What you are saying confirms that governments, the US government in particular, do whatever they please without having to follow any kind of law. It confirms that power and violence are the only "laws". So why should we follow those laws? Why can't we use violence to fight whoever we don't like?
The American independence happened because some people promoted violence. Slavery was abolished because some people promoted violence. It is sad, but there is always a moment when you have to promote violence if you want to have freedom. One thing is for sure, when we are not allowed to speak, then violence is the only solution.
Not only does the condom kill the mood, but since I was not mutilated (circumcised) the condom cuts so much of my sensation that I don't find sex enjoyable. I'd much prefer a blow job or even a hand job than sex with a condom.
France does not allow DNA testing unless a judge orders it. There are two cases when a judge will allow the DNA testing. The first case is if the mother is trying to find out who is the father in order to get child support. In this case, the judge will almost always grant the request of the woman.
The second case is if a man wants to prove he's not the father in order to get out of child support. In this case, the judge will allow the DNA testing, but only if the man never acted as the father of the child. If the man acted as the father of the child at any point in time, even for a very short period, then the judge will refuse the DNA testing. The reason for this is that the "well-being of the child" is more important than anything else... and obviously the mother needs the man's money to make sure her child has the best future possible.
ISP have blocked ports and protocol in order to stop piracy or other illegal communications between individuals since the 90s. It never worked. What makes you think they will be able to block someone from accessing a particular website? Look at a site like the Daily Stormer. Pretty much everyone is banning it. It doesn't change that anyone interested can still access it without any difficulty.
For now, blocking websites kind of work because very few people care to use solutions to bypass those blocks. However, the more governments will try to censor things, the more people will use those solutions.
You should either look up the definition of the word "literally" or you should learn take two seconds to read back what you wrote before clicking on the "Submit" button.
Anyway, the fact is the majority of news media have lost so much credibility that a lot of people now think the information from a random nobody is as good as the one from professional news organizations. Journalism was once seen as a noble profession, now it is seen by many as mostly worthless.
If a nobody with a webcam can compete with a professional news organization, then it's obvious the professional news organization is not doing its job anymore. That's the problem with the majority of news media. It's not that there is this big bad Internet thing that allows competition, it's that they don't do their job anymore.
If the goal is to make money, then how do you explain that the "MSM" are becoming less and less profitable? How do you explain that they are slowly replaced with alternative media? How do you explain that a generic YouTuber with almost no means and doing some generic political commentaries can get more views than news channels from the "MSM"?
I live in Quebec. I'm on the right. There are no "MSM" here for me. No "MSM" wants to sell me anything. They view me either as an undesirable customer or, at best, as someone who must be manipulated into their ideology. One of the three important written media here (La Presse) now must rely on government subsidies to survive. Instead of changing their editorial content in order to offer what people want, they decided to stay true to their ideology and risk bankruptcy.
The reality is the "MSM", like many parts of Western societies, have become infected with this leftist ideologies. They now care more about promoting their "moral values" than making money, or even telling the truth. The "get woke, go broke" certainly applies to the "MSM".
Anyway, your part about looking in the mirror was funny. How about you start doing it yourself?
If the testing / verification process for their software is as mind-boggling as one student (!) told you and if, as you assume, they've had decades to fine-tune their processes for creating reliable computer software, how do you explain that Boeing had to fix their cockpit software?
Maybe you are not aware of it, but most people in Europe can speak English and they happily use it in certain ciscumstances. That's why French people who are in favor of France leaving the EU use the term "Frexit" and not something like a "Frasortie". Oh, et en passant, ma langue maternelle est le français, so I think I know one thing or two about it. Connard.
As for the rise of nationalism everywhere in Europe, whether you are interested in it or not won't change this trend.
Either the person who made the summary is trolling, or he has no clue about the EU. It's far more likely that a political group from Italy or France will try to get the domain "leave.eu".
Anyway, nationalism is on the rise everywhere in Europe, even in Germany, and unless something completely unexpected happens, the end of the EU is now just a matter of time.
Here's what the "Explore" page gives me right now (I show only the first 10 posts):
It turns out the “wage gap” is real, it’s just opposite of what Feminists thought.
This is a post about an article showing that men are paid less than women for the same job in IT. This is obviously an anti-feminist post, which means it can be qualified as on the right, but it's not "alt-right".
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes...
This is some Christian guy preaching and quoting the Bible. Now I'm an atheist, I'm not a fan of religions, but I also believe that there should be some religious freedom. Again, right-wing, but this has nothing to do with the "alt-right".
Come and take it
This is a post about a picture of a woman showing a sign where it's written "we are coming to take away your guns. Personally I don't have guns (even if I know how to use a lot of weapons since I did my mandatory military service), also I'm not American, but the right to own firearms is part of the American constitution. I agree the post is right-wing, but not alt-right.
#dissenter changing the Internet
This is a post about Dissenter itself. It's neither on the right nor the left.
Are you serious guys? 20,000 people have joined our group?
This is a post about people joining a "Gab group" called "Free Speech". I didn't check what this group is about, but simply by the name I can tell it's not about the alt-right ideology (both the far right and the far left are anti-free speech).
As a Somali, Ilhan Omar doesn't belong in America, however what she's doing by exposing the Zionist control of congress is invaluable.
Ok, this one is from an idiotic alt-right who believes in his conspiracy theory about Jews.
Paedophiles believe that they should be part of lgbr community and we believe they should be hung by their perverted necks until dead.
This is about pedophilia. This has nothing to do with the alt-right.
I think Katie Hopkins has hit the nail on the head with this tweed tonight
This is a post about Katie Hopkins tweeting that Britain is tumbling inexorably into even darker times. Katie Hopkins is definitely on the right, but she's not alt-right at all.
This same article, written slightly differently each time, gets passed around Slate, Salon, Vox, HuffPo, etc
This is a post about a Slate article asking if pedophiles are too sick for punishment. Again, this is about pedophilia. It's not about the alt-right ideology.
Not many years ago you could go to most stores and get a gun without a background check.
This is another post about the second amendment. Again, right-wing, but not alt-right.
So in summary, out of ten, only one could be qualified as alt-right.
Now about the articles you quoted, I remember the one saying that there is nothing wrong about white people being pro-white. When I posted my initial comment, it was already toward the middle of the page. This means that when you looked at the explore page, it was certainly not the first post. This means you are simply lying in order to push for your far left agenda.
You are a despicable person. More than that, since you want an authoritarian regime where people have no freedom, I'd even say you are a dangerous person.
I'm an adult. I want to be the one who decides if something I read is wrong or inaccurate. I want to be the one who decides who I believe and who I don't. I don't want someone else to think for me and to "protect" me.
If people are against vaccination, that's their problem. Yes, I know that someone who is sick because he was against vaccination could infect me, but I don't think I have the right to force people to do something they don't want to do simply because it could make my life better.
I just created an account on Gab because of Dissenter. The platform is surprisingly tame. I was expecting a lot of anti-Jew comments, as well as a lot of foul language, but the vast majority of posts were as civil as everywhere else. Of course, since I'm guessing you are extreme far left, I'm sure you would happily label three quarter of the population as extreme far right, but maybe you should realize that the problem is your own bigotry.
Calling people names only show your will to harass people. Supporting censorship only show your will to control everyone around you. Don't you realize you are what you claim to hate?
Usenet was destroyed by the web, not by the trolls. I agree that trolls were annoying, but most newsreaders implemented black lists and filters to deal with those.
Flat Earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers and creationists are an insignificant minority.
From my point of view, the real problem with this wave of anti-intellectualism comes first from those who deny biology. I live in Quebec and not only these anti-intellectuals were able to force the government to change the law according to their belief system, but they also implemented their "gender theory" as part of what is thought to small children in school.
Another dangerous group of anti-intellectuals are those who believe in some sort of climate apocalypse. This group is also powerful enough to have been able to change laws, even if it's detrimental to the economy and a direct threat to fundamental values like freedom.
(Just in case you don't get it, your political bias and your own anti-intellectualism are showing.)
Acting out of fear or hope for a reward is part of our moral system. It is certainly "acting morally." Since love is just a personal emotion, acting "out of love" is not morally superior to acting out of fear of hope for a reward. People who act out of love are no "better" than people who act out of fear.
When I was in high school, we studied morality and things like Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Kids don't learn this anymore?
The same is true for Europe. Dvoriste in Macedonia (22.55 E) and Fisterra in Spain (9.15 W) are both on the same time zone. There is also another example with Canada. Natashquan in Quebec (61.48 W) and Pickle Lake in Ontario (90.10 W) are on the same time zone.
Can we stop with always trying to find any excuse possible to bash the evil white man? This systemic racism against white people is becoming seriously annoying.
Can you explain why violent abusers are worse than abusers who use psychological or social methods like ostracization?
If I look back at my youth, like most people of my generation I was both subjected to violent abuse and psychological abuse. The abuses that had the most effect on me were by far the psychological ones. Sure, being hit do hurt, but the pain goes away quickly. More than that, the few who did use violence against me were generally somewhat punished for it.
On the other hand, the psychological abuses not only had a much bigger impact on my life, but the ones who did use psychological abuses were almost never punished.
Now based on my experience of being psychologically bullied, I'd say the best way to end psychological abuse is to use violence. So I wonder if forbidding violence won't end up with a worse world than allowing a bit of violence. I wonder if the need for "safe spaces" that we see more and more is not in part the result of banning violence.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump has a big mouth, but in the end he's just a yes-man.
What you are saying confirms that governments, the US government in particular, do whatever they please without having to follow any kind of law. It confirms that power and violence are the only "laws". So why should we follow those laws? Why can't we use violence to fight whoever we don't like?
The American independence happened because some people promoted violence. Slavery was abolished because some people promoted violence. It is sad, but there is always a moment when you have to promote violence if you want to have freedom. One thing is for sure, when we are not allowed to speak, then violence is the only solution.
Not only does the condom kill the mood, but since I was not mutilated (circumcised) the condom cuts so much of my sensation that I don't find sex enjoyable. I'd much prefer a blow job or even a hand job than sex with a condom.
France does not allow DNA testing unless a judge orders it. There are two cases when a judge will allow the DNA testing. The first case is if the mother is trying to find out who is the father in order to get child support. In this case, the judge will almost always grant the request of the woman.
The second case is if a man wants to prove he's not the father in order to get out of child support. In this case, the judge will allow the DNA testing, but only if the man never acted as the father of the child. If the man acted as the father of the child at any point in time, even for a very short period, then the judge will refuse the DNA testing. The reason for this is that the "well-being of the child" is more important than anything else... and obviously the mother needs the man's money to make sure her child has the best future possible.
Then they'll have to check women's tightness and lubrication. Fucking a subway tunnel or a woman so dry it feels like sandpaper is not fun.
ISP have blocked ports and protocol in order to stop piracy or other illegal communications between individuals since the 90s. It never worked. What makes you think they will be able to block someone from accessing a particular website? Look at a site like the Daily Stormer. Pretty much everyone is banning it. It doesn't change that anyone interested can still access it without any difficulty.
For now, blocking websites kind of work because very few people care to use solutions to bypass those blocks. However, the more governments will try to censor things, the more people will use those solutions.
You should either look up the definition of the word "literally" or you should learn take two seconds to read back what you wrote before clicking on the "Submit" button.
Anyway, the fact is the majority of news media have lost so much credibility that a lot of people now think the information from a random nobody is as good as the one from professional news organizations. Journalism was once seen as a noble profession, now it is seen by many as mostly worthless.
If a nobody with a webcam can compete with a professional news organization, then it's obvious the professional news organization is not doing its job anymore. That's the problem with the majority of news media. It's not that there is this big bad Internet thing that allows competition, it's that they don't do their job anymore.
If the goal is to make money, then how do you explain that the "MSM" are becoming less and less profitable? How do you explain that they are slowly replaced with alternative media? How do you explain that a generic YouTuber with almost no means and doing some generic political commentaries can get more views than news channels from the "MSM"?
I live in Quebec. I'm on the right. There are no "MSM" here for me. No "MSM" wants to sell me anything. They view me either as an undesirable customer or, at best, as someone who must be manipulated into their ideology. One of the three important written media here (La Presse) now must rely on government subsidies to survive. Instead of changing their editorial content in order to offer what people want, they decided to stay true to their ideology and risk bankruptcy.
The reality is the "MSM", like many parts of Western societies, have become infected with this leftist ideologies. They now care more about promoting their "moral values" than making money, or even telling the truth. The "get woke, go broke" certainly applies to the "MSM".
Anyway, your part about looking in the mirror was funny. How about you start doing it yourself?
If the testing / verification process for their software is as mind-boggling as one student (!) told you and if, as you assume, they've had decades to fine-tune their processes for creating reliable computer software, how do you explain that Boeing had to fix their cockpit software?
Maybe you are not aware of it, but most people in Europe can speak English and they happily use it in certain ciscumstances. That's why French people who are in favor of France leaving the EU use the term "Frexit" and not something like a "Frasortie". Oh, et en passant, ma langue maternelle est le français, so I think I know one thing or two about it. Connard.
As for the rise of nationalism everywhere in Europe, whether you are interested in it or not won't change this trend.
Either the person who made the summary is trolling, or he has no clue about the EU. It's far more likely that a political group from Italy or France will try to get the domain "leave.eu".
Anyway, nationalism is on the rise everywhere in Europe, even in Germany, and unless something completely unexpected happens, the end of the EU is now just a matter of time.
Here's what the "Explore" page gives me right now (I show only the first 10 posts) :
This is a post about an article showing that men are paid less than women for the same job in IT. This is obviously an anti-feminist post, which means it can be qualified as on the right, but it's not "alt-right".
This is some Christian guy preaching and quoting the Bible. Now I'm an atheist, I'm not a fan of religions, but I also believe that there should be some religious freedom. Again, right-wing, but this has nothing to do with the "alt-right".
This is a post about a picture of a woman showing a sign where it's written "we are coming to take away your guns. Personally I don't have guns (even if I know how to use a lot of weapons since I did my mandatory military service), also I'm not American, but the right to own firearms is part of the American constitution. I agree the post is right-wing, but not alt-right.
This is a post about Dissenter itself. It's neither on the right nor the left.
This is a post about people joining a "Gab group" called "Free Speech". I didn't check what this group is about, but simply by the name I can tell it's not about the alt-right ideology (both the far right and the far left are anti-free speech).
Ok, this one is from an idiotic alt-right who believes in his conspiracy theory about Jews.
This is about pedophilia. This has nothing to do with the alt-right.
This is a post about Katie Hopkins tweeting that Britain is tumbling inexorably into even darker times. Katie Hopkins is definitely on the right, but she's not alt-right at all.
This is a post about a Slate article asking if pedophiles are too sick for punishment. Again, this is about pedophilia. It's not about the alt-right ideology.
This is another post about the second amendment. Again, right-wing, but not alt-right.
So in summary, out of ten, only one could be qualified as alt-right.
Now about the articles you quoted, I remember the one saying that there is nothing wrong about white people being pro-white. When I posted my initial comment, it was already toward the middle of the page. This means that when you looked at the explore page, it was certainly not the first post. This means you are simply lying in order to push for your far left agenda.
You are a despicable person. More than that, since you want an authoritarian regime where people have no freedom, I'd even say you are a dangerous person.
I'm an adult. I want to be the one who decides if something I read is wrong or inaccurate. I want to be the one who decides who I believe and who I don't. I don't want someone else to think for me and to "protect" me.
If people are against vaccination, that's their problem. Yes, I know that someone who is sick because he was against vaccination could infect me, but I don't think I have the right to force people to do something they don't want to do simply because it could make my life better.
I just created an account on Gab because of Dissenter. The platform is surprisingly tame. I was expecting a lot of anti-Jew comments, as well as a lot of foul language, but the vast majority of posts were as civil as everywhere else. Of course, since I'm guessing you are extreme far left, I'm sure you would happily label three quarter of the population as extreme far right, but maybe you should realize that the problem is your own bigotry.
Calling people names only show your will to harass people. Supporting censorship only show your will to control everyone around you. Don't you realize you are what you claim to hate?
Usenet was destroyed by the web, not by the trolls. I agree that trolls were annoying, but most newsreaders implemented black lists and filters to deal with those.
Flat Earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers and creationists are an insignificant minority.
From my point of view, the real problem with this wave of anti-intellectualism comes first from those who deny biology. I live in Quebec and not only these anti-intellectuals were able to force the government to change the law according to their belief system, but they also implemented their "gender theory" as part of what is thought to small children in school.
Another dangerous group of anti-intellectuals are those who believe in some sort of climate apocalypse. This group is also powerful enough to have been able to change laws, even if it's detrimental to the economy and a direct threat to fundamental values like freedom.
(Just in case you don't get it, your political bias and your own anti-intellectualism are showing.)
Acting out of fear or hope for a reward is part of our moral system. It is certainly "acting morally." Since love is just a personal emotion, acting "out of love" is not morally superior to acting out of fear of hope for a reward. People who act out of love are no "better" than people who act out of fear.
When I was in high school, we studied morality and things like Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Kids don't learn this anymore?
The same is true for Europe. Dvoriste in Macedonia (22.55 E) and Fisterra in Spain (9.15 W) are both on the same time zone. There is also another example with Canada. Natashquan in Quebec (61.48 W) and Pickle Lake in Ontario (90.10 W) are on the same time zone.
Can we stop with always trying to find any excuse possible to bash the evil white man? This systemic racism against white people is becoming seriously annoying.
Google chose to "weaponize" YouTube for quite some times now. I'd say their users "weaponizing" it back is only fair game.
Can you explain why violent abusers are worse than abusers who use psychological or social methods like ostracization?
If I look back at my youth, like most people of my generation I was both subjected to violent abuse and psychological abuse. The abuses that had the most effect on me were by far the psychological ones. Sure, being hit do hurt, but the pain goes away quickly. More than that, the few who did use violence against me were generally somewhat punished for it.
On the other hand, the psychological abuses not only had a much bigger impact on my life, but the ones who did use psychological abuses were almost never punished.
Now based on my experience of being psychologically bullied, I'd say the best way to end psychological abuse is to use violence. So I wonder if forbidding violence won't end up with a worse world than allowing a bit of violence. I wonder if the need for "safe spaces" that we see more and more is not in part the result of banning violence.
To build our own equipment? Sure, it will cost more than simply buying from either China or the US, but no one said freedom was cheap.
Obviously better than their American masters since they decided to go from America to China.