impaired adjective imÂpaired \-Ëperd\ Definition of impaired
: being in a less than perfect or whole condition: as a : disabled or functionally defective â"often used in combination b : intoxicated by alcohol or narcotics
Kill yourself. You are literally wasting resources better used for an old lady's cats.
The autistic frequently have a difficult time understanding otherwise very clear communication.
You're either intentionally being obtuse and thus this complaint is a deceit or you're mentally impaired and thus honestly don't understand but due to your own dysfunction.
In either case, I can't deal with you as an equal. I can either insult a liar or lecture an inferior. But given that you either dodged the point or could not understand clear communication... equality is off the table.
Everything I've said is contextually, chronologically, and sequentially organized which is standard organization.
I went through your post and you mostly just contradicted yourself. On top of everything else you appear to have a very poor memory and thus either forgot what I said or forgot what you said. This renders your either standing deceit incompetent or compounds your mental impairment. Either way further communication with someone that doesn't even know what they themselves have said is not productive.
If you're so stupid that you need to take notes to keep track of a discussion in black and white in front of you on the internet... then you're unworthy of the time of random assholes on the internet like myself. Kindly disconnect and stop annoying people with your incompetence.
James hanson made the claim in 1988 I think... the deadline came and went.
Any prediction can be right so long as you retcon out all predictions that don't come true or infinitely advance the date of fruition beyond the next day.
Tell you what, chump... On what day if the thing hasn't happened would you admit you were deluded?
Lock yourself down to something. If you don't... then you're as much as admitting that you don't have confidence in the predictions either rendering the defense of them at best a sad deceit.
New York City was supposed to be under water by now. Same people are saying the same thing. Time appears to be very subjective to these people. Any prediction or statement involving time should be taken lightly.
We've already crossed past arbitrary points of no return and whenever it happens... goal post is moved.
I didn't say the DNC ordered it so asking for evidence of a claim I didn't make is a strawman. I ignore strawmen. What you noticed was me not engaging with a logical fallacy.
As to sources, you're now conflating the strawman with a different argument tirely which means you're issuing your own strawman. I'm only noting that because you apparently don't know what a strawman is or why I'm not obligated to take it seriously.
As to patterns, what claim have I made that you can quote that relates to this issue that I have to validate. Keep in mind, if you demand any such thing I'll note some kind of claim you've made and demand a source as well just to discourage you from attempting to bog me down with link searching. A lot of people on these sorts of boards like to use that as a tactic. They just ask for sources for everything... why the sun rises in the east and then why it sets in the west. Why is water wet. Citation needed! Etc etc. And to contain that, I'm going to hold you to whatever standard you hold me to. You are not my auditor, you are not a judge, you're just another person on the internet. And if you want to play games, then I'll treat you as such.
"" Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impaired social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior. ""
Lie to yourself if you want, but I've no patience for your lies to me.
So, can you do a net effect of this behavior on the social and political environment of area, the industry, and the nation?
Because what you're saying is that a chilling of the political climate where anyone that is a threat to the one party rule of the united states is effectively exiled or silenced is fine... So long as you do it a certain way.
So... one party rule is fine I guess. All hail Empress Clinton and her scion Chesley who will one day give birth to the future kings and queens of the Kingdom of America.
We either have a republic where people have freedom of expression or we don't. You want to play the game of "well they're just deciding"... fine... same thing happened with the Mozilla CEO. This is a pattern.
Humans have evolved to recognize patterns. It is a survival trait. Its one of the things we're good at. You're either bad at something that everyone else on this planet is good at... or you're just pretending to be stupid.
As to original notations, this is merely a confession of autism.
As to questioning statements, this is mindless nitpicking or autism. This does nothing to aid in rational and productive discourse. You concede my meaning but want every little line to compile. You're not a computer and neither am I. We are both much more complex and sophisticated creatures that are able to interpret meaning. To limit myself to what a computer would do would be to surrender that for nothing. Deal in meaning and be human.
As to write in candidates, then the notion is not especially credible. That's three for three.
As to coming down as hard on X as Y... Do it then. Judge both by the same standard. Calculate. Run the numbers. Process the program. Find your value for X. Do it. You want to play the "I'm autistic so I'm more rational" game... fine. Let us see precisely how rational you are... because I've played this game with other people that attempted the same ploy, and generally the logical contradictions happened almost immediately. Let us see if you're different. Execute.
As to autism as a pejorative, you were demonstrating an inability to grasp concepts in a larger context or interrelate phrases and topics with each other. This is a symptom of autism. I was hoping that by using the term you'd understand that your line of rhetorical argumentation was coming off as literally mentally disabled. Which to be very clear... that is how you were sounding. You take issue and then concede my points. If you weren't autistic or weren't behaving in that matter you'd have processed the context or the interrelation prior to taking issue and thus never found fault in the first place. Failing to do that demonstrated a dysfunction. Work on it.
Look, sit at my feet and learn or don't bother to argue with me because you know nothing. The very notion that you'd presume to contradict me at this point is offensive to reason.
The only blacklist that should be in place is on people both ignorant of the issues and arrogant enough to think they still have a relevant opinion despite knowing nothing.
As to the dubiousness... it was so dubious that the Hillary campaign fired him. That's how dubious. You want to spout talking points like a trained parrot? Go for it. I've not crackers for you, my dude.
As to police unions, the dubious videos that were so dubious that the campaign believed them entirely and fired him... those videos along with other evidence points to the agitation actually being choreographed by the DNC. So... yawn, my dude... yawn.
As to no one advocating censorship, actually when you start basically firing people for participating in the political process and holding contrary positions on issues that is exactly what you're doing.
But that's okay. You've just changed the rules of the game. So now your opposition can do this to you. Game on.
I'm saying that if you don't get funding if you interfere with the attempt by the DNC to create a one party oligarchy that it creates a chilling effect on the democracy itself. You are creating a situation where ruthlessness, deceit, bribery, and extortion decide elections and not the conscience of the voting public.
If that's the future you choose, you may well get it. How many people have you personally killed? Because if the answer is zero... this might not be a future you can compete in, chump. Things are going to get more and more vicious if this is the basis on which power is decided. You can calm it down by not rewarding this behavior... or encourage it.
Why is it that the people crying for rivers of blood and pyramids of skulls always think their blood will be spared or their skulls won't be polished and mounded in the obelisk?
Indeed, the name is taken... By the same people. Crypto Marxists are Crypto Marxists.
I know I know... there is no true marxist... there are more flavors of marxist than there are flavors of ice cream at 31 flavors. And if you point out anything any flavor does the other flavors say "he isn't a true marxist because only I am the true marxist"...
Its about as rational as saying that ice cream ceases to be ice cream with the inclusion of sprinkles.
The PV videos showed that Hillary is engaged in brown shirt type activity. Paid agitators at protests for media impact.
The DNC also colluded with Hillary to kill the Bernie campaign.
Your vote means nothing to these people. They will tell you who to vote for and what to believe in.
And those deserving to be treated like peasants will accept it.
You don't understand what the word blacklist means. You've likely confused it with "government censorship" which is a different term.
What is more, this "you can't censor someone unless you're the government" argument is moronic. You can absolutely censor someone if you are not the government. You merely are not violating the First Amendment because that only applies to the government. However, the blacklist is itself not a matter of government versus non-government.
And really, if you want to play this game... fine. We'll just divide the country into political camps and neither side will do anything with the other. Great. And there is the end of the republic.
... You're the morons that created that situation.
The mishandling of Russian relations and the abandonment of Iraq lead to the current situation.
You people take no responsibility for anything.
Russia is a great power in the world and the cold war is over. We have an opportunity to ally and cooperate on common interests. The Europeans especially in the West are of almost no military value at this point. If we want aid in securing strategic peace in Eurasia, then we are greatly benefited by cooperation with Russia. Add to that, Eastern Europe which generally has a fierce determination to remain independent. We can use their interest to remain free... which we will support and reinforce as a bulwark against any future Russian adventurism whilst directing Russian power either to keep their sphere stable or to advance them into the middle east and various other places to maintain stability.
As to the Islamic Caliphate, that would be the stupid Fabians fucking that one up. Remember the Arab Spring? Remember Libya? Remember who left Iraq thus creating ISIS in the first place?
As to European Caliphates... that is the EU and Merkel. They opened their doors. They intentionally brought in hundreds of thousands of people that they didn't know, didn't vet, and by any half way rational estimation they had to know were full of radicals.
They did that. Not the US. And how you put that at the feet of Trump is baffling.
What is more, both Obama and Merkel are if anything doubling down on the whole thing. So if you want it continue... elect Hillary. Because she's going to try and do that to the US as well. We're already seeing forced settlements of "Syrian" refugees in the US contrary to the wishes of the local communities. They are given housing, they are given food... and everything is paid for with your tax dollars.
Look, keep it up. I'm not going to stay here whilst my country is destroyed around me. The Pacific is full of beautiful tropical islands. I will leave and sip fruity drinks with island girls if you idiots keep this crap up.
The vast majority of people in any ideology are never blacklisted. To say this is to confess that you don't understand how blacklisting works. It works mostly by picking prominent people and hitting them. The vast majority of people with communist leanings were not blacklisted by the hollywood McCarthy blacklists. Rather, the most prominent communists in Hollywood were blacklisted.
If you have no problem with blacklisting... then fine. You're on record, Marxists. When you cry foul later... it will be ignored.
Actually the DNC colluded with Hillary clinton against Bernie. This is why the last DNC chair stepped down. Emails leaked show there was a strong institutional bias towards Hillary which was a violation of the DNC charter.
So that's the first point you're wrong on.
The second issue is that the PV videos recently released show that Hillary is engaging political bagmen to create media incidents. Keeping mentally ill people on the pay roll for example to use as fight instigators for media stunts. The operative that was outed by those videos was recently fired by Hillary, but it is unlikely that he was the only one.
As to everyone being anti free speech, okay... show me Hillary supporters getting their venture capital funding cut for being Hillary supporters? Failed? Okay... then I was right and you're wrong.
As to mutual blacklisting being fine... so you're fine with the old McCarthy Hollywood blacklists of Communists?
Cool. Now the Marxists are on record. They have no problem with people being censored or blacklisted... they just personally don't like it happening to them. Good to remember. Noted and logged.
First If you're too autistic to grasp the difference "will not happen because of standing conditions that make it impossible" and saying "won't happen"... then any further argument on that point is a waste of my time.
Second If you're too autistic to grasp the tactical and strategic difference between someone voting for a real threat to their power and someone that is voting for someone that is not a threat to their power... then any further argument on that point is a waste of my time. What is more, you're not contradicting that people are being blacklisted based on who they support in an election. Would you be so sanguine if this were applied against Hillary supporters?
Third How many times in the history of the United States of America has a national write in Candidate won the national election? If you have a point then this happens with some frequency. If it doesn't then you're throwing out more irrelevancies. I can't tell if you're going out of your way to be obtuse to argue points in bad faith or if you're so autistic that you honestly think these are valid points.
Fourth Because you're either being intentionally obtuse or unintentionally autistic, I suspect you won't acknowledge that were the shoe on the other foot the existing political and social orthodoxy would not be comfortable with Hillary supporters being given the same treatment.
So you can find me an example of a start up getting their venture capital funding cut because the founder donated money to Hillary Clinton or do you in fact have no argument?
There's no reason to blacklist people that throw their votes away.
Politics is not an ice cream parlor where you get to choose your favorite flavor. You have two choices typically and neither one is what you'd choose if you had control over everything.
Look, you feel entitled to blacklist people possibly for voting for one thing or another. Fine. You would naturally have no problem with someone blacklisting anyone that supported Hillary then?
We have an anonymous ballet box because before we used to NOT have one. People would watch who you voted for and if you didn't vote the right way you'd lose your job. People would also bribe you to vote the right way. vote this way and get a free chicken dinner or free beer.
If you don't see this shaming of anyone that goes against the orthodoxy is an attempt to basically blacklist anyone that doesn't fall into line... then enjoy your road to peasantry because you're on it.
You're now arguing that because there is some flaw you haven't bothered to point out in the system, it is acceptable to silence people that express political opinions you disagree with?
How does silencing people make our democracy better? Or are you merely an advocate for dictatorship?
So... who is your "man of steel"? And you do know what always happens when people like you get what they want in regards to that? You get turned into fertilizer.
People that are useless in one society are rarely very much use in the next society. And most of the people that want a socialist revolution are animated by their failures in this society. They aren't competitive so they want government cheese. Well, your brave new world is going to turn people like you into soylent green.
Sure sure... You're on the right side of history... Marxism will dominate the world and bring peace and freedom and prosperity to the world./s
If you can look at Hillary and this notion of "vote for the democrats or you're evil" thing with a straight face... then you're not interested in democracy or a republic. You want a fascist dictatorship ruled by the DNC for the DNC. They are actively subverting the voting process. They are actively subverting freedom of speech. If you're cool with that then you have no respect for the rights of anyone trying to exercise freedom of speech and I see no reason why anyone should have respect for your rights in that context.
We have a social contract here, sport. You're breaking it. You don't want to do that.
I expect merely for everyone to be free to speak their minds, associate how they please, and vote their conscience whatever that is... If you can't meet that minimal requirement then you are unfit to share a society with me. One way or another this is going to end poorly if you can't behave yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
impaired
adjective imÂpaired \-Ëperd\
Definition of impaired
: being in a less than perfect or whole condition: as
a : disabled or functionally defective â"often used in combination
b : intoxicated by alcohol or narcotics
Kill yourself. You are literally wasting resources better used for an old lady's cats.
The autistic frequently have a difficult time understanding otherwise very clear communication.
You're either intentionally being obtuse and thus this complaint is a deceit or you're mentally impaired and thus honestly don't understand but due to your own dysfunction.
In either case, I can't deal with you as an equal. I can either insult a liar or lecture an inferior. But given that you either dodged the point or could not understand clear communication... equality is off the table.
Everything I've said is contextually, chronologically, and sequentially organized which is standard organization.
I went through your post and you mostly just contradicted yourself. On top of everything else you appear to have a very poor memory and thus either forgot what I said or forgot what you said. This renders your either standing deceit incompetent or compounds your mental impairment. Either way further communication with someone that doesn't even know what they themselves have said is not productive.
If you're so stupid that you need to take notes to keep track of a discussion in black and white in front of you on the internet... then you're unworthy of the time of random assholes on the internet like myself. Kindly disconnect and stop annoying people with your incompetence.
James hanson made the claim in 1988 I think... the deadline came and went.
Any prediction can be right so long as you retcon out all predictions that don't come true or infinitely advance the date of fruition beyond the next day.
Tell you what, chump... On what day if the thing hasn't happened would you admit you were deluded?
Lock yourself down to something. If you don't... then you're as much as admitting that you don't have confidence in the predictions either rendering the defense of them at best a sad deceit.
You're moving the goal post in your refutation of goal post moving.
Its disgusting. Have enough self respect to have some integrity.
New York City was supposed to be under water by now. Same people are saying the same thing. Time appears to be very subjective to these people. Any prediction or statement involving time should be taken lightly.
We've already crossed past arbitrary points of no return and whenever it happens... goal post is moved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/20...
We're constantly being treated to this and when the prediction doesn't happen... no apology... no admission... nothing. Just a goal post move.
Will they admit in 50 years what they haven't admitted over 20? Will they admit over 100 what they won't over 50?
I suspect that only death by old age is going to resolve this because some people are going to keep this shit up to their graves.
"impaired"
You're stupid because you don't know what the word "impaired" means.
I didn't say the DNC ordered it so asking for evidence of a claim I didn't make is a strawman. I ignore strawmen. What you noticed was me not engaging with a logical fallacy.
As to sources, you're now conflating the strawman with a different argument tirely which means you're issuing your own strawman. I'm only noting that because you apparently don't know what a strawman is or why I'm not obligated to take it seriously.
As to patterns, what claim have I made that you can quote that relates to this issue that I have to validate. Keep in mind, if you demand any such thing I'll note some kind of claim you've made and demand a source as well just to discourage you from attempting to bog me down with link searching. A lot of people on these sorts of boards like to use that as a tactic. They just ask for sources for everything... why the sun rises in the east and then why it sets in the west. Why is water wet. Citation needed! Etc etc. And to contain that, I'm going to hold you to whatever standard you hold me to. You are not my auditor, you are not a judge, you're just another person on the internet. And if you want to play games, then I'll treat you as such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
""
Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impaired social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior.
""
Lie to yourself if you want, but I've no patience for your lies to me.
So, can you do a net effect of this behavior on the social and political environment of area, the industry, and the nation?
Because what you're saying is that a chilling of the political climate where anyone that is a threat to the one party rule of the united states is effectively exiled or silenced is fine... So long as you do it a certain way.
So... one party rule is fine I guess. All hail Empress Clinton and her scion Chesley who will one day give birth to the future kings and queens of the Kingdom of America.
We either have a republic where people have freedom of expression or we don't. You want to play the game of "well they're just deciding"... fine... same thing happened with the Mozilla CEO. This is a pattern.
Humans have evolved to recognize patterns. It is a survival trait. Its one of the things we're good at. You're either bad at something that everyone else on this planet is good at... or you're just pretending to be stupid.
Which is it?
As to original notations, this is merely a confession of autism.
As to questioning statements, this is mindless nitpicking or autism. This does nothing to aid in rational and productive discourse. You concede my meaning but want every little line to compile. You're not a computer and neither am I. We are both much more complex and sophisticated creatures that are able to interpret meaning. To limit myself to what a computer would do would be to surrender that for nothing. Deal in meaning and be human.
As to write in candidates, then the notion is not especially credible. That's three for three.
As to coming down as hard on X as Y... Do it then. Judge both by the same standard. Calculate. Run the numbers. Process the program. Find your value for X. Do it. You want to play the "I'm autistic so I'm more rational" game... fine. Let us see precisely how rational you are... because I've played this game with other people that attempted the same ploy, and generally the logical contradictions happened almost immediately. Let us see if you're different. Execute.
As to autism as a pejorative, you were demonstrating an inability to grasp concepts in a larger context or interrelate phrases and topics with each other. This is a symptom of autism. I was hoping that by using the term you'd understand that your line of rhetorical argumentation was coming off as literally mentally disabled. Which to be very clear... that is how you were sounding. You take issue and then concede my points. If you weren't autistic or weren't behaving in that matter you'd have processed the context or the interrelation prior to taking issue and thus never found fault in the first place. Failing to do that demonstrated a dysfunction. Work on it.
Shows what you know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Look, sit at my feet and learn or don't bother to argue with me because you know nothing. The very notion that you'd presume to contradict me at this point is offensive to reason.
The only blacklist that should be in place is on people both ignorant of the issues and arrogant enough to think they still have a relevant opinion despite knowing nothing.
As to the dubiousness... it was so dubious that the Hillary campaign fired him. That's how dubious. You want to spout talking points like a trained parrot? Go for it. I've not crackers for you, my dude.
As to police unions, the dubious videos that were so dubious that the campaign believed them entirely and fired him... those videos along with other evidence points to the agitation actually being choreographed by the DNC. So... yawn, my dude... yawn.
As to no one advocating censorship, actually when you start basically firing people for participating in the political process and holding contrary positions on issues that is exactly what you're doing.
But that's okay. You've just changed the rules of the game. So now your opposition can do this to you. Game on.
I'm saying that if you don't get funding if you interfere with the attempt by the DNC to create a one party oligarchy that it creates a chilling effect on the democracy itself. You are creating a situation where ruthlessness, deceit, bribery, and extortion decide elections and not the conscience of the voting public.
If that's the future you choose, you may well get it. How many people have you personally killed? Because if the answer is zero... this might not be a future you can compete in, chump. Things are going to get more and more vicious if this is the basis on which power is decided. You can calm it down by not rewarding this behavior... or encourage it.
Why is it that the people crying for rivers of blood and pyramids of skulls always think their blood will be spared or their skulls won't be polished and mounded in the obelisk?
Indeed, the name is taken... By the same people. Crypto Marxists are Crypto Marxists.
I know I know... there is no true marxist... there are more flavors of marxist than there are flavors of ice cream at 31 flavors. And if you point out anything any flavor does the other flavors say "he isn't a true marxist because only I am the true marxist"...
Its about as rational as saying that ice cream ceases to be ice cream with the inclusion of sprinkles.
The PV videos showed that Hillary is engaged in brown shirt type activity. Paid agitators at protests for media impact.
The DNC also colluded with Hillary to kill the Bernie campaign.
Your vote means nothing to these people. They will tell you who to vote for and what to believe in.
And those deserving to be treated like peasants will accept it.
You don't understand what the word blacklist means. You've likely confused it with "government censorship" which is a different term.
What is more, this "you can't censor someone unless you're the government" argument is moronic. You can absolutely censor someone if you are not the government. You merely are not violating the First Amendment because that only applies to the government. However, the blacklist is itself not a matter of government versus non-government.
And really, if you want to play this game... fine. We'll just divide the country into political camps and neither side will do anything with the other. Great. And there is the end of the republic.
You're a genius.
... You're the morons that created that situation.
The mishandling of Russian relations and the abandonment of Iraq lead to the current situation.
You people take no responsibility for anything.
Russia is a great power in the world and the cold war is over. We have an opportunity to ally and cooperate on common interests. The Europeans especially in the West are of almost no military value at this point. If we want aid in securing strategic peace in Eurasia, then we are greatly benefited by cooperation with Russia. Add to that, Eastern Europe which generally has a fierce determination to remain independent. We can use their interest to remain free... which we will support and reinforce as a bulwark against any future Russian adventurism whilst directing Russian power either to keep their sphere stable or to advance them into the middle east and various other places to maintain stability.
As to the Islamic Caliphate, that would be the stupid Fabians fucking that one up. Remember the Arab Spring? Remember Libya? Remember who left Iraq thus creating ISIS in the first place?
As to European Caliphates... that is the EU and Merkel. They opened their doors. They intentionally brought in hundreds of thousands of people that they didn't know, didn't vet, and by any half way rational estimation they had to know were full of radicals.
They did that. Not the US. And how you put that at the feet of Trump is baffling.
What is more, both Obama and Merkel are if anything doubling down on the whole thing. So if you want it continue... elect Hillary. Because she's going to try and do that to the US as well. We're already seeing forced settlements of "Syrian" refugees in the US contrary to the wishes of the local communities. They are given housing, they are given food... and everything is paid for with your tax dollars.
Look, keep it up. I'm not going to stay here whilst my country is destroyed around me. The Pacific is full of beautiful tropical islands. I will leave and sip fruity drinks with island girls if you idiots keep this crap up.
The vast majority of people in any ideology are never blacklisted. To say this is to confess that you don't understand how blacklisting works. It works mostly by picking prominent people and hitting them. The vast majority of people with communist leanings were not blacklisted by the hollywood McCarthy blacklists. Rather, the most prominent communists in Hollywood were blacklisted.
If you have no problem with blacklisting... then fine. You're on record, Marxists. When you cry foul later... it will be ignored.
Actually the DNC colluded with Hillary clinton against Bernie. This is why the last DNC chair stepped down. Emails leaked show there was a strong institutional bias towards Hillary which was a violation of the DNC charter.
So that's the first point you're wrong on.
The second issue is that the PV videos recently released show that Hillary is engaging political bagmen to create media incidents. Keeping mentally ill people on the pay roll for example to use as fight instigators for media stunts. The operative that was outed by those videos was recently fired by Hillary, but it is unlikely that he was the only one.
As to everyone being anti free speech, okay... show me Hillary supporters getting their venture capital funding cut for being Hillary supporters? Failed? Okay... then I was right and you're wrong.
As to mutual blacklisting being fine... so you're fine with the old McCarthy Hollywood blacklists of Communists?
Cool. Now the Marxists are on record. They have no problem with people being censored or blacklisted... they just personally don't like it happening to them. Good to remember. Noted and logged.
First
If you're too autistic to grasp the difference "will not happen because of standing conditions that make it impossible" and saying "won't happen"... then any further argument on that point is a waste of my time.
Second
If you're too autistic to grasp the tactical and strategic difference between someone voting for a real threat to their power and someone that is voting for someone that is not a threat to their power... then any further argument on that point is a waste of my time. What is more, you're not contradicting that people are being blacklisted based on who they support in an election. Would you be so sanguine if this were applied against Hillary supporters?
Third
How many times in the history of the United States of America has a national write in Candidate won the national election? If you have a point then this happens with some frequency. If it doesn't then you're throwing out more irrelevancies. I can't tell if you're going out of your way to be obtuse to argue points in bad faith or if you're so autistic that you honestly think these are valid points.
Fourth
Because you're either being intentionally obtuse or unintentionally autistic, I suspect you won't acknowledge that were the shoe on the other foot the existing political and social orthodoxy would not be comfortable with Hillary supporters being given the same treatment.
So you can find me an example of a start up getting their venture capital funding cut because the founder donated money to Hillary Clinton or do you in fact have no argument?
That's rhetorical. You're wrong.
Taken down from where? The big movie studios can't get copies of their movies removed from the internet. Same with music, software, books, etc.
Gary can't win.
Jill Stein can't win.
There's no reason to blacklist people that throw their votes away.
Politics is not an ice cream parlor where you get to choose your favorite flavor. You have two choices typically and neither one is what you'd choose if you had control over everything.
Look, you feel entitled to blacklist people possibly for voting for one thing or another. Fine. You would naturally have no problem with someone blacklisting anyone that supported Hillary then?
We have an anonymous ballet box because before we used to NOT have one. People would watch who you voted for and if you didn't vote the right way you'd lose your job. People would also bribe you to vote the right way. vote this way and get a free chicken dinner or free beer.
If you don't see this shaming of anyone that goes against the orthodoxy is an attempt to basically blacklist anyone that doesn't fall into line... then enjoy your road to peasantry because you're on it.
Its amazing having these clueless people that don't know anything about memes attempt to subvert them.
Its like the fucking mainstream media trying to control hashtags or something.
They don't get it. No one owns this crap. Anyone can use pepe or a hashtag. Its decentralized, leaderless, and chaotic.
... The tortured logic here is really pretty sad.
You're now arguing that because there is some flaw you haven't bothered to point out in the system, it is acceptable to silence people that express political opinions you disagree with?
How does silencing people make our democracy better? Or are you merely an advocate for dictatorship?
So... who is your "man of steel"? And you do know what always happens when people like you get what they want in regards to that? You get turned into fertilizer.
People that are useless in one society are rarely very much use in the next society. And most of the people that want a socialist revolution are animated by their failures in this society. They aren't competitive so they want government cheese. Well, your brave new world is going to turn people like you into soylent green.
Sure sure... You're on the right side of history... Marxism will dominate the world and bring peace and freedom and prosperity to the world. /s
If you can look at Hillary and this notion of "vote for the democrats or you're evil" thing with a straight face... then you're not interested in democracy or a republic. You want a fascist dictatorship ruled by the DNC for the DNC. They are actively subverting the voting process. They are actively subverting freedom of speech. If you're cool with that then you have no respect for the rights of anyone trying to exercise freedom of speech and I see no reason why anyone should have respect for your rights in that context.
We have a social contract here, sport. You're breaking it. You don't want to do that.
I expect merely for everyone to be free to speak their minds, associate how they please, and vote their conscience whatever that is... If you can't meet that minimal requirement then you are unfit to share a society with me. One way or another this is going to end poorly if you can't behave yourself.