100% human breeds with 100% human, generation after generation, and now someone thinks they are 50% this and 25% that, and so on?
This is the most ridiculously stupid concept I have ever seen you intergalactically backwards humans ever put forth in your already vast constellation of stunningly vapid intentional misconceptions of reality. When you ultimately wipe yourselves from the achingly beautiful paradise planet you were born onto because you are so monstrously bereft of intelligence you cannot recognize your own kin, the rest of the universe will rejoice for the rest of all eternity.
Hasten the day, you inept failure of a species, hasten the day.
And I tripped and fell getting out of the shower while washing my friend's bondage gear and somehow landed directly on one of those horse-cock shaped mega-dildos that randomly pop up all over the place. And that is why I am sporting these wet red leather chaps, my arms and torso are wrapped in this PVC straight jacket with nipple cutouts, there's a bondage hood covering my head, topped by an adulterated gas mask, the intake hose of which is duct taped to a mason jar full of amyl nitrate, and I have a four foot long museum grade realistic replica of some prehistoric stallion's phallus irretrievably lodged in my colon, Doctor.
Your scathingly incisive commentary on America's double standards, oppression, and outright racism towards Oompa Loompas and Cheetotians brings much needed illumination to the plight of ocher people everywhere. No one should be singled out because of the color of their skin, no matter how day-glo, flourescent, or garishly it clashes with every other color this side of Lovecraftian nightmares.
Seriously though, you make a really good point. There was so much overhead involved with discussing policy during the Obama years, it had a chilling effect on debate. Even discussing the economic advisability of passing the largest tax increase in history during a recessed economy could result in what seemed to be reasoned and intelligent people resorting to a canned "You're a racist!!!" remark designed to shut down any discourse.
I do enjoy the freedom to question and criticize the president without risking losing my job or being beaten up by an overreacting SJW, but the same irrational responses keep popping up when people try to discuss policy.
For instance, asking a questions like: "does the recent wave of nationalist sentiment throughout the western world, along with the "Washington outsider" Trump as president, provide the US with a political smoke screen dense and large enough to cover us while we readjust our manufacturing sector's global standing and address trade imbalances that will boost our economy for the long term, all the while maintaining a safe fall back position for entrenched political interests and parties who can plausibly distance themselves from Trump's policies once his term/s are over?" can still result in people calling you a "NAZI!" or saying "Thanks, Igor. Keep up the good work or we will make sure your babushka will glow bright enough to read Alexander Litvinenko's autopsy report in her Siberian dungeon cell."
All I can really say is that the shrill and outraged tone of what passes for political discourse these days is a far cry from anything productive, structured, or intelligent. Any public political statement more controversial than an open can of green beans will result in incoherent emotional rambling from a good portion of the respondents. In such a contentious, infantile, and unhinged atmosphere it is impossible to have meaningful discussions. I fear the result of this cultural shift to personal attacks as a viable response to political speech will result in silencing the most reasonable voices through self-censoring. Mature and educated individuals won't dare speak their minds. They have better things to do than deal with torrents of inane pejorative excrement flung at them by helplessly malfunctioning self-victimizing political illiterates. That leaves only the most strident, vicious, and ignorant with a voice.
I hope you have enjoyed this great experiment in liberty. We will be closing shortly. Please gather your shit and get the fuck out.
Excellent idea sir! I would rather my tax dollars go to a mega-fauna predator preserve than a wall. Plus you could sell the videos of "Bear vs. Tiger" and "Lion vs. Guatemalan family" on pay-per-view for a huuuuge profit.
Thank you Waffle Iron! You provided more novel information than the linked "news" article and you spurred me to learn something new today. Oddly, I had never rigorously defined "pesticide." When you stated it included herbicides and fungicides it instantly made sense, but in a surprising way that let me know I was missing something. So I looked it up. Surprise and joy ensued, again thank you! Repellents are included, as are microbial agents. I had no idea I was washing my hands with pesticide, haha!
From the Wikipedia: The term pesticide includes all of the following: herbicide, insecticides (which may include insect growth regulators, termiticides, etc.) nematicide, molluscicide, piscicide, avicide, rodenticide, bactericide, insect repellent, animal repellent, antimicrobial, fungicide, disinfectant (antimicrobial), and sanitizer.
I assume when the article says the plants grow without earth there is some kind of nutrient resupply, possibly from human waste. I'm not sure because the FUCKING ARTICLE HAS NO FUCKING DETAILS...ahem, sorry for that outburst. Creating a sustainable, sealed, food producing system without any sanitization, disinfectants, or fungicide is really amazing.
If only there were some kind of news article we could read about it...
The incredibly sparse linked story was devoid of any relevant details. Apparently the plants take root in the air and spontaneously grow edible plant matter from a combination of nothing and nothing.
Also, why the effing hell would pesticides even need to be mentioned. In a sterile environment designed to replicate a space station or a habitable fabrication on another planet where the FUCKING FUCKITY FUCK FUCK would the insects come from?!?!? It's like the person who wrote this article was an intern at Monsanto and thinks that pesticides are a required nutrient or something.
Worst article ever. No revealing information on innovation, methods, or novelty. We are somehow stupider for having read it. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.
"What next? Sending troops and predators to the Mexican border?"
Yes, this is next. A permeable border is a strategic flaw that can lead to military incursion, but is more likely to be the source of economic and cultural warfare which will weaken, divide, and subvert a country. Any sensible country which possesses the economic and military wherewithal to defend their borders will do so.
It remains to be seen if the US will ever have such sensibility in its people and leaders.
Ban all guns in every adjacent state and they would come through the southern border.
If you're for gun control you need to be for an impermeable border with Mexico. If you aren't, you need to seriously rethink whatever the heck is going on in your head.
"...people had some expectations of how the data that they'd given to Facebook would be shared."
If Facebook users had any idea how much information Facebook has on them they would be incensed. If they knew how it was used they would be mortified and outraged. Facebook's entire value, and continuing existence, is predicated on the users never finding out how much data Facebook collects about them and how that data is used.
The misleading that Cambridge Analytical is accused of is pretty much common practice with any advertising-revenue based app you install. They are free because you pay with your human reality fingerprint: the imprint your behavior leaves on your electronic devices including where you go, what you do, what you say (ostensibly not voice communications), who you say it to, when you say it, who your parents are, who your friends are, what makes you mad, what makes you sad, what makes you happy, what makes you respond, what you say in response to what other people say, your word choice, your education level, your political affiliation, what you purchase, when you purchase it, how you pay for it, what advertising was delivered to you before you made the purchase, how you move your mouse on webpages, what search terms you use, how much time you spend on webpages, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Advertisers believe this information is the key to controlling your behavior.
When you click yes on an EULA for an app on your phone, chances are you give that app permission to access every other app on your phone and all of the data contained in those apps.
If you don't want your information misused, and you are a Facebook user, you aren't very smart. The whole intention of Facebook is to trick you into giving up your whole life to Facebook so they can sell it to people who have one purpose: to use asymmetric information disparity to intentionally control and manipulate you without your consent or knowledge. If that isn't the textbook definition of misuse I don't know what is.
I would imagine second or third generation self-driving cars will be networked together: transmitting obstacle information down the line to cars farther behind, around corners, etc. Having that capability will be inevitable in my opinion.
I can't see government passing up the opportunity to place "road safety cameras" along every street, ostensibly transmitting off-road pedestrian and obstacle movement details to the approaching cars, thereby preventing accidents just like the one that started this discussion. The resulting constant and pervasive population monitoring would just be a pleasant side effect for the new overlords.
Wow, it occurs to me that Facebook would probably put the cameras up themselves, free of charge, just so they could know even more about everyone. Fuck the future, man.
In some cases, an appeal to a more fundamental principle is justified and which invalidates your your highfalutin "your argument is invalid" bullshit, namely this:
*What is good for the goose is good for the gander.*
Tu quoque is a misapplied method of argumentation when one person's wrongdoing is compared to another's similar wrongdoing. I posit that if both parties are doing exactly the same thing, and only one party is being held up for ridicule and discipline, this is not whataboutism or tu quoque. There is a deeper issue at work than some semantics and rules of rhetoric.
*To whit: selective enforcement;*
an intolerable injustice in a society based on the rule of law. That you would call it whatboutism is exact proof of the same. Your behavior is indistinguishable from someone who has completely ingested injustice in their being, and so deeply so that when presented with prima facie evidence of it you can't address or speak to it, choosing instead to use an invalid appeal to authority to avoid the conversation completely.
*You are attempting to steer the conversation toward a conclusion while intentionally avoiding gathering all of the facts.*
So, lets take it a step further and speak to the other, more personal (for you) issue at hand. In the discussion of the issue of misuse of Facebook information, pointing out all parties that engaged in this activity and incidents where this behavior occurred is abso-fucking-lutely funda-fucking-mental to addressing the issue as a whole. The only reason why you or anyone else would cry "whataboutism" as the full scope of the problem is being plumbed and probed is that the issue, for you, is not the misuse of personal information from Facebook at all. You don't actually care about misuse of personal information from Facebook. You just care about how a single incident of misuse affects the perception of a certain individual, group, or party you are opposed to, as evidenced by your inane and insipid attempts to redirect the conversation back to a certain person/group rather than the overarching issue of personal information and Facebook, and certainly not toward a full understanding of every incidence of this type of manipulative behavior.
*Bias, Bias, Bias.*
You are showing your hand you blithering dolt. Rank amateurs do better. Now, if you would like to have a fully fleshed out discussion of the issues of misuse of Facebook's data you could present some of your own examples of not only how this has occurred in other instances, but also how it was spun to the public, their reaction, etc. If you don't want to participate in the fact finding part of this discussion that is fine, but don't you dare presume the authority to shut down valid data points about the subject of Facebook spewing personal data for the manipulation of voters. It is counterproductive to the information space and fact field necessary to make honest, informed, and effective judgement about the issue and how to confront it.
I can see this going the same way as all of my other "personal information," in the information age. Namely, all of the data about me will belong to entities that are not me. And from that ownership of my data, they will generate huge streams of income in perpetuity. I propose that this is a fucked up and ridiculous way to continue, especially with detailed medical data on an unprecedented level.
Without a change in this policy I would be lucky to receive nothing from this arrangement. This is highly unlikely though. If it goes like the other arrangements we have seen so far, my information will be covertly used in an attempt to manipulate and control me and others like me. My information will not be available to me. The effects of my information, how it is used, and to what purposes, is also kept from me.
In this case, my data could help cure cancer, prevent genetic diseases, extend life, eradicate obesity. The companies who used this data would become wealthy beyond current imagining. In return for providing the data used to create a new era in the practice of medicine, donors of their data would get to pay for the cures their data created. This is the fucked up part.
You want my data to fundamentally transform the medical field for all time? Cool. Put in writing that I and my descendants will receive full control over how my information is used. I don't want it sold to another country to create mind control drugs or new nerve agents. Second, any advancements that my data helps create are available to me and my descendants free of charge. Lastly, I want royalties payable to me and my descendants, in perpetuity, for any and every use of my data, and for any new treatments that come from my data.
Oh, you wanted all of this information for free, without strings attached? Go fuck yourself.
Creepy is only a problem if you are ugly. No one thinks you're creepy if they think you're hot. So, don't try to not be creepy, that is impossible. Instead, try being hot.
Barring that, keep an attorney around and have him do everything for you, as your council.
Wasn't Donald Trump supposed to put all of his money into an indexed fund when he received it decades ago, thereby guaranteeing he would be wealthier than he is now? It would also mean that he would never learn anything about business.
Apparently being rich and ignorant are core values of people who criticize Trump for his lack of foresight in not being a lazy ass bum who never had any ambition.
I laughed the laugh of helpless agreement, recognition, and irony at your post. Much appreciated! It reminded me of one my favorite sayings: "To have a perfect utopia all we have to do is kill all of the violent people."
It also brought up another thought. At some point in my life I was given a functional definition of religion, and a contrasting definition of spirituality. These definitions have been very helpful for me to reconcile how humans who "recognize" a higher power can manifest that same belief on a spectrum from brutal atrocity to beatific transcendence.
Religion: Humans attempting, through actions and thought, to make themselves acceptable to their higher power.
Religions require constant activity by the adherent in order to appease and succor their deity. Combine with the natural human propensity toward self-righteousness and you get a whole cascade of societal problems, starting with segregation and ostracism, and ending with religious states and extremist violence. If a pious devotee is convinced their deity constantly judges them, threatens them with punishment if they are not good enough, and is vengeful and destructive to those who transgress, is it any wonder that those beliefs will manifest in the world and result in behaviors that mimic that deity?
Spirituality: Knowing that your higher power accepts and loves you unconditionally.
This is the ace trump of religion. It destroys the notion that God needs your help, and kills at the root the fear motivation to perform ever greater acts of piety and devotion. As a viewpoint overlaid on the myriad of data points of human experience, it provides an example for those predisposed to theism which results in acceptance of others (i.e., be godlike, your god loves and accepts you, you should love and accept others) rather than condemnation and judgement.
Average American to the media: "We want more "human interest" stories with a positive outlook. Stop serving us divisive, sensational stories with no redeeming social value!"
{Clicks furiously on all of the divisive, sensational news stories with no redeeming social value}
The funny part is that the people accused of being anti-woman and anti-minority are the ones who are totally cool with women and minorities. It's the people who say they are on the side of women and minorities, fighting for their whatevers, that say women and minorities are not welcome. That is how they justify their screeching and screaming, name calling, and finger pointing.
What a conundrum. It is the anti-division advocates that create division.
Irrationally emotional self-righteous puritanical condemnation is something most Americans can get behind, and heartily support, regardless of whether or not they are part of the religious right. That is all the reasoning necessary to fire someone for participating in a consensual clandestine relationship with another adult. Not surprising that "morals clauses" in contracts were invented in the US.
If this were someplace civilized, like most of the rest of the world, no one would care, nor would they publicize such private matters as a huge scandal. For a country where we "value privacy" we sure like to dig into other people's business a whole hell of a lot.
Law enforcement wanted to make sure that the community of "Asian immigrants" was not negatively viewed by the public.
As a result they knowingly buried the investigations, stopped prosecution and arrests, and let these "Asian immigrants" continue to groom, abuse, drug, kidnap, sexually traffic, gang rape, and kill underage British children.
This is not what Progressive means, but it is exactly what Progressive thought does. It prioritizes the wrong things for the right reasons. Like when it tries to cure cultural divides by enforced racism. Or when it tries to punish male sexual predators by casting all men as the problem. Or when it tries to enforce diversity through explicit discrimination.
In this case your brain is overwhelmed by the injustice of innocent children being raped. This sets off alarms that you cannot silence, even through the conveniently provided self-justifying lies of "privilege" and "rape culture." When it is white people, or men, or even better, just white and Asian men, you have been provided with a narrative that anesthetizes your injustice meter. Fortunately there isn't one for raping kids, at least not on this side of the Atlantic.
Glad to know you still know to draw the line somewhere. Those law enforcement officers in England were steeped in progressive thought with regard to "Asian immigrants" and they really lost their way.
Slashdot Mirror
100% human breeds with 100% human, generation after generation, and now someone thinks they are 50% this and 25% that, and so on?
This is the most ridiculously stupid concept I have ever seen you intergalactically backwards humans ever put forth in your already vast constellation of stunningly vapid intentional misconceptions of reality. When you ultimately wipe yourselves from the achingly beautiful paradise planet you were born onto because you are so monstrously bereft of intelligence you cannot recognize your own kin, the rest of the universe will rejoice for the rest of all eternity.
Hasten the day, you inept failure of a species, hasten the day.
Yeah, right.
And I tripped and fell getting out of the shower while washing my friend's bondage gear and somehow landed directly on one of those horse-cock shaped mega-dildos that randomly pop up all over the place. And that is why I am sporting these wet red leather chaps, my arms and torso are wrapped in this PVC straight jacket with nipple cutouts, there's a bondage hood covering my head, topped by an adulterated gas mask, the intake hose of which is duct taped to a mason jar full of amyl nitrate, and I have a four foot long museum grade realistic replica of some prehistoric stallion's phallus irretrievably lodged in my colon, Doctor.
Can he be holding Jeff Sessions when he falls?
Your scathingly incisive commentary on America's double standards, oppression, and outright racism towards Oompa Loompas and Cheetotians brings much needed illumination to the plight of ocher people everywhere. No one should be singled out because of the color of their skin, no matter how day-glo, flourescent, or garishly it clashes with every other color this side of Lovecraftian nightmares.
Seriously though, you make a really good point. There was so much overhead involved with discussing policy during the Obama years, it had a chilling effect on debate. Even discussing the economic advisability of passing the largest tax increase in history during a recessed economy could result in what seemed to be reasoned and intelligent people resorting to a canned "You're a racist!!!" remark designed to shut down any discourse.
I do enjoy the freedom to question and criticize the president without risking losing my job or being beaten up by an overreacting SJW, but the same irrational responses keep popping up when people try to discuss policy.
For instance, asking a questions like: "does the recent wave of nationalist sentiment throughout the western world, along with the "Washington outsider" Trump as president, provide the US with a political smoke screen dense and large enough to cover us while we readjust our manufacturing sector's global standing and address trade imbalances that will boost our economy for the long term, all the while maintaining a safe fall back position for entrenched political interests and parties who can plausibly distance themselves from Trump's policies once his term/s are over?" can still result in people calling you a "NAZI!" or saying "Thanks, Igor. Keep up the good work or we will make sure your babushka will glow bright enough to read Alexander Litvinenko's autopsy report in her Siberian dungeon cell."
All I can really say is that the shrill and outraged tone of what passes for political discourse these days is a far cry from anything productive, structured, or intelligent. Any public political statement more controversial than an open can of green beans will result in incoherent emotional rambling from a good portion of the respondents. In such a contentious, infantile, and unhinged atmosphere it is impossible to have meaningful discussions. I fear the result of this cultural shift to personal attacks as a viable response to political speech will result in silencing the most reasonable voices through self-censoring. Mature and educated individuals won't dare speak their minds. They have better things to do than deal with torrents of inane pejorative excrement flung at them by helplessly malfunctioning self-victimizing political illiterates. That leaves only the most strident, vicious, and ignorant with a voice.
I hope you have enjoyed this great experiment in liberty. We will be closing shortly. Please gather your shit and get the fuck out.
Excellent idea sir! I would rather my tax dollars go to a mega-fauna predator preserve than a wall. Plus you could sell the videos of "Bear vs. Tiger" and "Lion vs. Guatemalan family" on pay-per-view for a huuuuge profit.
They have all of the freedom, and free time...but no one to do it with, and no one to show them the way.
Their parents are all working their asses off to stay afloat.
Thank you Waffle Iron! You provided more novel information than the linked "news" article and you spurred me to learn something new today. Oddly, I had never rigorously defined "pesticide." When you stated it included herbicides and fungicides it instantly made sense, but in a surprising way that let me know I was missing something. So I looked it up. Surprise and joy ensued, again thank you! Repellents are included, as are microbial agents. I had no idea I was washing my hands with pesticide, haha!
From the Wikipedia:
The term pesticide includes all of the following: herbicide, insecticides (which may include insect growth regulators, termiticides, etc.) nematicide, molluscicide, piscicide, avicide, rodenticide, bactericide, insect repellent, animal repellent, antimicrobial, fungicide, disinfectant (antimicrobial), and sanitizer.
I assume when the article says the plants grow without earth there is some kind of nutrient resupply, possibly from human waste. I'm not sure because the FUCKING ARTICLE HAS NO FUCKING DETAILS...ahem, sorry for that outburst. Creating a sustainable, sealed, food producing system without any sanitization, disinfectants, or fungicide is really amazing.
If only there were some kind of news article we could read about it...
The incredibly sparse linked story was devoid of any relevant details. Apparently the plants take root in the air and spontaneously grow edible plant matter from a combination of nothing and nothing.
Also, why the effing hell would pesticides even need to be mentioned. In a sterile environment designed to replicate a space station or a habitable fabrication on another planet where the FUCKING FUCKITY FUCK FUCK would the insects come from?!?!? It's like the person who wrote this article was an intern at Monsanto and thinks that pesticides are a required nutrient or something.
Worst article ever. No revealing information on innovation, methods, or novelty. We are somehow stupider for having read it. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.
"What next? Sending troops and predators to the Mexican border?"
Yes, this is next. A permeable border is a strategic flaw that can lead to military incursion, but is more likely to be the source of economic and cultural warfare which will weaken, divide, and subvert a country. Any sensible country which possesses the economic and military wherewithal to defend their borders will do so.
It remains to be seen if the US will ever have such sensibility in its people and leaders.
Ban all guns in every adjacent state and they would come through the southern border.
If you're for gun control you need to be for an impermeable border with Mexico. If you aren't, you need to seriously rethink whatever the heck is going on in your head.
Humans are not bears?
Thank you for the delicate approach to recommending this book. I HATE spoilers, so much so that I won't watch trailers for movies I intend to see.
I enjoy all of the authors you mentioned so I will pick it up and most certainly enjoy it.
Nuke Facebook's servers from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
"...people had some expectations of how the data that they'd given to Facebook would be shared."
If Facebook users had any idea how much information Facebook has on them they would be incensed. If they knew how it was used they would be mortified and outraged. Facebook's entire value, and continuing existence, is predicated on the users never finding out how much data Facebook collects about them and how that data is used.
The misleading that Cambridge Analytical is accused of is pretty much common practice with any advertising-revenue based app you install. They are free because you pay with your human reality fingerprint: the imprint your behavior leaves on your electronic devices including where you go, what you do, what you say (ostensibly not voice communications), who you say it to, when you say it, who your parents are, who your friends are, what makes you mad, what makes you sad, what makes you happy, what makes you respond, what you say in response to what other people say, your word choice, your education level, your political affiliation, what you purchase, when you purchase it, how you pay for it, what advertising was delivered to you before you made the purchase, how you move your mouse on webpages, what search terms you use, how much time you spend on webpages, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Advertisers believe this information is the key to controlling your behavior.
When you click yes on an EULA for an app on your phone, chances are you give that app permission to access every other app on your phone and all of the data contained in those apps.
If you don't want your information misused, and you are a Facebook user, you aren't very smart. The whole intention of Facebook is to trick you into giving up your whole life to Facebook so they can sell it to people who have one purpose: to use asymmetric information disparity to intentionally control and manipulate you without your consent or knowledge. If that isn't the textbook definition of misuse I don't know what is.
Not to mention haunting. Hail fire, the universal cleanser.
I would imagine second or third generation self-driving cars will be networked together: transmitting obstacle information down the line to cars farther behind, around corners, etc. Having that capability will be inevitable in my opinion.
I can't see government passing up the opportunity to place "road safety cameras" along every street, ostensibly transmitting off-road pedestrian and obstacle movement details to the approaching cars, thereby preventing accidents just like the one that started this discussion. The resulting constant and pervasive population monitoring would just be a pleasant side effect for the new overlords.
Wow, it occurs to me that Facebook would probably put the cameras up themselves, free of charge, just so they could know even more about everyone. Fuck the future, man.
Blah blah blah...
In some cases, an appeal to a more fundamental principle is justified and which invalidates your your highfalutin "your argument is invalid" bullshit, namely this:
*What is good for the goose is good for the gander.*
Tu quoque is a misapplied method of argumentation when one person's wrongdoing is compared to another's similar wrongdoing. I posit that if both parties are doing exactly the same thing, and only one party is being held up for ridicule and discipline, this is not whataboutism or tu quoque. There is a deeper issue at work than some semantics and rules of rhetoric.
*To whit: selective enforcement;*
an intolerable injustice in a society based on the rule of law. That you would call it whatboutism is exact proof of the same. Your behavior is indistinguishable from someone who has completely ingested injustice in their being, and so deeply so that when presented with prima facie evidence of it you can't address or speak to it, choosing instead to use an invalid appeal to authority to avoid the conversation completely.
*You are attempting to steer the conversation toward a conclusion while intentionally avoiding gathering all of the facts.*
So, lets take it a step further and speak to the other, more personal (for you) issue at hand. In the discussion of the issue of misuse of Facebook information, pointing out all parties that engaged in this activity and incidents where this behavior occurred is abso-fucking-lutely funda-fucking-mental to addressing the issue as a whole. The only reason why you or anyone else would cry "whataboutism" as the full scope of the problem is being plumbed and probed is that the issue, for you, is not the misuse of personal information from Facebook at all. You don't actually care about misuse of personal information from Facebook. You just care about how a single incident of misuse affects the perception of a certain individual, group, or party you are opposed to, as evidenced by your inane and insipid attempts to redirect the conversation back to a certain person/group rather than the overarching issue of personal information and Facebook, and certainly not toward a full understanding of every incidence of this type of manipulative behavior.
*Bias, Bias, Bias.*
You are showing your hand you blithering dolt. Rank amateurs do better. Now, if you would like to have a fully fleshed out discussion of the issues of misuse of Facebook's data you could present some of your own examples of not only how this has occurred in other instances, but also how it was spun to the public, their reaction, etc. If you don't want to participate in the fact finding part of this discussion that is fine, but don't you dare presume the authority to shut down valid data points about the subject of Facebook spewing personal data for the manipulation of voters. It is counterproductive to the information space and fact field necessary to make honest, informed, and effective judgement about the issue and how to confront it.
TL;DR: STFU SHILL!!!
I can see this going the same way as all of my other "personal information," in the information age. Namely, all of the data about me will belong to entities that are not me. And from that ownership of my data, they will generate huge streams of income in perpetuity. I propose that this is a fucked up and ridiculous way to continue, especially with detailed medical data on an unprecedented level.
Without a change in this policy I would be lucky to receive nothing from this arrangement. This is highly unlikely though. If it goes like the other arrangements we have seen so far, my information will be covertly used in an attempt to manipulate and control me and others like me. My information will not be available to me. The effects of my information, how it is used, and to what purposes, is also kept from me.
In this case, my data could help cure cancer, prevent genetic diseases, extend life, eradicate obesity. The companies who used this data would become wealthy beyond current imagining. In return for providing the data used to create a new era in the practice of medicine, donors of their data would get to pay for the cures their data created. This is the fucked up part.
You want my data to fundamentally transform the medical field for all time? Cool. Put in writing that I and my descendants will receive full control over how my information is used. I don't want it sold to another country to create mind control drugs or new nerve agents. Second, any advancements that my data helps create are available to me and my descendants free of charge. Lastly, I want royalties payable to me and my descendants, in perpetuity, for any and every use of my data, and for any new treatments that come from my data.
Oh, you wanted all of this information for free, without strings attached? Go fuck yourself.
Creepy is only a problem if you are ugly. No one thinks you're creepy if they think you're hot. So, don't try to not be creepy, that is impossible. Instead, try being hot.
Barring that, keep an attorney around and have him do everything for you, as your council.
Wasn't Donald Trump supposed to put all of his money into an indexed fund when he received it decades ago, thereby guaranteeing he would be wealthier than he is now? It would also mean that he would never learn anything about business.
Apparently being rich and ignorant are core values of people who criticize Trump for his lack of foresight in not being a lazy ass bum who never had any ambition.
I laughed the laugh of helpless agreement, recognition, and irony at your post. Much appreciated! It reminded me of one my favorite sayings: "To have a perfect utopia all we have to do is kill all of the violent people."
It also brought up another thought. At some point in my life I was given a functional definition of religion, and a contrasting definition of spirituality. These definitions have been very helpful for me to reconcile how humans who "recognize" a higher power can manifest that same belief on a spectrum from brutal atrocity to beatific transcendence.
Religion: Humans attempting, through actions and thought, to make themselves acceptable to their higher power.
Religions require constant activity by the adherent in order to appease and succor their deity. Combine with the natural human propensity toward self-righteousness and you get a whole cascade of societal problems, starting with segregation and ostracism, and ending with religious states and extremist violence. If a pious devotee is convinced their deity constantly judges them, threatens them with punishment if they are not good enough, and is vengeful and destructive to those who transgress, is it any wonder that those beliefs will manifest in the world and result in behaviors that mimic that deity?
Spirituality: Knowing that your higher power accepts and loves you unconditionally.
This is the ace trump of religion. It destroys the notion that God needs your help, and kills at the root the fear motivation to perform ever greater acts of piety and devotion. As a viewpoint overlaid on the myriad of data points of human experience, it provides an example for those predisposed to theism which results in acceptance of others (i.e., be godlike, your god loves and accepts you, you should love and accept others) rather than condemnation and judgement.
Average American to the media: "We want more "human interest" stories with a positive outlook. Stop serving us divisive, sensational stories with no redeeming social value!"
{Clicks furiously on all of the divisive, sensational news stories with no redeeming social value}
The funny part is that the people accused of being anti-woman and anti-minority are the ones who are totally cool with women and minorities. It's the people who say they are on the side of women and minorities, fighting for their whatevers, that say women and minorities are not welcome. That is how they justify their screeching and screaming, name calling, and finger pointing.
What a conundrum. It is the anti-division advocates that create division.
Irrationally emotional self-righteous puritanical condemnation is something most Americans can get behind, and heartily support, regardless of whether or not they are part of the religious right. That is all the reasoning necessary to fire someone for participating in a consensual clandestine relationship with another adult. Not surprising that "morals clauses" in contracts were invented in the US.
If this were someplace civilized, like most of the rest of the world, no one would care, nor would they publicize such private matters as a huge scandal. For a country where we "value privacy" we sure like to dig into other people's business a whole hell of a lot.
Law enforcement wanted to make sure that the community of "Asian immigrants" was not negatively viewed by the public.
As a result they knowingly buried the investigations, stopped prosecution and arrests, and let these "Asian immigrants" continue to groom, abuse, drug, kidnap, sexually traffic, gang rape, and kill underage British children.
This is not what Progressive means, but it is exactly what Progressive thought does. It prioritizes the wrong things for the right reasons. Like when it tries to cure cultural divides by enforced racism. Or when it tries to punish male sexual predators by casting all men as the problem. Or when it tries to enforce diversity through explicit discrimination.
In this case your brain is overwhelmed by the injustice of innocent children being raped. This sets off alarms that you cannot silence, even through the conveniently provided self-justifying lies of "privilege" and "rape culture." When it is white people, or men, or even better, just white and Asian men, you have been provided with a narrative that anesthetizes your injustice meter. Fortunately there isn't one for raping kids, at least not on this side of the Atlantic.
Glad to know you still know to draw the line somewhere. Those law enforcement officers in England were steeped in progressive thought with regard to "Asian immigrants" and they really lost their way.