Slashdot Mirror
Occupy Protesters Are Building a Facebook for the 99%
hypnosec writes "In 2011, social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook helped protesters to spread their cause and garner support across the world. What started out as a minor protest comprised of a handful of people turned into a worldwide protest thanks to the use of social media. According to Wired, after seeing the impact social media platforms have had on protests worldwide, several Occupy Wall Street protesters are creating their own social networking platform aimed at spreading awareness about particular causes and rallying people for protests."
Then they will be in the 1%.
That's all those occupunks really want. Let the hypocrisy fests begin!
Then they will be in the 1%.
They already are "the 1%".
Oh, you didn't mean as a percentage of US citizens?
My bad.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I look forward to the day when they give up on this because it's too hard, much like they did with their protests....
... are creating a social networking platform (gorsh, we don't have enough of them, do we) in order to engage in more feigned outrage at their pretend enemy, preznit Ogabe.
(Get back to me when they start picketing Franklin Raines' office.)
For the police gathering intel on your little protests....
Beware of hippies who turn into businessmen.
The Occupy movement needs to elect officials to political office like the Tea Party if they are going to make any meaningful difference. If the Tea Party (1%) can manage to *change the balance of US congress* than surely Occupy can if they represent 99% of the population.
There is something ELSE from the OWS for everyone to ignore!
99% are just the same devious bastards as they are protesting against, the problem for them is that they are not that 1%!
People always cry about unfair when they don't have it and as soon as they can get it it becomes reasonably fair!
The problem is not the 1%.....the problem is human selfishness! Anyone poor want to get rich, anyone rich, wants to get richer and in the end most wish to rule the world!
The problem is not financial systems or a group of persons that are greedy... the problem is 99% of the human race and not those hippies in tents on squares that cry about shit they don't have, cause they would not be crying if they had it!
Maybe they can join in the endeavors of Anonymous since they were gkicked, haha. I would protest more if it meant anything, but I digress.
It sounds more like propaganda.
What the Occupy protesters don't realize it isn't just the 1% that really don't care for their methods or all their ideals, there are plenty of people of that 99% who have issues on their views too.
The United States (and a good part of the world too) is in a Depression (not the Great Depression but a normal one). Once things pick up people get jobs, and start working up the ladder they will find that what lot of what they are demanding they really don't need anymore. And as they learn to be part of the system, they find that it can be helpful.
We get these protest groups (on both sides) like the Tea Party and the Occupy when the economy is down. Why? For one a lot of them have extra free time so they can actually go out and protest. Secondly they are suffering right now so they are angry and passionate in their protests. However when things get better they will moderate a little.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
From the summary & headline one could think that they are, well, building something facebook-like and that their target audience would be people like the ones who attended "occupy wallstreet" protest. The first claim is completely inccorect, the second only partially so. Rather, they're building a non-centralized social network for organizing protests, etc. because they feel that they can't trust FB and other existing services to protect the anonymity, etc. of protesters well enough.
I guess it's a good cause. Then again, a service like that is easy to block by police states with much less public outcry than if they blocked FaceBook or similar services. Anyone with enough know-how to get around that problem probably can do what they need to through already existing services. I'm not saying that - if they ever get it finished - it can't offer any advantages so it's cool that they're doing it... But I (having some activist background myself) really doubt the project will ever get finished.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it would seem that revolutions gained high traction through Facebook and Twitter because those services already had a huge user base (and therefore a huge potential audience). If you create your own social network catering to people already in your movement, you can't really expect the massive increase in followers you would gain through already-popular networks.
If you think of it in harsh terms, this is merely another social network knock-off, fueled by what will probably be a short-lived movement.
I also wonder if this entity will be as censorious as some sites which were prominently supporting OWS such as BoingBoing. And if not, how is this site (robo)moderated, how does it withstand DDOS attacks and all the other crap that commercial sites have spent years developing sophisticated defences against. And what's the point again?
Now by distancing themselves from the physical world and dedicating themselves to trolling on the Internet, the Moochers shed their last semblance of worthiness. Good.
I am fucking sick of a bunch of hippies speaking for me and the rest of the 99%
Especially a bunch of hippies with a full belly and iphones who are better of than the 99% of humanity
Signing up for news bulletins from the people you oppose, raises the delightful opportunity of staging counter-protests that are _larger_ than the "originals." This can be utilized to the great amusement of nearly everyone involved. Have fun!
Make no mistake, the protesters themselves are not doing any of the work to build the site.
What is really happening is that the wealthy, politically-connected financial backers of occupy (you know, Occupy, INC), are paying to have it developed.
The whole reason social media is helping protestors is because a lot of people are using it for a lot of very different reasons.
If you limit your new social network to one course, it won't be as popular as general purpose social networks
Instead they should try to build a new social network platform for general purpose, that will be more resistant to attempts to control it. May be that is exactly what they planned to do, if only I had determination and will to read the actual article :-)
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Are they gonna set up their own internet too?
I think 99% means "activist" now, instead of the actual economic term.
I can understand the desire to move away from Facebook for communications between activists but trying to create a new social network is just not going to work. Like it or not, everyone is on Facebook and twitter. Want your cause to be picked up and spread around then you need to get it on the social net with all the people.
because they don't at all represent them
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
. . . "social change".
If they were, then, with full inter-web access, the protesters on Wall Street would have been as successful at bringing about change as were the protesters in Tahrir Square (sometimes without it).
Neither me nor any of my technically minded friends are so cynical and jaded as half the posters here on /. I'm wondering if this "recent" influx of people who:
1. disparage anything resembling empathy with other people ...are really just a sudden influx of younger, less experienced and therefore more bombastic users.
2. claim any invention from China is plagiarized from the US
3. display outright loathing for any other fields than IT or the military
4. claim to know exactly how to fix the budget/NASA/Iraq/Terr'ism
5. nitpick irrelevant details in posts or comments and willfully disregarding the issue being addressed
or
5. revel in any excuse for counter-culture chest-pounding by demeaning people who like things that are popular
Where are you, oldfags? Those of you who still care whether other people live or die, I mean.
Holding hippie demonstrations and posting online isn't going to change anything.
As Americans, you have TWO powers to make change:
1) Your wallet- you can decide how to spend the 25% of your money that doesn't go to one of the hundreds of taxes.
2) Your vote- you can decide which candidate to vote for, help make others aware, and pick/find/support a different kind of candidate.
Focus on those two things. My guess is that #1 is not of much use. And #2 won't matter either, if you vote for a Republicrat or Demopublican. Both are solidly against real change, as has been proven over and over.
like SOPAs first target.
I think 99% means "activist" now, instead of the actual economic term.
I think you misspelled "moonbat". :D
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It's very nearly 2012. The social networking craze is played out and old news. Apparently the new "thing" is LLBean duck boots. I con;t wait for Justin Beiber's take on them.
Posted from my iPad 3
Fuck your sig. Liberalism is a mental disease.
FTA:
an open-source content-management system for web sites called Drupal, which [the system] will run on.
Discuss.
I think your sarcasm detector is broken. If Progressive and Liberal ideas and policies were so great, they wouldn't *need* to be mandatory.
Their ideas and policies are so bad, nobody would pay them any attention unless government made them mandatory.
That was the whole point.
What's that thing they say here on /.?
Oh yeah.
WHOOSH!!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If I see these guys putting top investment bankers' heads on spikes or something, then I will take them seriously. With fear and respect. Otherwise, they are just whiny hippies.
These people are pimples on the butt of society.
And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
This little exchange is representative of what's been happening in the lead up to the Republican primaries with each candidate (save for Ron Paul perhaps) trying to prove they have the biggest straw man bat.
Of course none of this has anything to do with whether or not OWS people really represent the 99% they claim to be or why anyone would think that a technology that has thus far apparently contributed to their continued existence would suddenly need to be rebuilt from the ground up. I suppose first they'll need to invent their own Internet running on their own OS's and hardware before they can get back to protesting whatever it is that they're protesting.
In this day and age, a sig like that might actually be real.
(different AC)
A tool for anyone to communicate even when the authorities bring down the communications network.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/kvogeltanz/dovetail-voice-to-the-people
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Bank Fee Debacle is the First Occupy Wall Street Victory
There, a far more accurate portrayal. When this group comes up with something that is concrete and doable, it will be a protest. For instance, the only way to eliminate corporate influence in politics is to also kick out Unions, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace and not let anyone have any access to any politician. The only way to eliminate corporate greed is for someone to determine how much is too much and then enact laws. Of course, those useful idiots forget that it also means limiting the income of athletes and movie stars and the 'good' corporations like Ben and Jerry's.
.. can we ignore these morons so they can go away. They had their moment in the spotlight, until 99% figured out how useless they really were.
Please
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
No, it has to do with the fact that socialist take offence with the fact that they have to share their communications platforms with competing ideas. Not exactly news to anyone, that the tolerance of "liberals" is far below the freezing point, but hey ...
I would work for complete visibility instead. Use that energy to put people up for elections. Set up a site to let people know who candidates are and where candidates are needed. Give people the ability to participate in writing legislation. Choose candidates that will agree to push that legislation when they get elected. The 1% have money to buy votes for their candidates. If the 99% stay visible and active and get people to vote for their candidates they will make a change.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Come on, Obama and Bernanke have already shown their support, they are already the 1%.
I guess they have to go to virtual reality because Occupy-camps have degenerated into an ugly multicultural nightmare.
To know on what side an occupy-protester stands, just ask him/her whether he/she would abolish central banking.
Here I am in 53 B.C. and all I want is a dill pickle!
A plague a' both your houses!
Fuck your sig.
Liberalism is a mental disease.
Do you even know what the word "Liberalism" mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Sarcasm doesn't work in text. You should know that by now.
are getting alot of lucky to have a job BS.
And getting pushed to do the work of 2-3 people for the pay of 1.
On call with no added pay + getting a hard time with they take a late call and show up late to office the next day.
over use and abuse of contractors (fedex is real bad at the as they treat there drivers as employers but they are not) and they have to buy / rent the truck + buy the route + pay gas and other up keep costs. Also lost or stolen packages come out of there pay.
If Progressive and Liberal ideas and policies were easy, they wouldn't *need* to be mandatory.
You're welcome.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Good deal. Diaspora hasn't gotten off the ground yet. The only viable social network sites out there are built on a business model of exploiting their users by discretely spying on them and selling information about them for marketing.
They can have facebook. The "1%" that they are railing against don't waste their time with facebook.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
What about:
4. All the self-hatred is ruining the fun. I mean seriously, when they start to offer counceling for the rapists and tell victims to shut up it might turn some people away from the movement, don't you think? It really shows that these self-hating white "progressives" really do mean it. What is more hateful than telling rape-victims to shut up and offering the dear rapist help to cope with this evil-evil society that did not give him enough welfare-money and therefore made him a rapist?
But can you form a stable movement around that culture?
There surely are a lot of progressives who will defend liberal craziness (especially here on slashdot), but when the girlfriend gets raped or is threatened, the survival instincts of most will be stronger.
Listen, do you "99%" really want to create a handy online list of who you are ?
So the "authorities" can come in their armored cars and drag your ass away never to
be seen again ? You think this couldn't happen ? You need to read more American
history.
What is a liberal or a socialist?
It seems from the republican side, those are names for anyone you disagree with, but don't want to explain why.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
They are idiots! If they put the time and energy into looking for a job, they might have a shot at becoming 1%. Class warfare never ends well.
Without having RTFA, let me say that this can only be a good thing. It is more than alarming that private, for-profit companies like FB and Twitter have such an influence regarding the whole 'Arab Spring' and '#occupy' thingies. If i also read something like this, i get even more scared. There wont be a revolution in the US, when the main way of communication is over a third-party US corporation. I wonder why so many of these '#occupy'-protesters blindly trust this private corpo ... oh wait. USA you say? That explains it.
Ron Paul is all about the straw man. He calls his 'The fed', sure it might sound a lot like the the banking arm of our federal government, but to hear him talk it's the root of all evil, well that and the EPA and you can probably find him complaining about fluoride in his old newsletter.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
What is a liberal or a socialist?
As a subset of working examples in the US, I'd say someone who doesn't think you can manage your own healthcare, choose your own light bulbs, choose to work for less than minimum wage rather than be totally unemployed, choose what toilet or shower-head you have, choose whether or not to smoke, or choose to responsibly carry a firearm.
To name but a few.
It seems from the republican side, those are names for anyone you disagree with, but don't want to explain why.
Oops, I think I poked a big hole in your straw man.
My bad.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
My bad. You're right. My sarcasm detector must be down for the count.
Said WHOOSH is dually earned.
I think you just proved mine. Rather than having a legitimate debate about the roles of government, republicans are keen to just to point something they don't like and say " that's liberal". The world is not quite so binary. Some ideas sucha s the individual mandate, I assume you are obliquely refering to, were strongly suported and even proposed by those that would then and even now call themselves "conservative".
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I think it means the percentage of people they claim to represent, rather than the percentage of people they are. And that's the case with most heroes.
So you say that Repubs point at anyone who disagrees with them and calls them "liberal". BlueStrat gives you examples of liberal policies, that are quite liberal by the way, and you reply with, "See, you call things you don't like 'liberal'".
He didn't label the policies liberal. He pointed out liberal policies to you. Just as you would call tax breaks for corporations who stay stateside a conservative policy, banning firearms, the "wrong" light bulbs, and generally making decisions people should be making for themselves are examples of LIBERAL policies.
Liberalism is not your problem. It's reading comprehension.
He obviously does not, but fell for the misleading US practice of namecalling the people on the left of the political spectrum "liberals" and "liberals" in turn seems to be equated with communists...at least by some people in the States...
here in Europe a "liberal" pretty much means the opposite of communist.
clickable link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
I'm sorry, this really is the dumbest idea I've come across in the longest time. If humans are self-regulating, why don't we just legalize slavery, fraud, rape, and murder? If they have to be mandatory, the idea of preventing these crimes must be horrible if we're to follow your logic.
The reason rich people don't want equity in society is because they want to keep all of their stuff. That's it. There's no shining moral justification for it: they want their third and fourth vacation homes, their exotic luxury cars, their private jets and million dollar birthday parties, and you and your whole community can burn in hell for all they care.
If you're actually interested in liberating humans, you should be primarily concerned with subverting concentrations of power: whether in the church, in the state, the military, or in the economy, it's concentrations of power that lead to injustice. That's why democracy is a vote and not a dollar (or at least, that's how it used to be.) As long as the government is carrying out the true will of the populace, you will typically have very good results. Even if you disagree with that premise, there's no denying what usually happens when concentrations of power abuse their position: there's a massive revolution, and many lives are lost either on the way to achieving more equity in society, or on the way to arriving at a police state like North Korea.
These are the ideas that our nation was founded on: you are no better than me, nor is the King, nor is the Pope, nor is the Banker. We play by the same rules, because all men are created equal, and we deserve equal treatment in front of the Law.
But go ahead; throw it all away for some pithy political regurgitations. We'll see how you like neanderthal ethics when you're the one without a club.
In October polls indicated that the majority of Americans agreed with the points Occupy Wall Street was raising. Coverage has waned, attention spans have shifted, and holidays have happened since then but a plurality still support them despite constant work by the corporate media (esp. Fox) to paint them as dirty no-good hippies.
When you look at what they're about, and what the Tea Party was/is? about they share core beliefs, the prime among which is that the American people have lost control of their government. If OWS and the Tea Party put aside their relatively minor differences, realized they're two sides of the same coin, and worked together the 1% would be out on its ass in a fortnight. For all of our hand-wringing to the contrary, Americans are not passive Chinese or Russians who will take endless abuse, and we are still a relatively heavily armed people. Yes, the US military has citizens outgunned, but can you really see any military commander dropping napalm on suburban Houston?
When you put OWS and the Tea Party together they are the 99%. No amount of corporate media brainwashing can annul that because the underlying issues are deep, systemic, and unresolved. Tomorrow the reaction may march under a different banner than OWS or the Tea Party, but continue it will. I suspect, though, that OWS and the Tea Party were the last friendly warning the 1% will get to straighten out and fly right.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Everyone is on Facebook and Twitter. Building a separate social network is counterproductive. They need to broaden their appeal, not isolate themselves into ever decreasing gyres of fanaticism.
They need to focus on unassailable connectivity and access to information via ad-hoc mesh networks and darknets, a professionally produced information system, and a comprehensive, crowd-sourced, and published surveillance of the 1% and forces who are trying to control and divide the American people and forestall the inevitable change. If the 1% and its servants in the government know there is no more place to hide, they'll really feel the pressure to change. If everything they do becomes known to the American people, then their claim to legitimacy will falter. If we yank back the curtain and reveal the little man working the levers, then the illusion of omnipotence will be broken.
That should be enough to force change in America. If not, then at least we the people will have all the intel we need to take further measures.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Rather than having a legitimate debate about the roles of government, republicans are keen to just to point something they don't like and say " that's liberal".
First, I'm not a Republican. Second, it's the policies and proposed legislation themselves that determine if they are Liberal/Progressive/Socialist. Socialist is as Socialist does, rinse & repeat for Liberal/Progressive. It matters not if the people proposing such policies have a D or R after their name, or what label they attach to themselves. GWB is/was a Progressive, because of the policies he pursued.
Some ideas sucha s the individual mandate, I assume you are obliquely refering to, were strongly suported and even proposed by those that would then and even now call themselves "conservative".
Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist. Ergo, those that propose such policies/legislation are Socialist, despite any labels they may dress themselves in.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I think all things are grey areas, so I have a hard time hopping on board with the polarized positions of either party.
But I think he was pretty clear. These are all situations where the government makes decisions for you, where previously they were personal decisions. I'm not sure socialism is a good word to describe most of these situations though. I could see you using it for the healthcare issue, but not so much on limitations on the second amendment. I think it gets used too often where folks are looking for something more like "fascism", without quite the rhetorical bite. Not that it matters, the other side has similar ambitions with different issues. Our kids would be saying the lord's prayer every day, by law, on penalty of imprisonment, if the other side had their way. But I digress...
The term "liberal" has long since been used to refer to the people that subscribe to specific, current political agenda though... not to those ideas specifically. Note that those ideas are often anything but liberalism, in a more traditional sense. See his examples.
Whoosh.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Personal attack aside, I think I understand your first point. He provided reasons why you would call someone a label, by also applying that label to the policies. Forgive me, If I don't like the circular nature of that line of reasoning.
Second, I don't hink you read all of my post. There are policies like the individual mandate that were considered "conservative" a few years ago. The term is ill defined as its pretty much used to simply describe policies and people that they don't like without having to describe why. And that's what bugs the ever loving crap out of me. Why is the only thing that is important. Not the labels. Using ill defined labels for decision making, results in poor decisions.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist. Ergo, those that propose such policies/legislation are Socialist, despite any labels they may dress themselves in.
That's not socialism, that's corporatism. I don't like either of them, but I recognize there's a big difference. By contrast, the UK's National Health Service is socialist, because the state owns everything and is the sole (or at least overwhelmingly main) provider.
In other words, socialism isn't just the absence of a free market, it's more specific than that. And it's an important distinction, because these days corporatism is at least as large a problem and not enough people are naming it and shaming it.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
> No harm, no foul. I knew your heart was in the right place, so I didn't go *too* hard on you.
Kind of full of yourself, aren't you?
Specifically, what do they realistically expect? An end to greed? Good luck with that.
If they had a realistic, specific, stated objective, they may have been effective. For example: a higher tax for the wealthy, or a lower tax for the poor. Something like that.
There was a, much quiter, protest movement. I foget what it was called but it was about moving money from big banks, to credit unions and local banks. Seems to me that would get the point across much better than living in a tent in some park.
But mind you it was a royal blue blooded overlord not your average corporate overlord.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/29/facebook-accused-removing-activists-pages
Healthcare in the US is already socialized due to the fact that we do not refuse emergency medical services to the uninsured. Are you advocating that we no longer provide emergency medical services to the uninsured?
We already pay nearly twice what any other industrialized nation pays for health care with lower % of people covered and worse outcomes in just about every category. And yes I am familiar with all the arguments for why we have worse outcomes in the US.
Tell me again why they just don't pour what little they have left into Diaspora? Wasn't that the point of it?
There is a Facebook that works well for the 99% and the remaining 1% as well, its called Facebook. If they don't like Facebook there are other existing options.
--- When you start with the conclusion that you want, then throw out any facts that don't agree, is it true?
You are guilty of brandishing the "But Republicans" paint brush broadly. Nevermind a Republican was the figure head of the Civil Rights movement (Martin Luther King Jr) while it was opposed mainly by southern Democrats (Orval Faubus of Arkansas, Lester Maddox of Georgia, and, especially George Wallace of Alabama). There are many Liberal Republicans and many Conservative Democrats.
I think what is needed here is to stop labling people by party. Most of the "socialists" in occupy and other movements proudly admit to their socialism (Libertarian Socialism to be exact), and most progressives do likewise. Modern Liberals follow progressive policies defined as growing the government to create a society where social justice is the norm. This means there would be no rich, no poor, and the goverment would regulate that status quo. Social justice dictates that the rich must pay for the poor because the poor are unable to pay for themselves.
The Conservative argument is that in America, these programs promote a wellfare state in which we make the poor complacent with "free stuff" (paid for by the rich) and they give their governors more power in exchange. That this system does not encourage people to become self sufficient and successful.
I would further posit that progressivism is slavery in disguise, bringing me back to Martin Luther King Jr who had a dream of all americans being equal to "open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children." The point being they would be provided opportunity, not handed wellfare checks and told to sit down and shut up, the Government is here to take care of you.
Have a nice day.
Are you being sarcastic?
Please this is /. can we focus on the nerdy stuff. If you would like to discuss politics here then please substitute names for parties. R could be Microsoft and D can be Apple or vice versa. I leave the choice to you. At least this way when I read a comment it will read more like a typical /. rant. Thank you.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I'm guessing the so-called 1% don't use facebook, but they do control it, and if you want your product to succeed without begging for donations on a daily/regular basis like wikipedia does you're stuck getting your funding and financing through the "1%". And the first thing that jumped out at me in the article was the fact they don't like some corporate body controlling their data. Well what do they think their little project is going to do? Use data has to be store somewhere centrally, and there needs to be content control or it will be taken over by spam-bots and porn peddlers like facebook still battles. You want to know more about your users to provide them with the best user experience you have to spy on them, and eventually you or the management will be co-opted by either corporate interests, or government interests. I have been leery of the "occupy" movement since day one. I don't like their philosophy. I work hard, first in the office, and often last out, and by doing so was able to provide my employer a value to the company, we have had tough times when my hours got cut I went out and waited tables to make up the difference. I pay my bills, my mortgage, car payments, and bills are paid every month. We are not guaranteed a house, car, or even a roast in the pot, just the opportunity to gain those things if we work hard enough.
> No harm, no foul. I knew your heart was in the right place, so I didn't go *too* hard on you.
Kind of full of yourself, aren't you?
What? Because I chose to respond to the OOP with an explanation of my sig that he flamed instead of simply outright flaming him back, and then replying to his mea culpa with a good-natured and polite acknowledgement means I'm "full of myself"??
I do not think that phrase means what you think it does.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Oh, you didn't mean as a percentage of US citizens?
I'm pretty sure he did mean that. It was likely a joke combining the term they've coined for the group they're opposing with the inevitable low adoption rate of any new social network.
Basically, GP was saying, "yeah...that's going to fail." in a somewhat clever way that will cause a whoosh sound for the humor impaired. If you're curious, that was the sound between when you were reading his comment aloud in your head and the sound of your keyboard as you typed your comment.
There is pretty much no chance of them replacing Facebook, and should Facebook even be considered a target?
Choose your own light bulbs? I'm so sick of this idiocy. Making light bulbs more efficient is not tyranny. The rest of your list is a mis-mash of complaints, that don't show any grasp of the question asked.
MLK might have been a Republican, but he certainly wasn't a conservative, so take that revisionism back to wherever you picked it up from. MLK talked a lot about social justice, so don't try to claim he held some conservative mantle, because he did not. It's funny watching conservatives try to deal with MLK. When they aren't falsely claiming him as one of their own, they call him a communist.
"Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist." -- No it isn't. You clearly don't understand what socialism is. Words have specific meanings, and your description there is not describing the word you're using...
The light bulb issue isn't a "liberal" issue. It's a "smart" issue. When did efficiency become something for conservatives to oppose? Oh yeah, when it became "liberal".
Making light bulbs more efficient is not tyranny.
But mandating that you may only purchase "efficient" light bulbs is. If they are efficient, safe, and environmentally friendly enough to be of enough benefit to be a greater value to the purchaser, that's the choice most will make.
That enough people won't make that choice with the current levels of value perceived by the purchasers without government mandate means the technology is not yet ready, and mandating their use will not change that.
It's the removing of choice that's the issue, which is tyranny by definition.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Then let's take a poll - another vote for "You are full of yourself."
I last passed by them two days ago. They've slept through seven snowstorms up to ten inches and minus two degrees weather. The cops have taken down their structures about once a month. They are allowed to protest from 5Am to 11PM (park hours) but up to 30 still sleep on the sidewalk. The big weekly event is the Saturday march to the Capitol, Bank HQs and Fed Reserve.
Considering they crapped on police cars, streets, etc, maybe they can be called AssBook? Or considering the hookups under tarps, HerpeSpace - the social disease network?
What games for the anti-capitalists? Collective Farmville? Gulag Wars? Instead of dodging zombies, they could dodge homeless people and druggies moving into the empty tents donated by REI. ... OOPS! Too late..."
"Rob-yn is looking for someone to buy his/her $10 pottery tribute to Barney Frank that s/he crafted with recycled bananna peels and bodily waste while watching Al Gore documentaries on an iPad from Dad! After s/he sells it, s/he'll only owe $84,990 dollars on her student loans! Unless she uses it to buy weed and
Will development be put on hold while they mourn Kim Jong Il?
They could have a digital human microphone so that every banal comment from everyone who thinks they have something to say could be repeated a hundred times so that everyone can... Oh, wait, that's Facebook.
The definition of tyranny is not "the removal of choice". Doubly so when the topic is light bulbs. If this is the tyranny you're worried about, we're in pretty good fucking shape...
So you don't want a conversation at all. I provided a wall of text and you pick out something to troll on and proceed to kill dialogue.
Message received.
They plan to add their own float at the unofficial end of the Rose Bowl parade. They have the grudging accommodation of the police and parade officials for this protest event.
As a subset of working examples in the US, I'd say someone who
doesn't think you can manage your own healthcare - even if it's unaffordable to 30 or 40% of the people in the country
choose your own light bulbs - nice right wing lie you have there - the regulation was for increased efficiency
choose to work for less than minimum wage rather than be totally unemployed - because what we want is a race to the bottom and millions of people who have to scrape to get by. and how am I going to shop for health care on my less than minimum wage.
choose what toilet or shower-head you have - again, what's wrong with regulating for efficiency ? especially when it's needed to counteract the subsidization of fossile fuels ?
choose whether or not to smoke - around people who don't want to breathe your second hand smoke
or choose to responsibly carry a firearm - yeah, we should just all strap a six-shooter to our sides
dude, you seriously hate people who aren't doing as well as you are, don't you ?
you and I don't want to live in the same country - and that's part of the problem. I'll stay here, you move to Somalia.
Absolute statements are never true
Socialism: an economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy.
In a socialist society, capital accrues to the public. Having public dollars go towards private companies is the exact opposite of socialism.
When you say ignorant shit like "Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist" you are only proving how abused and hence meaningless the term "socialist" has become in modern political discourse, especially among the right.
Not to worry. In Europe, where incandescent bulbs have been banned for a while, you can now purchase space heaters that put off a nice glow. They look a lot like light bulbs.
I'm sure someone will get into the round space heater business. It's easy to get around stupid laws.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The Tea party was started by small scale conservative/libertarian activists in a small way. The main nerve that they hit was the bailout of wall street and an outrage of not helping the people in bad economic times; this was 2009. Fox and other conservative media hyped these early small rallies (less than 100 people) far beyond its size or effect. Fox is very adept at making a tempest in a tea pot (sorry for the pun). Very quickly the very well funded radical right DC lobbying firms sold their funders on backing/using the tea part. The Koche brothers oil tycoons provided massive funding and hijacked the movement. The Koche brothers' father was Fred Koche, the founder of the John Birch Society. The Birch Society was effectively the political arm of the KKK. While it is unfair to visit the sins of the father on the sons, the Koche brothers appear to have adopted the views of their father. Hijacking diffused the core message away from economic justice to social issues. While the right wing media machine is very effective at staying on the message of the day, moving the tea party away from economic justice moved the tea party away from gaining a broader mainstream following to become a dead-end in politics.
/.ers are right, the tea part had a message because one was provided. Commentators here are also right that OWS does not have ONE message. OWS was not thought that far ahead. OWS was a movement sparked by one image created by a culture jammer in Vancouver at AdBusters.org (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Wall-Street-1.jpg). The difference from some random political flash mob is that the turnout was unexpectedly large and dedicated.
The key takeaway, as some have noted, is that economic justice and outsized corporate influence are issues that are resonating with every political group from libertarian to conservative to progressive. When the same concerns are shared by suburbia, the bible belt and urban hipsters then there is kindling for a big fire. These populations do not share a common language or views on other issues, but all it is going to take is some new event to spark are fire. The right scandal (corruption or financial) or sudden economic down turn (think of the blow back from a European banking melt down) could do it. It just need to to resonate with peoples unspoken anger. Someone new will emerge speaking a vocabulary with a new narrow message of economic justice and people will listen and respond. I predict this summer is going to be long and hot.
I don't see that change led by the tea party or OWS, but from some new source. My personal guess is that leader will come from the left as the right currently tends to beat down any of their own who stray from orthodoxy for more than they do their opposition. If that leadership comes from existing politicians likely examples would be for senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Massachusetts senate candidate Elizabeth Warren to team-up. They both are real experts on finance and government and are willing to speak-out the problems ahead of other politicians.
Is that neither is as far divorced from the stereotypical left/right as they might pretend. On the surface, you'd think they have real similar goals. They are pissed at money fucking with politics, that is the real issue, forget the lesser stuff. However you quickly discover that no, they aren't willing to focus on that.
The best example I've seen is the gun issue and immigration issue. These are something that should be 100% divorced from either movement. If the problem is with our government being corrupted by money and that is the issue you are out to solve, other issues are secondary to that. The idea is you restore the government to be such that the voice of the citizens matter. Then such a government would, by definition, implement the laws the citizens supported.
However in both cases you find that the group went on about these issues. OWS has had some demand proposals (which they are always quick to point out aren't official, they have no official demands which is rather funny for a protest group) and sure enough they include things like "completely open borders" and " ban private gun ownership". It is just typical far left stuff under the banner of "the 99%". I don't even have to go on about all the examples of the Tea Party's racism and immigrant hate, or gun love. Typical far right stuff under the banner of too much government/taxes.
Hence whey they don't meet in the middle and agree. While superficially they are both claiming the same thing, really both are saying "Government isn't extreme enough in implementing the policies I want!" and what they want is opposite of each other. Neither group has been at all focused on the issue of getting money out of politics, or indeed any sort of party-neutral issue.
Perhaps they should start by building themselves a shower first.
Exactly. Just look at the success of a country with no centralized government like Somalia. Or check out the health care for those in the US who can't afford coverage. Liberals are clearly crazy. Ideas like laws against murder and rape are clearly bad since they are mandatory, right? Or hell, we should get rid of taxes entirely, that's mandatory too. The market will fund schools in poor districts, fire departments in neighboring towns. We don't need environmental regulations, or protections against false advertising either. Unrelated, I am selling a new tablet for only $99. It connects to the internet using 4G, has 32 GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD, and is made of polished chrome. Don't complain when you get an old school gameboy though, I'm free to do what I want.
Yeah... let me know how that works out...
There can never be "an honest-to-god movement to stop the corporations *and* the unions". The only way people have ever managed to successfully oppose corporate power is by collective action, ie: unions. The labor movement is how working people finally got a fair shake in this country and gave us things like basic safety standards and the weekend. Your own beloved Teddy Roosevelt supported the United Mine Workers by giving struggling miners fair pay.
Aside, this portrayal of Obama as a "union man" is laughable. The only reason conservatives think about Obama is a "union man" is because they hate unions and because they need to make Obama into a conservative boogeyman. It certainly isn't because Obama has done anything for union workers.
I hear ya....I keep thinking, hey couldn't all this time doing facebook pages and tweets...be better spent trying to get a fscking job...or create your own business??
Don't get me wrong..there injustices in the world, and it is good to protest, but most of what I saw after about day x3 of the Occupy thing...was people bitching about "Banks got a bailout..where is MY bailout"? And shit like that. The protest message I got more and more was that it was a bunch of kids there with expensive macbooks and iphones with a sense of entitlement bitching about not having life handed to them on a silver plate.
I'm sorry, but in real life for 99% of us...we don't get the easy way in, we have to work for what we want...not everyone gets a fucking trophy for just participating, and no one gives a shit about your self esteem.
Sadly, we've raised a couple of generations of kids that have been raised this way...and now they're seeing that the real world just ain't that way. In the real world, people throw the dodgeball at you and try to knock your retainer out of your face...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Err...you got me on this one.
Are you confusing Liberals/Progressives with Libertarians??
Those are polar opposites.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Making them more efficient, is not a bad thing.
But having the Federal Govt. overstep their enumerated powers granted by the Constitution to mandate what types private companies can make and sell is tyrannical.
If someone can make more efficient light bulbs, market them and find a market for them...fine. But it isn't the governments job to make their market for them at the expense of others.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If it is a public building...one that people HAVE to go to, ie. state or federal buildings, I agree.
However, for private establishments...a bar or restaurant, then no I disagree. NO ONE forces anyone to patronize or work at a bar or restaurant which allows smoking. That is choice.
If a proprietor wishes to cater to only non-smoking people, then he will open a place and establish those rules.
This should not be something enforced by penalty of the law by the local/state/federal govt..
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You can have _earned_ any amount and still not be toxic to your cause.
But if it's your parents income tax bracket that has supported you, you should shut the fuck up until you actually know something (this is a general statement, not only about OWS). These children should know they are radioactive little snots. The least they should do is put on their suits and ties, leave the drugs at home and try to be less attention whorish then usual.
Let the 'old' folks do most of the talking. It's not like theirs any shortage of old hippies these days.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Well...being that Slashdot is a US centric forum, it can always be assumed that we're using the US definition of "liberal".
We don't care what the European version is...that is your governance and none of our business really.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
those idiots couldn't make a Hello World page.
alive to the universe, dead to the world
Your definition is somewhat different than the one everyone else is using. As in, 'completely made up'. Presumably based on the ideas spewed by Fox News, but I understand that as a slander and will apologize if your brainwashing comes from another source. Try wikipedia to actually get up to speed on this discussion.
We did chose. We decided that we didn't want to have people smoking in our face, didn't want to bear the burden of increased medical costs, nor bear the burden of brown-outs or spikes in energy prices.
You'll find that a number of the occupy protesters dream of a librarianship paradise where all power structures are torn down, and the individual is truly free to make their own way... You know, rather than the fantasy Libritarian paradise where governmental power is handed to corporations in the hope that it will make us more free (hint: if you can't make your way in our current system, you certainly won't be able to with less regulation.)
There are good reasons for having a minimum wage, and mandating more energy efficient light-bulbs and shower heads, but ignoring that... If you don't like those things, why don't you get involved with the party and try to improve it rather than placing a vote for the party that's actively selling out your rights and killing the american dream?
Market solutions are brutal, and there is good reason to make policy at the governmental level rather than to be forced to inact the same changes on an individual basis when we face tripple the utility prices.
GWB is/was a Progressive, because of the policies he pursued.
If you consider Dubya to be Progressive, you are woefully misguided. He is a poster-child for the neocon movement. I'd hate to think what you consider right-wing to be.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
I agree 100%. No more trophies for those who don't excel, no hand outs for those who don't try, and more personal responsibility and accountability. 21 Dec 1012 can't come fast enough for some.
The saying is: your right to swing your fist in the air ends where the tip of my nose begins.
How about if I open a garbage dump, specializing in dealing with feces, right next to your bar, and the sight and smell chase away all your customers? Hey, you can't tell me I can't open a garbage dump next to you. If you don't like it, you move.
Maybe you'll sue me (and so can people who got cancer from the second hand smoke coming out of your bar), but then consider that this means legal fees for both of us, extra work for the court system (which is paid for by our taxes), plus the trouble of going to court.
I mean, we *could* go through all that, but that's just impractical. So instead, we compromise. The result is laws, rules and regulations, which is basically the "agreed on" compromises for a society. Now, you can disagree with these "agreed on" compromises, but to get it changed you'll have to go through the due process (lest you become a "criminal", but if you think it's a worthy cause, I encourage you to exercise that liberty)
Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist.
Ahem.
The core principle of socialism is that the means of production are owned by the people, thus no private entities. You're neatly proving the statement that the right routinely label anything they don't like socialist.
Thank you!!! Well said.
I get the impression that most conservatives have no clue re the true socialist-type influence within our culture is, in fact, corporatism. Ostensibly, the Repubs are adamantly in support of it.
Repubs are every bit as socialsist as the Dems.
We need a third option.
Problem here is that the OWS do not represent anywhere near the majority, or even a recognized minority. Claiming to represent the 99% is a simple an easily refutable lie. Just ask 10 of your employed friends. Of all the people I know & have asked ( around 30) 1 supports the 'idea' of the occupation ( ideological marxist straight out of uni). Reading the cited wired article made me rofl. Durpal ? this is their revolutionary platform? open Id? Why not ask the FBI for a forum to share all their planning & logistics information on... tools & fools do not a revolution make; you actually need ideas, and OWS people have no ideas, or at least none they've put out for scrutiny or peer review. If you look at the arab spring as an example ( and OWS is a lamer and tamer emulation thereof), you will notice that the ideological vacuum has been filled by islamists who cannot be accused of not having ideas; They have ideas, just not the kind a non-religious, non-mysogenist , non-authoritarian, rational freedom loving person would want.
Socialist is as Socialist does
This tells me nothing about socialism. Ducks do what ducks do, and trees do what trees do, but if you didn't know what a duck or tree was, those statements would not help explain that to you at all. You finally attempt to define socialism by giving one example that you say fits the definition.
Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist
That's great, now I know that nations that do that are socialist. That will really help identify those socialist states.
Here is the definition from merriam-webster.
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2:
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
Which one of these does having to buy health insurance fall under again?
MLK might have been a Republican, but he certainly wasn't a conservative, so take that revisionism back to wherever you picked it up from. MLK talked a lot about social justice, so don't try to claim he held some conservative mantle, because he did not. It's funny watching conservatives try to deal with MLK. When they aren't falsely claiming him as one of their own, they call him a communist.
You should go read transcripts of his speeches or some of his writings. He wasn't for social justice; he was for equal justice.
I think you've missed the point of the OWS. Their point is: the banks wrecked the economy, probably criminally. They not only did not get punished, but they got 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money, which they then turned around and used to pay bonuses to the people that wrecked the economy. Meanwhile, people who did everything right - got good grades, borrowed money to pay for school, and got a degree - none of them can find a job. Not only can they not find a job, the government is doing nothing to help them. The issue is the double standard - if I am a rich bank, I can do whatever I want, and if I get into trouble, I get bailed out with taxpayer dollars, and if I am not a rich bank, then I'm screwed. It is not that they want a "bailout" - what they want is the government to spend its money helping its citizens in need rather than banks who deserve to fail for their incompetence.
What about so many other things that have been removed from the market that you can no longer purchase. Lead based paint - can't get it any more. Maybe you want to buy some baby bottles with Bisphenol A? Can't do it in some countries. Maybe you got a bug problem and want to start spraying DDT all over. Sorry it's banned.
You are saying that removal of choice, even when that choice is damaging to you or the world around you, is tyranny. I'm sorry if I don't think it's cruel and oppressive when the majority of people decide that something should be phased out for the public good. That's great that you actually want to be able to choose less efficient light bulbs and waste your money, but everyone else has decided that we need to have more energy efficient bulbs.
You need to either get with that idea, or come up with some real reasons why we should continue using old efficiency light bulbs. "Because, I want to" is not a valid argument. Tell us some positive benefits of the old bulbs over the new ones.
You know..if they really had a coherent message, and all of them were chanting this...with signs, etc...and stating that on all interviews, then it would have been worthwhile IMHO.
However, I really saw NONE of this message coming from 99% of those doing the OWS campouts.
If this was the message from the movement, it sure got drowned out by what I listed above as what I gleaned from their protests.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
more jobs need to drop need BS, PHD just to get a job and for IT jobs this real bad a 4 Year CS does not help you on the help desk / desktop support/ system admin. No tech school does and a learn on the job apprenticeship.
plumbers don't need a 4 BS to get a job.
You don't need a 4 year EE to be come a electrician. A EE is about the design part and the trade part is about doing the real work now some kind of mixed EE / apprenticeship will be good but not at 4 years + apprenticeship after that.
IT is that way with CS based on the higher level stuff and you have IT work and computer programming that do have quite bit of gap form each other. There are lot's people with CS BA that do not know basic IT stuff or computer programmings with a CS that don't have the needed programming skills that a Tech school will give them.
Also IT moves to fast to be covered by a traditional college system.
Different thing entirely, these are zoning laws...you know, commercial, residential, waste...etc. Different scale, and not really applicable to my point.
You as an individual have a choice to make whether you want to drink at or work in a bar that allows smoking. C'mon...be reasonable in your arguments and keep it apples to apples, eh?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That's fine, but he uses the term "liberalism" in his sig, which does in fact have the same meaning in the US as it does in Europe
I merely pointed out where I thought his misconception came from, namely that what you call "liberals" have little to do with the "Liberalism" he mentions in his sig
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Occupy Farmville
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Choose your own light bulbs? I'm so sick of this idiocy. Making light bulbs more efficient is not tyranny.
An interesting point, yet the government has not changed the efficiency of a single light bulb.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Why don't you go read transcripts of his actual writings instead of what you read on transcripts of Glenn Becks show.
Here start with this one: http://www.wmich.edu/library/archives/mlk/transcription.html
It's called: "Social Justice and the Emerging New Age"
My favorite line from that speech: 'I think with all of these challenges being met and with all of the work, and determination going on, we will be able to go this additional distance and achieve the ideal, the goal of the new age, the age of social justice."
So much for the revisionist Glenn Beck University history.
Seems absurd, but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
The core principle of socialism is that the means of production are owned by the people, thus no private entities. You're neatly proving the statement that the right routinely label anything they don't like socialist.
So until private ownership is completely abolished nothing can be called socialist. Thus we can not oppose socialism until we are completely and irreversibly subjugated by it. Insidious but clever.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
That's a trifling detail. If the government controls the means of production, it's irrelevant who claims to 'own' it. Socialism is the centralized control of the economy, not the ownership of the economy.
The definition of tyranny is not "the removal of choice".
That sounds like an ideal definition of tyranny.
Why don't they improve Sone, the Freenet social network plugin? It already supports "web of trust" principles and could help drag Freenet out of the "for illegal stuff only" quicksand it seems to have been stuck in for the past couple of years... Freenet is by design resistant to censorship and denial-of-service attacks and can only get better if more people use it actively.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Why didn't you just tell us you are a libertarian at the beginning so we would have known to not waste any time listening to you.
Uhmm ... I disagree. The banks were forced to give out loans to people THEY KNEW could not pay it back. It started with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ... and was reinforced by Clinton in 1994 - Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown.
And Banks did not want TARP ... because of the strings attached.
Attacking the banks is a nice and tidy class-warfare position that may get some traction among those who are not informed, the real culprit in this case is the Federal Government. By interfering with the "invisible hand" of the economy, it places pressure to do the "wrong thing". Of course, it makes people feel good that they helped out a nice couple trying to buy a house for the first time, however, if it is KNOWN that the payments would not be able to be made ... it doesn't help anybody.
I would argue that it is with the Government that is at fault ... the Government can screw with the economy and nearly collapse it, yet the people just hear "it's the rich's fault ... they're not paying their fair share" ... the top 1% pay >36% of the taxes ...how much SHOULD they pay? And if they don't pay ... they get thrown in jail. So ... in essence, you're saying that the "top 1%" has to be our slaves and give us their money that they earned.
That's assuming that the banks did it on their own. NOT under the threat of former Attorney General Janet Reno
FTFC
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]
“ [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; ”
So yeah, you wanna sell your light bulbs only in Brooklyn Heights, go for it. If you want to sell them out of state, however, ...
Nope. The people can control a specific industry. For example, it would not be completely inaccurate to describe the British Health Service as socialized medicine. However, if the forced transfer of the people's money to private institutions and their shareholders is about as close to the opposite of socialization as you can get.
Socialism is the centralized control of the economy, not the ownership of the economy.
Care to back that up with any kind of citation?
Well, if you mean it about a third option, Gary Johnson was pretty good as governor of New Mexico for eight years, and now he's running for president as a Libertarian. He's probably the best candidate they've ever had.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Lookup libertarian socialism on fucking google and get back to me.
First, I'm not a Republican.
If you really were not a Republican, then you would not need to explicitly say that you are not a Republican.
GWB is/was a Progressive, because of the policies he pursued.
When I make satirical posts I get labeled Troll. I don't know whether this statement is supposed to be funny or serious, but it certainly is a good example of why intelligent people should read at -1.
Government forcing private individuals to purchase something from a private entity simply because they're citizens is Socialist.
You and the moderators obviously don't know what the word "socialist" means.
Though I suspect you do know enough to be aware that you are just a Troll. If you really want an idea about what "socialism" is, then I suggest you view one of my other posts (in another topic area).
And why would any company in its right mind create a more efficient light bulb? Hell, if you're GE, you build light bulbs and generators. Less efficient light bulbs keeps your power company customers in business and in need of your generators.
Why would any company make a bulb that lasts longer? Repeat business is more profitable.
In either of these cases, a short period of high profit is enough to make sure you can outlast any startup coming along to make "better, longer lasting" bulbs.
To me it sounds like an oversimplified definition for tyranny, especially in the context of light bulb efficiency standards... I made the mistake of thinking this site was still "news for nerds", not "news for adults that dropped out of high school."
It's not an important distinction. There are myriad bad political ideas, and spending time defeating the minutia of each bad idea is a waste of time. Once a particular form of tyranny is defeated, if all you've done is to wipe out those particular ideas, some other form of tyranny is going to pop up.
General proper ideas must be formulated into law, laws that make all forms of tyranny illegal. People need to be taught proper ideas, not the just the flaws of the current forms of villainy.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
There are several false assumptions in your statement. You assume that all uninsured people don't pay for emergency medical services. You assume there's no such thing as charity. You assume that there is no way to contract in advance for emergency medical services. You assume that there's no legal mechanism available for seizing payment from someone who refuses to pay for emergency medical services. And that's just one sentence, the implication of your second sentence is no better.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If I'm jailed for buying or selling incandescent lamps, that's tyranny. "Removal of choice" sounds trivial until you realize what's required to enforce it.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I wish I had a hundred mod points for you.
http://www.busyweather.com/
C'mon...be reasonable in your arguments and keep it apples to apples, eh?
But...but...how do you expect him to win the argument if he has to play it all fair and even....and...and stuff? Smoking baaaad! (yes, we know...so is excessive masturbation to internet porn, but I don't think you'll get any traction with the /. crowd on banning that one!).
Good stuff, cayenne8!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
We have identi.ca Oxwall Druapal etc etc we NEED A counter culture DNS - telehash finished for the masses?
What about so many other things that have been removed from the market that you can no longer purchase. Lead based paint - can't get it any more. Maybe you want to buy some baby bottles with Bisphenol A? Can't do it in some countries. Maybe you got a bug problem and want to start spraying DDT all over. Sorry it's banned.
You are saying that removal of choice, even when that choice is damaging to you or the world around you, is tyranny. I'm sorry if I don't think it's cruel and oppressive when the majority of people decide that something should be phased out for the public good.
Yeah, because banning deadly poisons and birth-defect-causing ingredients from the food supply is totally like preventing a child from having the bulb replaced in her Easy-Bake Oven or preventing consumers from replacing the bulbs in CFL-uncompatible lamps, lighting fixtures, and even some electrical/electronic test equipment they own and paid good money for.
I use a simple in-house-built incandescent light bulb AC power current limiter on my electronics repair bench for use as a low-cost "safe startup tool" due to an incandescent lamp's inherent electrical behavior, so as to safely start up AC-powered electronic equipment in for work. Replacing it with an equivalent alternative that is much, much more costly means I must charge more for repairs to recover the cost.
You need to either get with that idea, or come up with some real reasons why we should continue using old efficiency light bulbs. "Because, I want to" is not a valid argument.
Yes, yes it is. When it comes to things like what light bulbs I decide to use when I pay for both the bulbs and the electric bill, what toilet and shower head I use when I pay for those items and the water bill, "because I want to" is all the reason I need and the only argument that counts in a free society.
It seems your problem isn't with light bulbs or high-flow toilets and shower heads, it's with a free society and individual freedom of choice. You're going to have a hard time selling those ideas in a country like America that was founded around the idea and principle of a free society and individual freedom of choice.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Facebook is the Facebook for the 99%.
There's a Facebook for the 1%? Why haven't I been invited? Oh.
Or possibly, in a sudden flash of insight, the 99% idiots have looked beyond the 1st world and suddenly realised that THEY are the 1%.
Actually, the United States mortgage market was working just fine until the Bush tax cuts. Suddenly, there was a flood of capital into financial markets, seeking safe haven, as the stock market was in free fall. T Bills were not the most attractive investment, since the Fed had dropped interest rates so low. What other investment had a better rate of return, and historically had been rock solid? Mortgage bonds. Suddenly, capital floods the mortgage market, and there is more demand for bonds than there is supply. Due to the repackaging of mortgages into securities, mortgage lenders were insulated from the consequences of making bad loans. There was suddenly a lot of money to be made (and therefore a lot of pressure to do so) by mortgage lenders ignoring their fiduciary duty and issuing loans they knew could not be paid back. This exacerbated the problem caused by derivatives trading, heralded by the failure of Long Term Capital Management in 1998. But nice try blaming it on the black people. Dick.
That's not socialism, that's corporatism.
Thats not right either. Corporatism.is not a REAL word. Its not in the dictionary so it is not a real word but a media buzz word to hide the truth what we have here is a Fascist State. Go ahead look up fascism in the dictionary or look up the word on the net. Lets not play the media game of hiding the truth with buzzwords. Call it what it is fascism.
Welcome to Nazi Amerika.
How is this about Republicans? OWS is protesting against Wall Street and Wall Street is in bed with Obama, yet the protestors are attacking Republicans, who are not even in power. These are Obama's feet on the street in 2012. In 2008 it was ACORN and in 2012 its OWS.
If "Their point is: the banks wrecked the economy, probably criminally." why are they attacking the republicans, when the Democrats and Obama are in bed with the banks and Wall Street. Look at the people befind OWS, they are staunch Obama supporters (unions, socialists and communists) positioning to off-set the Tea Party movements success in 2010. ACORN in 2008 and OWS in 2012 are Obama's feet on the street.
Ahem:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporatism
First known use 1890, bitch!
If it's a 'smart' issue then it doesn't need to be made mandatory through legislation.
Or aren't you smart enough to have noticed that is the issue, not the existence in the marketplace of choices?
Liberals don't think the public is 'smart' enough to make the choice to switch. So they force the switch with legislation.
Fuck that.
We can probably agree that GWB wasn't a member of the Progressive Labour Party. He didn't get the rubberstamp endorsement from any of the people currently championing the 'Progressive' brand.
But if you study the classical meaning of the term 'Progressive' back in the early 20th Century, dubya fits in to a degree.
But I agree, in the modern meaning of 'Progressive' which is anybody who would eagerly perform cunnilinguis on Nancy Pelosi*, GWB is not a 'progressive'.
(*while she spit on him and her husband kicked him in the balls and the pair continued to rake in profits from their Crony Capitalist business practices)
Yep mod it down. It's easier to just hide the truth, than refute it.
I think what is needed here is to stop labling people by party. Most of the "socialists" in occupy and other movements proudly admit to their socialism (Libertarian Socialism to be exact), and most progressives do likewise. Modern Liberals follow progressive policies defined as growing the government to create a society where social justice is the norm. This means there would be no rich, no poor, and the goverment would regulate that status quo. Social justice dictates that the rich must pay for the poor because the poor are unable to pay for themselves.
False. Progressives are merely people who believe that government DOES have a role in your life and that it CAN and SHOULD be beneficial to you. In a democracy, you OWN your government. It should be doing stuff FOR YOU, with minimal cost to others in the nation. And likewise, it should be doing stuff for others in the nation, with limited cost to you.
It truly is sad that one has to think that people who support some policy that has elements of socialism to it are hardcore communists who want to nationalize everything and enslave everyone to the government. Socialism is not a strict governmental idea, but rather an economic idea that simply means a society as a whole owns something, if you think that healthcare doesn't fall under that, then I suppose national defense doesn't either? Perhaps we should all just pay for our own defense, take away the powers of the government to defend Americans from foreign entities, since the free market could easily decide who could defend themselves the best. A billionaire could build his little fiefdom and have a bunch of advanced weaponry while the little man would be left with perhaps a rifle.
The way I see it, national defense and national health care are in the same business; saving Americans and serving American's interests. I just can't see what's bad about that.
Not sure that I would agree with you on this. The proper modern social democrat thing to do would have been to gone to a single payer model where there was no private health insurance. Then the rates would be so low that only the completely indigent or stupid wouldn't pay it but they would be covered by the automatic subsidy and base line level of service.
What you got instead was some sort of weird hybrid designed to let private insurance companies stay in a game that should have been 100% public.
If you think about it for even a minute you can see that a public insurance body should be the most natural thing in the world. Insurance is about spreading the risk with premium level set by the math of the actuarial tables. So the more people in the pool the lower the premiums.
If it were a public body it could be designed to break even, or at the very least run it as a regulated monopoly with a set profit level like a utility.
The proper modern social democrat thing to do would have been to gone to a single payer model where there was no private health insurance. Then the rates would be so low that only the completely indigent or stupid wouldn't pay it but they would be covered by the automatic subsidy and base line level of service.
I can understand why someone might hold that view. However, you need to take into account the nature of government-run...well...practically anything to do with providing services to the population. Just look at the USPS or AMTRAK for quick examples. Public services rarely ever break even or serve their customers as well as a private-sector business can. Being government-run also tends to stifle innovation and thinking "outside the box".
One thing that would immensely improve the current system is to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. This would bring competition that would encourage the best-quality services at the lowest rates.
One of the bigger problems I see is the very nature of government bureaucracies and the consequences of their effects when applied to healthcare. Without competition as a motivator there is little incentive for making healthcare services better/faster/cheaper or improve how people are treated when there are no alternatives if they aren't treated well. Also, that being a government-run and taxpayer paid-for service would necessarily mean that bureaucrats would determine how much money may be spent on each patient and for which and how much services, forcing a "one-size-fits-all" model on a field that is so individual in nature in the needs of those served.
And that's just scratching the surface. There are far more problems in addition those I can list here in a Slashdot post.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I am not as familiar with the US but here in Canada I have worked in the Canadian civil service both as an employee and a contractor as well as availing myself of various government services as a citizen. What I can tell you is that in my experience they are professional run and have no more issues or inefficiencies than any large private organization private.
Also the customer service I receive from pretty much every level of government far exceeds anything I get from say my cell phone company or a big box retailer.
You may find that the US civil service does not met your exceptions but it would be a mistake to apply that as a rule across the rest of the modern world.
There are more motivators then just profit and in some sectors of society profit is the exactly the wrong kind of motivator. Prisons come to mind to me. A private prison can increase profits by either increasing the incarceration rate, or by lower services to prisons (drug treatment, and other rehabilitation services). Neither of those would serve the public good so private prisons are an extremely terrible idea as I am sure you in the USA are learning.
Personally I put health insurance in the same basket. It works better as a single public body.
We don't have government doctors what we have is a government insurance company. The actuarial information is basically open to all so its possible to see why the premiums are set the way they are. I have never heard of anyone complaining that a procedure was not covered (except a sex change operation, but I think most of those are still covered). If it wasn't for US TV we would know the meaning of the word "pre-existing condition". When I go to the doctor they proscribe whatever drugs or treatments are best and I do them. I hit my head in a hockey game one morning so I went to a doctor in the afternoon and they sent me for an MRI the next morning. After the MRI I walked across the street and see the specialist who reviewed the results with me. No fuss no muss and no waiting lists. Anyone telling you about a "health care crisis" in Canada is out to lunch and has an agenda against your better interest.
Innovation? Our single public insurance system funds all sorts of preventative measures like encouraging (not coercing) healthy lifestyles and seeking early treatment.
Exactly what kind of "innovation" does a private health insurance company in the US provide? New ways to screw you out of the treatment you need?
For profit companies are simply not the best tool for all occasions. Not for profits societies, regulated monopolies and government run agencies all have their roles to play. To me health insurance is a natural fit for government.
This idea that anything the government does the private sector can do better is an absolute lie.
That was only meant to keep states from using taxation and other means to disallow commerce coming from another state in favor of local products.
It wasn't meant for the feds to be enabled to stick their nose into all state business and that of private companies and manufacturers.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I have no idea why your comment is only at 4. I should be at 11.
A lot of them hang out over at Reddit.
First, incandescent light bulb are far from being banned and phased out. You will be able to buy them for a long time to come. Higher efficiency is all that's mandated. 100W bulbs will be replaced with higher efficiency, 72W incandescent bulbs.
Second, it's not going to be difficult to sell the ideas you mention in America, as most of them have already been sold and are in effect or going into effect soon.
Third, While an incandescent light bulb is not a toxic chemical, It uses more electricity. Our current power generation produces toxic chemicals along with electricity and along with the extraction of energy rich chemicals from the Earth. So there is a slippery slope between inefficient light bulbs and toxins.
Your argument that you should be able to do whatever you want if you can pay for it is tantamount to saying that you should be able to consume all of the Earth's resources and ruin someone else's neighborhood if you can afford it. Your concept of a free society seems to be one where everyone can do absolutely anything they please. This may be free, but not exactly much of a society. Words, like the ones in this thread are free, but actions have had consequences since the dawn of man. As there are more and more humans on this rock, using more and more natural resources, we need to watch how we live together.
Your argument that you should be able to do whatever you want if you can pay for it is tantamount to saying that you should be able to consume all of the Earth's resources and ruin someone else's neighborhood if you can afford it.
As Colonel Potter would say; "Horse cookies!".
Nobody said anything about another person's property. As far as "consume all of the Earth's resources", that's another load of horse cookies, sold to the gullible in order for those who desire wealth at others expense and power over others to obtain and keep it.
The Earth's resources will eventually run out. We can either take tiny bits until they are eventually exhausted and then allow civilization to collapse, never to rise again because of lack of resources, or we can take advantage of their current abundance and use them to achieve a sophisticated enough level of civilization & technology to allow humans to gather resources from off-planet, eventually moving nearly all harmful and destructive resource-gathering and manufacturing to off-planet.
It's akin to being trapped underwater in a malfunctioning submarine. We can either sit and try to breathe slowly and eventually die when the air runs out, or we can use the remaining air to swim to the surface.
You're welcome to make yourself a permanent guest at Davy Jone's Locker if you like, the rest of us are swimming to the surface.
Second, it's not going to be difficult to sell the ideas you mention in America, as most of them have already been sold and are in effect or going into effect soon.
Those failed ideological ideas have been sold to a loud, ignorant, violent, and selfish minority by corrupt politicians wishing to increase their own power and wealth while removing freedoms and wealth from the citizenry, but there's been an ideological sea-change in the US. Those politicians who advocate for such ideas are going to find themselves increasingly unemployed and/or prosecuted.
Third, While an incandescent light bulb is not a toxic chemical, It uses more electricity. Our current power generation produces toxic chemicals along with electricity and along with the extraction of energy rich chemicals from the Earth. So there is a slippery slope between inefficient light bulbs and toxins.
One of the measures of efficiency is the ability to compete favorably against existing technology in a free market. If the technology was efficient enough, it could compete without any government intervention as it would be a better deal and people would buy those instead of the old bulbs voluntarily. This idea is embodied in my sig below. If the ideas were so great, they wouldn't need to be mandatory.
Your concept of a free society seems to be one where everyone can do absolutely anything they please.
They can, right up until it infringes on another person's individual rights. That was the way it was in the US up until the Progressive movement took hold, after Liberalism was discredited and they changed their name to Progressive to avoid ostracism for their failed ideas and policies. History is once again repeating itself, as Progressivism has generally been discredited among the majority of people in the US. I guess it's time to make up a new name for the same old failed ideology.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If you are trading in NSE, BSE, MCX and in NCDEX then let sharegyan give you all stock trading gyan