault them for.
Ender2070
Oct 1, 2011, 11:12:19β―PM10/1/11
to
On Saturday, October 1, 2011 3:29:13 PM UTC-4, Homer wrote:
> But as you've noted, Ender2070 can't seem to make up his mind if
> Techrights is left or right oriented. Frankly he doesn't really seem to
> understand politics at all, or even what qualifies as left and right. At
> some point he apparently started ranting extremist diatribes, was
> consequently kicked out of Techrights, and now he's reaching for
> anything to lash out with, even if it makes no sense.
Actually I do. Its the research I did that turned me away from communism, socialism and progressive movements. (SEE Moses Hess, Adam Weishaupt, Karl Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky).
> But as you've noted, Ender2070 can't seem to make up his mind if
> Techrights is left or right oriented. Frankly he doesn't really seem to
> understand politics at all, or even what qualifies as left and right. At
> some point he apparently started ranting extremist diatribes, was
> consequently kicked out of Techrights, and now he's reaching for
> anything to lash out with, even if it makes no sense.
Ender2070
Oct 1, 2011, 11:02:22β―PM10/1/11
to
> Freedom includes the freedom to choose your friends and cast out your
> enemies. You have no particular "freedom" to impose yourself on those
> who don't want you.
I think it has more to do with making sure I'm not in the logs. Roy has stated he didn't want people reading murdoch disinfo - which he claims I spread because I link to news articles from media he doesn't like. All the techrights 'authorized' media sources don't print anything they don't like. Anything from fox is automatically wrong or propaganda.
> enemies. You have no particular "freedom" to impose yourself on those
> who don't want you.
Fox isn't the only media company in the game of lying. They are lie when it suits the system.
Peter KΓΆhlmann
Oct 2, 2011, 3:14:08β―AM10/2/11
to
Ender2070 wrote:
>> > Why I think techrights is left wing (and you doubt?): Techrights
>> > attacks Fox, Murdoch, Rich people and corporations.
>>
>> That doesn't make it left wing, that at most makes it anti-abuse. You're
>> saying one cannot be right wing and believe in generically in concepts
>> such as fairness? Okay, works for me, but then the righties have no
>> basis to whine when things aren't fair, so anyone being a rightie and
>> whinging about things being unfair can go cry in the corner and stop
>> bothering the grown-ups.
>
> The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox, while accepting
> news from every other left wing news media without question.
Idiot
>> > Why I think techrights is left wing (and you doubt?): Techrights
>> > attacks Fox, Murdoch, Rich people and corporations.
>>
>> That doesn't make it left wing, that at most makes it anti-abuse. You're
>> saying one cannot be right wing and believe in generically in concepts
>> such as fairness? Okay, works for me, but then the righties have no
>> basis to whine when things aren't fair, so anyone being a rightie and
>> whinging about things being unfair can go cry in the corner and stop
>> bothering the grown-ups.
>
> The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox, while accepting
> news from every other left wing news media without question.
Peter KΓΆhlmann
Oct 2, 2011, 3:15:05β―AM10/2/11
to
Chris Ahlstrom
Oct 2, 2011, 8:02:14β―AM10/2/11
to
Peter K??hlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
Indeed. "Left-wing news media" is an oxymoron in America.
And what the hell does one make of Rupert Murdoch's media outlets?
--
I have lots of things in my pockets;
None of them is worth anything.
Sociopolitical whines aside,
Gan you give me, gratis, free,
The price of half a gallon
Of Gallo extra bad
And most of the bus fare home.
And what the hell does one make of Rupert Murdoch's media outlets?
--
I have lots of things in my pockets;
None of them is worth anything.
Sociopolitical whines aside,
Gan you give me, gratis, free,
The price of half a gallon
Of Gallo extra bad
And most of the bus fare home.
Kelsey Bjarnason
Oct 2, 2011, 4:42:54β―PM10/2/11
to
[snips]
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:56:17 -0700, Ender2070 wrote:
> The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox
Which is about on a par with not accepting science reporting from a young
earth creationist. I don't see the problem.
> See, you're left wing too.
Did I say otherwise?
> When I said climate change propaganda you
> automatically assumed it was against the idea of climate change.
Actually, I assumed you were one of those anti-AGW types. Which leaves
you in the position of trying to defend one of two positions: either that
GW isn't happening at all, or it is, but human contributions aren't a
significant factor in it. Each of which misses a very basic point: the
net result of anti-AGW measures is to produce a cleaner, better
environment for everyone... and the people who generally oppose such
notions are, wait for it... right-wingers.
The fact you whine about Fox "news" merely shows what flavour. If you
give me your mailing address, I'll send you some Dick and Jane readers
for your birthday, so your reading material is on a par with your news.
Kelsey Bjarnason
Oct 2, 2011, 4:46:28β―PM10/2/11
to
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 20:12:19 -0700, Ender2070 wrote:
> On Saturday, October 1, 2011 3:29:13 PM UTC-4, Homer wrote:
>> But as you've noted, Ender2070 can't seem to make up his mind if
>> Techrights is left or right oriented. Frankly he doesn't really seem to
>> understand politics at all, or even what qualifies as left and right.
>> At some point he apparently started ranting extremist diatribes, was
>> consequently kicked out of Techrights, and now he's reaching for
>> anything to lash out with, even if it makes no sense.
>
> Actually I do. Its the research I did that turned me away from
> communism, socialism and progressive movements.
Yes, but you regard Fox as a news source, so your research isn't fit for
> On Saturday, October 1, 2011 3:29:13 PM UTC-4, Homer wrote:
>> But as you've noted, Ender2070 can't seem to make up his mind if
>> Techrights is left or right oriented. Frankly he doesn't really seem to
>> understand politics at all, or even what qualifies as left and right.
>> At some point he apparently started ranting extremist diatribes, was
>> consequently kicked out of Techrights, and now he's reaching for
>> anything to lash out with, even if it makes no sense.
>
> Actually I do. Its the research I did that turned me away from
> communism, socialism and progressive movements.
use as kindling.
Kelsey Bjarnason
Oct 2, 2011, 4:50:56β―PM10/2/11
to
On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 20:02:22 -0700, Ender2070 wrote:
>> Freedom includes the freedom to choose your friends and cast out your
>> enemies. You have no particular "freedom" to impose yourself on those
>> who don't want you.
>
> I think it has more to do with making sure I'm not in the logs. Roy has
> stated he didn't want people reading murdoch disinfo
"Iβll tell you why [religion's] not a scam. In my opinion, all right?
>> Freedom includes the freedom to choose your friends and cast out your
>> enemies. You have no particular "freedom" to impose yourself on those
>> who don't want you.
>
> I think it has more to do with making sure I'm not in the logs. Roy has
> stated he didn't want people reading murdoch disinfo
Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You canβt explain
that."
-- Bill O'Reilly. Of Fox "News".
You just can't get a much clearer demonstration of what Fox "News" is
really worth... but there are many more examples like it.
Gregory Shearman
Oct 2, 2011, 6:13:09β―PM10/2/11
to
On 2011-10-02, Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> Peter K??hlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Ender2070 wrote:
>>
>>>> > Why I think techrights is left wing (and you doubt?): Techrights
>>>> > attacks Fox, Murdoch, Rich people and corporations.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't make it left wing, that at most makes it anti-abuse. You're
>>>> saying one cannot be right wing and believe in generically in concepts
>>>> such as fairness? Okay, works for me, but then the righties have no
>>>> basis to whine when things aren't fair, so anyone being a rightie and
>>>> whinging about things being unfair can go cry in the corner and stop
>>>> bothering the grown-ups.
>>>
>>> The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox, while accepting
>>> news from every other left wing news media without question.
>>
>> Idiot
>
> Indeed. "Left-wing news media" is an oxymoron in America.
> Peter K??hlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Ender2070 wrote:
>>
>>>> > Why I think techrights is left wing (and you doubt?): Techrights
>>>> > attacks Fox, Murdoch, Rich people and corporations.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't make it left wing, that at most makes it anti-abuse. You're
>>>> saying one cannot be right wing and believe in generically in concepts
>>>> such as fairness? Okay, works for me, but then the righties have no
>>>> basis to whine when things aren't fair, so anyone being a rightie and
>>>> whinging about things being unfair can go cry in the corner and stop
>>>> bothering the grown-ups.
>>>
>>> The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox, while accepting
>>> news from every other left wing news media without question.
>>
>> Idiot
>
> Indeed. "Left-wing news media" is an oxymoron in America.
I didn't think there *was* a left-wing in America. What *you'd* call
left wing, the rest of the world would call centre-right.
> And what the hell does one make of Rupert Murdoch's media outlets?
Well, the newspapers are good for wrapping fish and chips. Murdoch TV is
good for torturing prisoners. I'm glad he gave up his Australian
citizenship. I'm ashamed that he even came from this country. Even his
own mother disapproves of his business.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Peter KΓΆhlmann
Oct 2, 2011, 6:41:31β―PM10/2/11
to
Gregory Shearman wrote:
> On 2011-10-02, Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>> Peter K??hlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> Ender2070 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> > Why I think techrights is left wing (and you doubt?): Techrights
>>>>> > attacks Fox, Murdoch, Rich people and corporations.
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't make it left wing, that at most makes it anti-abuse.
>>>>> You're saying one cannot be right wing and believe in generically in
>>>>> concepts
>>>>> such as fairness? Okay, works for me, but then the righties have no
>>>>> basis to whine when things aren't fair, so anyone being a rightie and
>>>>> whinging about things being unfair can go cry in the corner and stop
>>>>> bothering the grown-ups.
>>>>
>>>> The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox, while
>>>> accepting news from every other left wing news media without question.
>>>
>>> Idiot
>>
>> Indeed. "Left-wing news media" is an oxymoron in America.
>
> I didn't think there *was* a left-wing in America. What *you'd* call
> left wing, the rest of the world would call centre-right.
>
>> And what the hell does one make of Rupert Murdoch's media outlets?
>
> Well, the newspapers are good for wrapping fish and chips.
But not with that slightly toxic ink they use
> On 2011-10-02, Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
>> Peter K??hlmann wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> Ender2070 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> > Why I think techrights is left wing (and you doubt?): Techrights
>>>>> > attacks Fox, Murdoch, Rich people and corporations.
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't make it left wing, that at most makes it anti-abuse.
>>>>> You're saying one cannot be right wing and believe in generically in
>>>>> concepts
>>>>> such as fairness? Okay, works for me, but then the righties have no
>>>>> basis to whine when things aren't fair, so anyone being a rightie and
>>>>> whinging about things being unfair can go cry in the corner and stop
>>>>> bothering the grown-ups.
>>>>
>>>> The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox, while
>>>> accepting news from every other left wing news media without question.
>>>
>>> Idiot
>>
>> Indeed. "Left-wing news media" is an oxymoron in America.
>
> I didn't think there *was* a left-wing in America. What *you'd* call
> left wing, the rest of the world would call centre-right.
>
>> And what the hell does one make of Rupert Murdoch's media outlets?
>
> Well, the newspapers are good for wrapping fish and chips.
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 9:32:08β―AM10/3/11
to
The only people who say Fox isn't a news source are left wing socialists. Even Fox has a correct story every once in a while (just like the others).
If the media is your research source, your brain isn't fit to use as kindling.
If the media is your research source, your brain isn't fit to use as kindling.
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 9:32:44β―AM10/3/11
to lin...@be11south-sucks.net
Rupert Murdoch is a small fish in the game of international media.
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 9:33:30β―AM10/3/11
to
Dumbass
Shouldn't I be in your hate filter?
Shouldn't I be in your hate filter?
Peter KΓΆhlmann
Oct 3, 2011, 9:38:46β―AM10/3/11
to
Ender2070 wrote:
> Dumbass
>
> Shouldn't I be in your hate filter?
Idiot. I decide who is in my filter, when and how long
> Dumbass
>
> Shouldn't I be in your hate filter?
And I never use "hate" as a reason. You are way too stupid to be hated.
In fact, dirt is a lot smarter than you are. Dirt has bacteria
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 10:30:18β―AM10/3/11
to
I look forward to your insults then.
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 10:40:51β―AM10/3/11
to
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:56:17 -0700, Ender2070 wrote:
>
> > The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox
>
> Which is about on a par with not accepting science reporting from a young
> earth creationist. I don't see the problem.
That's a hate crime
>
> > The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox
>
> Which is about on a par with not accepting science reporting from a young
> earth creationist. I don't see the problem.
>
> > See, you're left wing too.
>
> Did I say otherwise?
>
> > When I said climate change propaganda you
> > automatically assumed it was against the idea of climate change.
>
> Actually, I assumed you were one of those anti-AGW types. Which leaves
> you in the position of trying to defend one of two positions: either that
> GW isn't happening at all, or it is, but human contributions aren't a
> significant factor in it. Each of which misses a very basic point: the
> net result of anti-AGW measures is to produce a cleaner, better
> environment for everyone... and the people who generally oppose such
> notions are, wait for it... right-wingers.
>
> The fact you whine about Fox "news" merely shows what flavour. If you
> give me your mailing address, I'll send you some Dick and Jane readers
> for your birthday, so your reading material is on a par with your news.
Environmental concerns will be used to restrict freedom. Environmental concerns will be used to restrict birth.
Environmental concerns will be used to make sure nobody else gets rich. Only the rich will be able to afford carbon credits, and get exceptions from the government.
Regarding Fox, I insist all the media lies and occasionally gets it right. There are only a few big media companies now and Fox is the smallest out of them. The others are socialist leaning and very well funded. My point was that since everyone attacks Fox, and fox is right wing - what does that make its critics?
I lean a little right but I understand that both sides converge and stand side by side with Authoritarianism. Left and Right are puppets being held up by the George Soros & Banksters strings.
Snit
Oct 3, 2011, 10:59:23β―AM10/3/11
to
Ender2070 stated in post
12063590.2846.1317652851717.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqbr29 on 10/3/11
7:40 AM:
> Regarding Fox, I insist all the media lies and occasionally gets it right.
> There are only a few big media companies now and Fox is the smallest out of
> them. The others are socialist leaning and very well funded. My point was that
> since everyone attacks Fox, and fox is right wing - what does that make its
> critics?
I would love to see evidence that the big mega-corporations which run the
mainstream media have a "socialist leaning".
--
πππ
12063590.2846.1317652851717.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqbr29 on 10/3/11
7:40 AM:
> Regarding Fox, I insist all the media lies and occasionally gets it right.
> There are only a few big media companies now and Fox is the smallest out of
> them. The others are socialist leaning and very well funded. My point was that
> since everyone attacks Fox, and fox is right wing - what does that make its
> critics?
mainstream media have a "socialist leaning".
--
πππ
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 2:21:38β―PM10/3/11
to
Mainstream media promotes:
1) Anti-capitalism
2) Pro-climate change propaganda and suggests carbon credits
3) Suggested regime changes in non socialist countries (Soros recommanded a regime change in the US)
4) The idea that Fox is a republican news station (what does that make the accusers?)
5) The idea that resources need to be distributed fairly worldwide vs each country controlling its own
6) The idea that we need a single world government
7) Support for the World bank & IMF
8) The labeling of anyone against the NWO as a crazy right winger
9) Labeling of serial killers as right wing when they are not (Laughner)
10) Demonization of the idea of owning property, either physical or intellectual.
11) The idea that China isn't communist when it is. The media boosts China all the time and suggests it as a model for a global economy.
12) The idea that we need government.
13) The demonization of anyone who wants to cut tax payer funded programs.
etc
Important Socialists:
Hitler (yes he was, National Socialist Party)
Mao Zedong
Fidel Castro
Pierre Trudeau (friends with Castro)
HG Wells
Tony Blair (Fabian Socialist)
Gordon Brown (Fabian Socialist)
The Fabian Society
PS: Look up how many Fabian socialists have been labour PM's. (Hint: All)
Snit
Oct 3, 2011, 2:47:55β―PM10/3/11
to
Ender2070 stated in post
22892468.1567.1317666098708.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqcs10 on 10/3/11
11:21 AM:
> Mainstream media promotes:
>
> 1) Anti-capitalism
How? First, I am not sure you can say the mainstream media has any one
"view" on this, but if you could, I think think it would be more reasonable
to say they do not support unfettered capitalism.
> 2) Pro-climate change propaganda and suggests carbon credits
Overall the ideas of gravity, a mostly spherical Earth, and global warming
are accepted in the media. Would be sorta silly if they were not. It is
not as if there is any serious debate on any of those topics. To pretend
there is would be dishonest.
> 3) Suggested regime changes in non socialist countries (Soros recommanded a
> regime change in the US)
Regime change for the US? In the mainstream media? No.
> 4) The idea that Fox is a republican news station (what does that make the
> accusers?)
Fox is clearly very right wing and openly dishonest. They have the least
informed viewers of any news.
> 5) The idea that resources need to be distributed fairly worldwide vs each
> country controlling its own
Where do they support this?
> 6) The idea that we need a single world government
Again... where do they support this?
> 7) Support for the World bank & IMF
Again... where do they support this?
> 8) The labeling of anyone against the NWO as a crazy right winger
Again... where do they support this?
> 9) Labeling of serial killers as right wing when they are not (Laughner)
Cite?
> 10) Demonization of the idea of owning property, either physical or
> intellectual.
Where?
> 11) The idea that China isn't communist when it is. The media boosts China all
> the time and suggests it as a model for a global economy.
Where? When?
> 12) The idea that we need government.
It is not the responsibility of the news to push anarchy onto people!
> 13) The demonization of anyone who wants to cut tax payer funded programs.
Cite?
> etc
>
> Important Socialists:
> Hitler (yes he was, National Socialist Party)
> Mao Zedong
> Fidel Castro
> Pierre Trudeau (friends with Castro)
> HG Wells
> Tony Blair (Fabian Socialist)
> Gordon Brown (Fabian Socialist)
> The Fabian Society
>
> PS: Look up how many Fabian socialists have been labour PM's. (Hint: All)
So? I am not seeing your point.
--
πππ
22892468.1567.1317666098708.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqcs10 on 10/3/11
11:21 AM:
> Mainstream media promotes:
>
> 1) Anti-capitalism
"view" on this, but if you could, I think think it would be more reasonable
to say they do not support unfettered capitalism.
> 2) Pro-climate change propaganda and suggests carbon credits
are accepted in the media. Would be sorta silly if they were not. It is
not as if there is any serious debate on any of those topics. To pretend
there is would be dishonest.
> 3) Suggested regime changes in non socialist countries (Soros recommanded a
> regime change in the US)
> 4) The idea that Fox is a republican news station (what does that make the
> accusers?)
informed viewers of any news.
> 5) The idea that resources need to be distributed fairly worldwide vs each
> country controlling its own
> 6) The idea that we need a single world government
> 7) Support for the World bank & IMF
> 8) The labeling of anyone against the NWO as a crazy right winger
> 9) Labeling of serial killers as right wing when they are not (Laughner)
> 10) Demonization of the idea of owning property, either physical or
> intellectual.
> 11) The idea that China isn't communist when it is. The media boosts China all
> the time and suggests it as a model for a global economy.
> 12) The idea that we need government.
> 13) The demonization of anyone who wants to cut tax payer funded programs.
> etc
>
> Important Socialists:
> Hitler (yes he was, National Socialist Party)
> Mao Zedong
> Fidel Castro
> Pierre Trudeau (friends with Castro)
> HG Wells
> Tony Blair (Fabian Socialist)
> Gordon Brown (Fabian Socialist)
> The Fabian Society
>
> PS: Look up how many Fabian socialists have been labour PM's. (Hint: All)
--
πππ
Kelsey Bjarnason
Oct 3, 2011, 2:46:37β―PM10/3/11
to
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:40:51 -0700, Ender2070 wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:56:17 -0700, Ender2070 wrote:
>>
>> > The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox
>>
>> Which is about on a par with not accepting science reporting from a
>> young earth creationist. I don't see the problem.
>
> That's a hate crime
Oh, good grief, you *are* a complete fucking retard.
>> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:56:17 -0700, Ender2070 wrote:
>>
>> > The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox
>>
>> Which is about on a par with not accepting science reporting from a
>> young earth creationist. I don't see the problem.
>
> That's a hate crime
Go download a life somewhere. I'd say download an education, but there's
no hope it would ever take.
Kari Laine
Oct 3, 2011, 3:02:25β―PM10/3/11
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
Well this has nothing to do with Linux. Or maybe it has - FOSS has to
operate inside ruling system...
On 10/03/2011 09:21 PM, Ender2070 wrote:
> Mainstream media promotes:
>
> 1) Anti-capitalism
I don't understand why any disagreement with free capitalism is labeled
as anti-capitalism. Capitalism has to be controlled. Communism does not
work but then also totally free capitalism does not work. You can see
that in US. There must be checks to take account the not so fortunate
people, who free capitalism just ignores...
Also the sweatshops in China and India, for US big international
companies is not right in my book. Good example is the manufacturing of
Apple products by FoxCon, which is owned by a Chinese person who does
not think high about his countrymen.
> 2) Pro-climate change propaganda and suggests carbon credits
Well. I am sure humans have some effect on the climate. How big - I
don't know. But sure if we cut in emissions it won't hurt. USA is the
biggest contributor of waste - or has China passed? Maybe the climate is
changing because some cycle.
> 3) Suggested regime changes in non socialist countries (Soros recommanded a regime change in the US)
I consider Soros's comments quite favourable - considering he is a
thief, who steal from money markets...
I have never really understood the political system in USA other than
the power really is not with people. It is with the power mongering
elite who organize elections now and them and make sure right people
get's elected. The power remains in back rooms.
Also I have not read the definition of socialism, but if it means strong
government presence in health care, education, infrastructure(roads,
realroads and so on), defence, taking care of poor people and so on...I
am all for it.
> 4) The idea that Fox is a republican news station (what does that make the accusers?)
I don't watch Fox enough to really comment on this but my understanding
is that all media outlets are propaganda in some way or other. One can
only found strain of truth by consuming many of them and then really
think how it must be.
> 5) The idea that resources need to be distributed fairly worldwide vs each country controlling its own
Well I all for it to distribute food and medicine more fairly. It is not
really fair that some people are dying for being so fat(me included) and
some dying for lack of food.
> 6) The idea that we need a single world government
I hate that idea. I hate EU. The best way is to have countries with
their own democratic systems and then have co-operation between them.
> 7) Support for the World bank & IMF
They should be abolished.
> 8) The labeling of anyone against the NWO as a crazy right winger
I am against it and certainly I am not right winger.
> 9) Labeling of serial killers as right wing when they are not (Laughner)
If they are serial killers what does it matter...
> 10) Demonization of the idea of owning property, either physical or intellectual.
I own property and hell if someone will try to take it from me...
> 11) The idea that China isn't communist when it is. The media boosts China all the time and suggests it as a model for a global economy.
China is communist tyrannic country. Problem is, it is growing in power
and financial resources. They are also making many big jumps in
technology. China has gotten me worried lately. Maybe USA should do
something about it...
> 12) The idea that we need government.
What's the option?
> 13) The demonization of anyone who wants to cut tax payer funded programs.
Some programs must be cut and some must be created. If is a crime that
in USA the most fortune ones pays less taxes than the poor ones. But
that must be right because USA is doing it and it is a great country I
was thought when I was young. Nowadays I won't even have courage to
travel there...
>
> etc
>
> Important Socialists:
> Hitler (yes he was, National Socialist Party)
BAD
> Mao Zedong
BAD
> Fidel Castro
SORT OF
> HG Wells
WHO
--
Kari Laine
PICs, Displays,Relays - USB-SPI-I2C http://www.byvac.com
USB and FPGA boards http://www.ztex.de
I am just a happy customer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOigbBAAoJEPjW/Kjfref2LgkH/0gtfRmmXN/FsLfA9NKim+5n
kCRY+2z+nsWfNpso+/t6WNpil9bPAPwPktWecu7FbQT+Z68JKW5Ahqx16hXu267a
Hdpqnn7DAICVcnz2v8xPyFDM7iwMqAiLRxjfMe+sWdl4tq4ZDlwrMRT5DK8MXO48
O1vikjP9oOG09IKzFoLJTDbZt31TuahRLCirGFUfjFQPhr+QxwZieU9x+mVVwMBd
qgpqlQufgfdYZ24551CSKlSZqA3cOB0IdFvbWue/aqK+IyI67pSTxsZYhTpqWfYB
H8Fiw8Wu2LMcO/yQMJHVeoFNHtNjvGGMPhUAMKUwCbSi9MnzcXilybBNDjp77kI=
=ooeB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
Well this has nothing to do with Linux. Or maybe it has - FOSS has to
operate inside ruling system...
On 10/03/2011 09:21 PM, Ender2070 wrote:
> Mainstream media promotes:
>
> 1) Anti-capitalism
as anti-capitalism. Capitalism has to be controlled. Communism does not
work but then also totally free capitalism does not work. You can see
that in US. There must be checks to take account the not so fortunate
people, who free capitalism just ignores...
Also the sweatshops in China and India, for US big international
companies is not right in my book. Good example is the manufacturing of
Apple products by FoxCon, which is owned by a Chinese person who does
not think high about his countrymen.
> 2) Pro-climate change propaganda and suggests carbon credits
don't know. But sure if we cut in emissions it won't hurt. USA is the
biggest contributor of waste - or has China passed? Maybe the climate is
changing because some cycle.
> 3) Suggested regime changes in non socialist countries (Soros recommanded a regime change in the US)
thief, who steal from money markets...
I have never really understood the political system in USA other than
the power really is not with people. It is with the power mongering
elite who organize elections now and them and make sure right people
get's elected. The power remains in back rooms.
Also I have not read the definition of socialism, but if it means strong
government presence in health care, education, infrastructure(roads,
realroads and so on), defence, taking care of poor people and so on...I
am all for it.
> 4) The idea that Fox is a republican news station (what does that make the accusers?)
is that all media outlets are propaganda in some way or other. One can
only found strain of truth by consuming many of them and then really
think how it must be.
> 5) The idea that resources need to be distributed fairly worldwide vs each country controlling its own
really fair that some people are dying for being so fat(me included) and
some dying for lack of food.
> 6) The idea that we need a single world government
their own democratic systems and then have co-operation between them.
> 7) Support for the World bank & IMF
> 8) The labeling of anyone against the NWO as a crazy right winger
> 9) Labeling of serial killers as right wing when they are not (Laughner)
> 10) Demonization of the idea of owning property, either physical or intellectual.
> 11) The idea that China isn't communist when it is. The media boosts China all the time and suggests it as a model for a global economy.
and financial resources. They are also making many big jumps in
technology. China has gotten me worried lately. Maybe USA should do
something about it...
> 12) The idea that we need government.
> 13) The demonization of anyone who wants to cut tax payer funded programs.
in USA the most fortune ones pays less taxes than the poor ones. But
that must be right because USA is doing it and it is a great country I
was thought when I was young. Nowadays I won't even have courage to
travel there...
>
> etc
>
> Important Socialists:
> Hitler (yes he was, National Socialist Party)
> Mao Zedong
BAD
> Fidel Castro
SORT OF
> Pierre Trudeau (friends with Castro)
WHO
> HG Wells
WHO
> Tony Blair (Fabian Socialist)
> Gordon Brown (Fabian Socialist)
> The Fabian Society
>
> PS: Look up how many Fabian socialists have been labour PM's. (Hint: All)
I am going to Google for this Fabian...
> Gordon Brown (Fabian Socialist)
> The Fabian Society
>
> PS: Look up how many Fabian socialists have been labour PM's. (Hint: All)
--
Kari Laine
PICs, Displays,Relays - USB-SPI-I2C http://www.byvac.com
USB and FPGA boards http://www.ztex.de
I am just a happy customer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOigbBAAoJEPjW/Kjfref2LgkH/0gtfRmmXN/FsLfA9NKim+5n
kCRY+2z+nsWfNpso+/t6WNpil9bPAPwPktWecu7FbQT+Z68JKW5Ahqx16hXu267a
Hdpqnn7DAICVcnz2v8xPyFDM7iwMqAiLRxjfMe+sWdl4tq4ZDlwrMRT5DK8MXO48
O1vikjP9oOG09IKzFoLJTDbZt31TuahRLCirGFUfjFQPhr+QxwZieU9x+mVVwMBd
qgpqlQufgfdYZ24551CSKlSZqA3cOB0IdFvbWue/aqK+IyI67pSTxsZYhTpqWfYB
H8Fiw8Wu2LMcO/yQMJHVeoFNHtNjvGGMPhUAMKUwCbSi9MnzcXilybBNDjp77kI=
=ooeB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Snit
Oct 3, 2011, 3:45:34β―PM10/3/11
to
Kari Laine stated in post C6idnfjbktxfmxfT...@giganews.com on
10/3/11 12:02 PM:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> Well this has nothing to do with Linux. Or maybe it has - FOSS has to
> operate inside ruling system...
>
>
> On 10/03/2011 09:21 PM, Ender2070 wrote:
>> Mainstream media promotes:
>>
>> 1) Anti-capitalism
> I don't understand why any disagreement with free capitalism is labeled
> as anti-capitalism. Capitalism has to be controlled. Communism does not
> work but then also totally free capitalism does not work. You can see
> that in US. There must be checks to take account the not so fortunate
> people, who free capitalism just ignores...
The media should not push unfettered capitalism or any other extremist
position. Nor should they pretend there is any real debate that such
extremist positions are valid. Really they do too much of this - make it
look like such things are commonly debated by educated people.
> Also the sweatshops in China and India, for US big international
> companies is not right in my book. Good example is the manufacturing of
> Apple products by FoxCon, which is owned by a Chinese person who does
> not think high about his countrymen.
The making of most of the western tech products. It is disgraceful.
>> 2) Pro-climate change propaganda and suggests carbon credits
> Well. I am sure humans have some effect on the climate. How big - I
> don't know. But sure if we cut in emissions it won't hurt. USA is the
> biggest contributor of waste - or has China passed? Maybe the climate is
> changing because some cycle.
To act like there is any real debate as to the existence of man-made climate
change, at least in the groups of people who actually study this stuff (and
there are a lot) is simply disingenuous. The media does too much of this -
get some fringe group who makes a claim that is completely contrary to the
norm and try to make it look like there is a big debate in the scientific
community.
>> 3) Suggested regime changes in non socialist countries (Soros recommanded a
>> regime change in the US)
> I consider Soros's comments quite favourable - considering he is a
> thief, who steal from money markets...
> I have never really understood the political system in USA other than
> the power really is not with people. It is with the power mongering
> elite who organize elections now and them and make sure right people
> get's elected. The power remains in back rooms.
> Also I have not read the definition of socialism, but if it means strong
> government presence in health care, education, infrastructure(roads,
> realroads and so on), defence, taking care of poor people and so on...I
> am all for it.
Socialism would eliminate private business... Obama wants to push people to
get private health care and is called a Socialist. The term "Socialist" is
completely misused in the US as a derogatory comment with the implication
that if you want social programs you must be anti-American. Which is
bizarre and absurd.
>> 4) The idea that Fox is a republican news station (what does that make the
>> accusers?)
> I don't watch Fox enough to really comment on this but my understanding
> is that all media outlets are propaganda in some way or other. One can
> only found strain of truth by consuming many of them and then really
> think how it must be.
Several studies have found Fox users to be the least informed about
verifiable facts. To be fair, Politifact has refuted the claims of at least
one of those studies... but I think it is hard to argue that Fox viewers
have clearly false views such as there being a real scientific debate about
even *if* manmade global warming is real, if Obama is a Muslim, if Obama was
born in the US, etc.
>> 5) The idea that resources need to be distributed fairly worldwide vs each
>> country controlling its own
> Well I all for it to distribute food and medicine more fairly. It is not
> really fair that some people are dying for being so fat(me included) and
> some dying for lack of food.
And where does the media push this?
>> 6) The idea that we need a single world government
> I hate that idea. I hate EU. The best way is to have countries with
> their own democratic systems and then have co-operation between them.
And where does the media push this?
...
>> 12) The idea that we need government.
> What's the option?
Let those with money and guns have even more control than they have now.
...
--
πππ
10/3/11 12:02 PM:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> Well this has nothing to do with Linux. Or maybe it has - FOSS has to
> operate inside ruling system...
>
>
> On 10/03/2011 09:21 PM, Ender2070 wrote:
>> Mainstream media promotes:
>>
>> 1) Anti-capitalism
> I don't understand why any disagreement with free capitalism is labeled
> as anti-capitalism. Capitalism has to be controlled. Communism does not
> work but then also totally free capitalism does not work. You can see
> that in US. There must be checks to take account the not so fortunate
> people, who free capitalism just ignores...
position. Nor should they pretend there is any real debate that such
extremist positions are valid. Really they do too much of this - make it
look like such things are commonly debated by educated people.
> Also the sweatshops in China and India, for US big international
> companies is not right in my book. Good example is the manufacturing of
> Apple products by FoxCon, which is owned by a Chinese person who does
> not think high about his countrymen.
>> 2) Pro-climate change propaganda and suggests carbon credits
> Well. I am sure humans have some effect on the climate. How big - I
> don't know. But sure if we cut in emissions it won't hurt. USA is the
> biggest contributor of waste - or has China passed? Maybe the climate is
> changing because some cycle.
change, at least in the groups of people who actually study this stuff (and
there are a lot) is simply disingenuous. The media does too much of this -
get some fringe group who makes a claim that is completely contrary to the
norm and try to make it look like there is a big debate in the scientific
community.
>> 3) Suggested regime changes in non socialist countries (Soros recommanded a
>> regime change in the US)
> I consider Soros's comments quite favourable - considering he is a
> thief, who steal from money markets...
> I have never really understood the political system in USA other than
> the power really is not with people. It is with the power mongering
> elite who organize elections now and them and make sure right people
> get's elected. The power remains in back rooms.
> Also I have not read the definition of socialism, but if it means strong
> government presence in health care, education, infrastructure(roads,
> realroads and so on), defence, taking care of poor people and so on...I
> am all for it.
get private health care and is called a Socialist. The term "Socialist" is
completely misused in the US as a derogatory comment with the implication
that if you want social programs you must be anti-American. Which is
bizarre and absurd.
>> 4) The idea that Fox is a republican news station (what does that make the
>> accusers?)
> I don't watch Fox enough to really comment on this but my understanding
> is that all media outlets are propaganda in some way or other. One can
> only found strain of truth by consuming many of them and then really
> think how it must be.
verifiable facts. To be fair, Politifact has refuted the claims of at least
one of those studies... but I think it is hard to argue that Fox viewers
have clearly false views such as there being a real scientific debate about
even *if* manmade global warming is real, if Obama is a Muslim, if Obama was
born in the US, etc.
>> 5) The idea that resources need to be distributed fairly worldwide vs each
>> country controlling its own
> Well I all for it to distribute food and medicine more fairly. It is not
> really fair that some people are dying for being so fat(me included) and
> some dying for lack of food.
>> 6) The idea that we need a single world government
> I hate that idea. I hate EU. The best way is to have countries with
> their own democratic systems and then have co-operation between them.
...
>> 12) The idea that we need government.
> What's the option?
...
--
πππ
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 4:19:25β―PM10/3/11
to
You would love my lawless society then because you would have free reign to say whatever you want
Currently you're bound by this one world order law:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Article 2
Discrimination based on religion.
Currently you're bound by this one world order law:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Article 2
Discrimination based on religion.
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 4:27:19β―PM10/3/11
to
I'll leave the evidence for my book. It would cost far too much time to go back to and re-read to give you the evidence for an ego battle. I'm not really that interested. Let me just leave this one labeled 'original research'.
This is something I've noticed after reading books by the elite. There are names like HG Wells, Bertrand Russel, Aldous Huxley, Carroll Quigley. HG Wells and Aldous Huxley wrote something which the controllers call 'Predictive Programming'. It's the idea that you write about how you want the future to turn out to get people used to certain premises.
These people I mention are connected to Adam Weishaupt (who isnt).
This is something I've noticed after reading books by the elite. There are names like HG Wells, Bertrand Russel, Aldous Huxley, Carroll Quigley. HG Wells and Aldous Huxley wrote something which the controllers call 'Predictive Programming'. It's the idea that you write about how you want the future to turn out to get people used to certain premises.
These people I mention are connected to Adam Weishaupt (who isnt).
Peter KΓΆhlmann
Oct 3, 2011, 5:44:02β―PM10/3/11
to
With an apology to the "real idiots" out there.
Gods, what a stupid retard you are. Is "Big Stool" your twin?
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 5:49:33β―PM10/3/11
to
Mad because you can't use your socialist hate of religion to discriminate without breaking international (authoritarian and non democratic) law?
:)
Perhaps you should support the idea of no government too? With government you're always going to get countries signing these non democratic treaties.
:)
Perhaps you should support the idea of no government too? With government you're always going to get countries signing these non democratic treaties.
Snit
Oct 3, 2011, 7:23:34β―PM10/3/11
to
Ender2070 stated in post
7944182.1819.1317673639576.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqcs10 on 10/3/11
1:27 PM:
I think the big brotherish future books are more about warnings than about
getting people used to things being that way.
--
πππ
7944182.1819.1317673639576.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqcs10 on 10/3/11
1:27 PM:
getting people used to things being that way.
--
πππ
Snit
Oct 3, 2011, 7:24:29β―PM10/3/11
to
Ender2070 stated in post
25876939.1211.1317673165943.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbdd1 on 10/3/11
1:19 PM:
Without a government I would have no protected rights. That would lead to
less "free reign".
--
πππ
25876939.1211.1317673165943.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbdd1 on 10/3/11
1:19 PM:
less "free reign".
--
πππ
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 8:24:54β―PM10/3/11
to
If that were strictly the case then they wouldn't talk about doing it. I think its valid because more recently NBC admitted to adding behavior placement in their shows because they know people will start to act like the characters. One example is The Office where one of the characters goes on an eco crusade.
If you take a look at movies like 'The Gamer' you can see they are warming people up to the idea of having brain chips. Something that has been on the table for a while now but just needed marketing via tv, movies and cartoons.
(SEE Comments by Kevin Warwick, Professor of Cybernetics at Reading University)
(SEE Loyola University meetings on Brain chips)
(SEE 'The Gamer')
Way back in time they also had meetings about ways to unite humanity. One of the ways was via the threat of an alien invasion. This one was tested by HG Wells, who made 'War of the Worlds'. War of the Worlds would classify as your basic 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre' example of speech which causes mass panic (which it was originally released).
The club of rome revisted the idea of uniting humanity. However they decided the best way to do this would involve turning humanity into the enemy.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill...All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution, consultants to the UN.
Also regarding the UN: SEE Marxist Maurice Strong. Food for Oil scandal. Currently resides in China teaching communist economics. Soros is a big friend of Maurice too.
If you take a look at movies like 'The Gamer' you can see they are warming people up to the idea of having brain chips. Something that has been on the table for a while now but just needed marketing via tv, movies and cartoons.
(SEE Comments by Kevin Warwick, Professor of Cybernetics at Reading University)
(SEE Loyola University meetings on Brain chips)
(SEE 'The Gamer')
Way back in time they also had meetings about ways to unite humanity. One of the ways was via the threat of an alien invasion. This one was tested by HG Wells, who made 'War of the Worlds'. War of the Worlds would classify as your basic 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre' example of speech which causes mass panic (which it was originally released).
The club of rome revisted the idea of uniting humanity. However they decided the best way to do this would involve turning humanity into the enemy.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill...All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution, consultants to the UN.
Also regarding the UN: SEE Marxist Maurice Strong. Food for Oil scandal. Currently resides in China teaching communist economics. Soros is a big friend of Maurice too.
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 8:27:01β―PM10/3/11
to
You would only have unprotected rights if you sat around waiting for someone else to do it for you.
Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin:
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin:
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Snit
Oct 3, 2011, 8:33:03β―PM10/3/11
to
Ender2070 stated in post
7958773.30.1317688021872.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqgg14 on 10/3/11
5:27 PM:
> You would only have unprotected rights if you sat around waiting for someone
> else to do it for you.
With no government, protection of rights comes from biggest guns / more
money (even more so than it does now). I do not have big guns. I would not
have my rights enforced.
Lovely... but I still want to keep government around to help protect my
rights. Even though, I do realize, they do so only poorly in far too many
cases.
--
πππ
7958773.30.1317688021872.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqgg14 on 10/3/11
5:27 PM:
> You would only have unprotected rights if you sat around waiting for someone
> else to do it for you.
money (even more so than it does now). I do not have big guns. I would not
have my rights enforced.
rights. Even though, I do realize, they do so only poorly in far too many
cases.
--
πππ
Snit
Oct 3, 2011, 8:35:23β―PM10/3/11
to
Ender2070 stated in post
20479469.4043.1317687894518.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqnv12 on 10/3/11
5:24 PM:
20479469.4043.1317687894518.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqnv12 on 10/3/11
5:24 PM:
The Office is not a part of the news division. Fox is actually quite
liberal outside of its news department (see the Simpsons for an example).
There have been stories of "outsiders" attacking humanity since stories
began - angels / demons, aliens, etc.
--
πππ
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 8:56:35β―PM10/3/11
to
On Monday, October 3, 2011 8:35:23 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> The Office is not a part of the news division. Fox is actually quite
> liberal outside of its news department (see the Simpsons for an example).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304364904575166581279549318.html
> The Office is not a part of the news division. Fox is actually quite
> liberal outside of its news department (see the Simpsons for an example).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBCUniversal <-- NBC is part of the Media
http://youtu.be/IPakCOm0GQU <-- FOX Admitting to doing this, for the climate change agenda.
> There have been stories of "outsiders" attacking humanity since stories
> began - angels / demons, aliens, etc.
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 8:57:55β―PM10/3/11
to
I refuse to call that freedom (because it isn't). It's slavery with really good benefits IMO.
Snit
Oct 3, 2011, 9:30:59β―PM10/3/11
to
Ender2070 stated in post
1855946.4462.1317689795491.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqnk41 on 10/3/11
5:56 PM:
Why is global warming even seen as a political topic? I can see how to best
deal with it being political, but science is... science. Evidence is
evidence.
As far as what little I know of your thoughts on how the world "really"
works, I think it is as reasonable as Christianity.
--
πππ
1855946.4462.1317689795491.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqnk41 on 10/3/11
5:56 PM:
deal with it being political, but science is... science. Evidence is
evidence.
As far as what little I know of your thoughts on how the world "really"
works, I think it is as reasonable as Christianity.
--
πππ
Homer
Oct 3, 2011, 9:52:36β―PM10/3/11
to
Verily I say unto thee that Ender2070 spake thusly:
LOL!
This is the company that brought us Adolf O'Reilly (who thinks education
makes people "communist" ... yes, seriously), and which hacked phones to
sell newspapers, including the phone of a woman dying of cancer, leading
to that newspaper being shut down for being irredeemably corrupt, pretty
much like the rest of News Corp. /There's/ the crime, right there, /not/
those who merely choose to reject News Corp's fascist bullshit. But this
is the company you're apparently so eager to defend, that you'd describe
those who disagree with its extremist propaganda and criminal activities
as being guilty of "hate crime" and "abuse".
Frankly, if you combined every oil, pharmaceutical and cosmetics company
in the world, threw in a few arms and torture contractors, like Lockheed
Martin, CACI International, Xe Services, DynCorp and KBR, and rounded it
off with patent extortionists like Microsoft, Apple and Nathan Myhrvold,
including all 1276 of his unstaffed "shell companies", you'd end up with
an organisation whose corruption pales in comparison to News Corp's. But
then I suppose a fascist nut like you supports /those/ corporations too,
so you probably take that as a compliment. Greasy Murdoch should pay you
a bonus for your steadfast loyalty to his totalitarian cause.
No wonder you were kicked out of Techrights.
I suggest you find some quiet corner of the globe, far away from decent
people, where you and your right-wing extremist buddies can wax lyrical
about the benefits of fascism and corporatism, without infecting others
with your sick propaganda. There you can rob, shoot and club each other
to death if you want to, with complete impunity, and nobody will care.
--
K. | Here's tae us. Wha's like us?
http://slated.org | Damn few an' they're a' deid.
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on Ε‘ky |
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 133 days | Mairs the pity.
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:56:17 -0700, Ender2070 wrote:
>>>
>>> The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox
>>
>> Which is about on a par with not accepting science reporting from a
>> young earth creationist. I don't see the problem.
>
> That's a hate crime
It's a "crime" to hate Dirty Digger's right-wing propaganda network now?
>> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 19:56:17 -0700, Ender2070 wrote:
>>>
>>> The abuse goes so far as not accepting any news from Fox
>>
>> Which is about on a par with not accepting science reporting from a
>> young earth creationist. I don't see the problem.
>
> That's a hate crime
LOL!
This is the company that brought us Adolf O'Reilly (who thinks education
makes people "communist" ... yes, seriously), and which hacked phones to
sell newspapers, including the phone of a woman dying of cancer, leading
to that newspaper being shut down for being irredeemably corrupt, pretty
much like the rest of News Corp. /There's/ the crime, right there, /not/
those who merely choose to reject News Corp's fascist bullshit. But this
is the company you're apparently so eager to defend, that you'd describe
those who disagree with its extremist propaganda and criminal activities
as being guilty of "hate crime" and "abuse".
Frankly, if you combined every oil, pharmaceutical and cosmetics company
in the world, threw in a few arms and torture contractors, like Lockheed
Martin, CACI International, Xe Services, DynCorp and KBR, and rounded it
off with patent extortionists like Microsoft, Apple and Nathan Myhrvold,
including all 1276 of his unstaffed "shell companies", you'd end up with
an organisation whose corruption pales in comparison to News Corp's. But
then I suppose a fascist nut like you supports /those/ corporations too,
so you probably take that as a compliment. Greasy Murdoch should pay you
a bonus for your steadfast loyalty to his totalitarian cause.
No wonder you were kicked out of Techrights.
I suggest you find some quiet corner of the globe, far away from decent
people, where you and your right-wing extremist buddies can wax lyrical
about the benefits of fascism and corporatism, without infecting others
with your sick propaganda. There you can rob, shoot and club each other
to death if you want to, with complete impunity, and nobody will care.
--
K. | Here's tae us. Wha's like us?
http://slated.org | Damn few an' they're a' deid.
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on Ε‘ky |
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 133 days | Mairs the pity.
Snit
Oct 3, 2011, 10:37:10β―PM10/3/11
to
Homer stated in post 4g5ql8-...@sky.matrix on 10/3/11 6:52 PM:
Curious: is there any large organization you respect? A group where the
overall goals and the comments of the leaders is not, to you, repulsive?
If not, I submit the problem is more with your world view and less with the
world. The world is not ideal - but that is life.
--
πππ
overall goals and the comments of the leaders is not, to you, repulsive?
If not, I submit the problem is more with your world view and less with the
world. The world is not ideal - but that is life.
--
πππ
Ender2070
Oct 3, 2011, 11:32:20β―PM10/3/11
to
Global warming is a topic because it's the hammer that will be used to beat you into submission.
Fascist eco taxes, birth restrictions, forced relocation of workers, etc things that were on the table in Cancun and parroted in the media.
Finding ecological excuses to take away peoples land.
It's rather silly to say its non-political. I'm not talking about if global warming is true or untrue. My point is that it's being used as a pretext to tyranny, and it has so much momentum (money, and jobs that depend on the science) that any opposition is being rejected. The club of rome quote I quoted earlier is important because they are one of the main think tanks for the United Nations.
Fascist eco taxes, birth restrictions, forced relocation of workers, etc things that were on the table in Cancun and parroted in the media.
Finding ecological excuses to take away peoples land.
It's rather silly to say its non-political. I'm not talking about if global warming is true or untrue. My point is that it's being used as a pretext to tyranny, and it has so much momentum (money, and jobs that depend on the science) that any opposition is being rejected. The club of rome quote I quoted earlier is important because they are one of the main think tanks for the United Nations.
0 new messages