That it's a damn good idea to keep government and economics as separate as possible. If you put the government in charge of the economy, then the same psychopaths have control of both government and industry. Right now we at least have the possibility of competition between the economic psychos and the government psychos, so we can get them fighting each other instead of us.
Counter-counterpoint: that's something everyone can see. I think women are more social than men. You can get women to geek out on something like photography, or fashion design, the end result of which is seen and appreciated by other women. But programming? Nobody gives a shit about your clever little algorithm or the vexxing bug that took 2 days to track down. Programming is mostly a solitary, lonely pursuit that no one gives a shit about.
Counter-counter-counterpoint: with the advent of twitch streaming-type stuff for programmers (I've seen this mentioned on slashdot before, where some coders will livestream their coding session and talk about what they're doing and why) this could actually become a social activity that would attract more women. At this point there will definitely be an issue with sexism, because the chat screen will be filled with demands the programmer show everyone her tits.
That's a great idea, but I think you'll still wind up with fewer women interested in programming. Being interested in programming means you're willing to spend hours and hours alone in front of a screen, cursing in frustration at life, the universe and everything. Few men and fewer women voluntarily put up with that kind of abuse.
There will never be a point, though, when the feminists say "oh, women just don't want to do these shitty jobs." They'll still blame the men.
Because the "programming" most women did was laboriously transcribing algorithms written by men onto the punch cards. Those women were replaced by compilers.
It's the beginning of the end for Hollywood, IMO. Their model can only support smash blockbusters, and now they're out of them.
But the blockbusters are still making a billion dollars each. Transformers makes money. The new Star Wars are forgettable crap but they make money.
Saying it's the "beginning of the end" when they're still pulling in billions is like Yoga Bera's restaurant nobody goes to anymore because it's too crowded.
No, but why wouldn't they be able to subpoena you, in the US, to produce something from the Tuscany home? They're acting on you, in the US, not on the home, in Tuscany.
Yes you are. Very lefty-like of you. Leftists love to generalize. Makes it easier for them to dehumanize and push broad one-size-fits-all policies and (so called) solutions
I also eat, drink, and shit like a lefty. Do you do those things also?
So not so different from the majority of religions that have come and gone.
All I'm saying is the religious systems last longer. Some have lasted for thousands of years. No commie state is going to make it more than 3-4 generations, and the areligious western left will be gone soon, also.
Yet religious and non-religious alike fear the possibility that the NEXT commie regime would be 1984, where the boot will stomp on the face forever
If you're so sure communism will fail every time, then the level of fear of communism displayed by both religious and non-religious alike is irrational.
No, no one thinks the next commie regime will last forever, except retarded commies. People who want to avoid communism do so because they know it's doomed to failure. It's also a totalitarian hell while you're in it. Setting yourself on fire is guaranteed to fail if your goal is "keep living." Pretty miserable while you're dying from it, too. Is fear of setting yourself on fire irrational?
Second, science being useless for ethics does not automatically mean religion is somehow better. That is a false dilemma.
Wait, so you concede science is useless for ethics (which you absolutely should unless you can overturn Hume, in which case you should be world famous). So on the "usefulness for ethics" scale it scores a zero. Since religion is useful for ethics, then yes it's absolutely, undeniably better. The dullest knife in the world is more useful for slicing bread than a bowl of jell-o which cannot slice at all. Where is the false dilemma?
A great number of religious people are those things too. In fact, religious people love to take credit for those things. Abolition, civil rights, today's social justice movements
We've been over this before, and I already established why abolition was not at all anti-racist and the civil rights movement is complicated. However, you have this real bug up your ass to conflate SJWs and Christians, which makes no sense. If Christianity was SJW-y, then SJWs would be Christians, and they're not, and the Christians would be SJWs, and they're not. SJWs are pink-haired feminist landwhales screaming at "The Patriarchy," and The Patriarchy IS Christianity! They're completely anti-Christian. And the Christians can't stand them! Where on earth did you get this idea, and have you ever succeeded in convincing anyone else it's true?
Again, the few religions that managed to survive for thousands of years are the exceptions, not the rule. Religion has a very high failure rate, almost as high as that of the godless commies.
So, every commie system fails within 3-4 generations, but we have several major religions that have survived thousands of years (and are still going strong), and you're claiming that's equivalent? How can something that always fails after a relatively short time be as good as several things that have survived for orders of magnitude longer and not failed yet? Does not follow my friend. Does not follow.
I understand you don't like religion, or don't have one, or whatever, but you need to come to grips with the fact that non-religious societies don't last near as long as religious societies.
If your definition of being better or more useful is better than the commies, well... that's like saying you're smarter than a retard.
What does that say about the dying secular western world, that seems like it'll last about as long as the commies did? Equal to retards? I can agree with that.
"Nobody jihads for science?" That's a compliment.
It won't be considered a compliment in the history books the victorious Islamists write on the conquest of secular Europe.
Well, my kid sure didn't like hearing their messages at least. When my son was 3 his only exposure to video had been nature documentaries and sesame street on Netflix. Then one day he paid attention to some show my wife and I were watching on Hulu, a commercial came on and he screamed "I DON'T LIKE THIS SHOW CHANGE IT!" So at least he developed "disgust for advertising" at an early age.
What is control, though? Societal pressure, incentives, disincentives, threat of ostraciziation. These don't require guns. And force was rarely used or necessary. Society expected women to act one way and men another, and it pretty well worked out, and people were happy. Women too. You mentioned the happiness of women, and, well, surveys show women women were happier in the 1950s as housewives than they are in the 2010s in the workforce. It's almost like the vast majority of jobs fucking suck, and being at home baking cookies for lovable children is more rewarding than spending 8 hours a day in a cubicle at the call center. Huh.
And the people who are opposed to societal pressure towards traditional gender roles today don't seem to be interested in ending control. We see stories every week on Slashdot asking "how do we encourage more girls to get into coding and STEM?" That pressure is not an absence of control, it's just control directed away from productive and fulfilling activity in the home towards the stifling drudgery of the cube farm.
The culture that adopts the method of control that produces mothers and men with mates will thrive while the culture that adopts the method of control that produces office drones and bitter lonely men will die. But there is no society without controls. You don't think there is, do you? Because that would be sad.
Of course. I'm making extremely broad generalizations and then you're putting out exceptions (like priests and nuns, really?!) that prove my general rule.
No, it could happen. If the godless commies take over, they could purge the religious, and it would be the religious who die off. And a commie take over is totally within the realm of possibility. That's something both religious and non-religious agree on.
And then the godless commie society collapses after a few generations because it doesn't work. It does every single time. It's not a useful ideology. See Russia, with its shrinking population that's only starting to turn around now that the Russian Orthodox Church is gaining steam. We'll see what happens with China, but I only give them another 30 years.
Except few people practice ancient Egyptian religion. Or that of worshiping Zeus or any other pagan religions that have come and gone. Of the hundreds if not thousands or more religions that have ever existed, only a handful of them lasted thousands of years. This doesn't mean the few that survived are correct. This means that religion has a high failure rate in figuring out what you "ought" to do.
And they got replaced by other religions, not areligion. I never said any of these religions were correct, just that they're useful, and far more useful than nothing. Something beats nothing every time, but that doesn't mean that something is correct, perfect, absolutely true, or that there isn't a better something.
Furthermore, I thought religion isn't about matters of flesh, but deals with matters of the spirit and soul?
Yes, exactly. How you ought to act, not what is. Spirit and soul is behavior, flesh is just what is. And as Hume proved, you can't derive an ought from an is. This is why science is useless as a basis for ethics. The best you can do is use science to identify effective or ineffective plans for achieving your goals, but that just kicks the can to a non-scientific evaluation of whether your goals are "good" or not. And the vast majority of the practitioners of Sciencism I see don't even do that, as they tend to be anti-racists, anti-sexists, and pro-homosexuality despite the science supporting none of those positions. You can't get a more useless ideology than the worship of what is while being completely wrong about what is.
And I have no idea what you mean by your last paragraph. I'm not arguing for or against the existence of God or gods. I'm essentially making a fascist argument for religion: religion is effective, and certainly more effective than areligion. If areligion were effective western europe wouldn't be falling to Islam, but it is. Nobody jihads for science.
What does it matter who owns the shipping box, when the letters are still in the another country?
Because if the shipping box is owned by an entity under the jurisdiction of US laws (a US citizen or corporation) they can be ordered to retrieve it? They're not ordering a foreigner or a foreign government to do anything.
I agree with you. I think it's a great name. People will actually pay some attention to what antarctic explorer Boaty McBoatface does. If it were named something reasonable and boring we wouldn't be talking about it now. And given that the internet named it, they seriously dodged a bullet. I'm shocked it's not named "The SS Hitler Did Nothing Wrong."
Sounds like you gave up all chances of having a normal private life for 4 years to become a company drone.
Yeah but for 4 years, and look at all the money he saved. That's "putting yourself through college" money. No you're not going to do that and raise a family, but if you're poor or an immigrant and need to bootstrap yourself? That's a damn good opportunity.
Shouldn't it depend on who owns the servers? If the overseas servers are owned by a branch of Google incorporated in the US, then serve the warrant against the US corporation. If the servers are owned by a branch of Google incorporated in a foreign nation then the FBI should go through Interpol to obtain a warrant in the jurisdiction in which the servers/corporation are located.
Sigh. "No, you are the one who is the brainwashed." This is your argument. You don't have one. You just wildly claim things are "proven facts" with no proof or even a statement of fact.
Here's my proven fact: religious civilizations out-compete areligious civilizations on long time scales, as evidenced by almost every major civilization in existence today being religious, while the civilizations which have lost their religion shrink and their population is replaced by the still-breeding religious.
You: "Nuh uh you're wrong it's a proven fact I don't have to provide any evidence or give any argument you're brainwashed."
You're the one who can't put a coherent argument together. Sounds like brainwashing to me.
But what exactly do you propose we do, based on information in Vault 7 part 1. "Aha! Thanks to document A, we now know the CIA violated law B and Constitutional principle C!" Please fill in A, B, and C for me. And maybe what action, D, we should take in response.
This thread:
Me: "I don't like the CIA, but there's nothing damning in Vault 7 so far."
Slashdot: "Be angry!"
Me: "About what specifically?"
Slashdot: "Things!!!!"
Help me out here. Sure, fuck the CIA in general, but what about Vault 7 (so far) is fuckworthy?
None of that made any sense. Also, you know that "tired and poor" shit is just a poem written by some lady, right? It's cute but has nothing to do with American policy or culture.
Ahh the joys of American exceptionalism and delusions
That's not at all what American exceptionalism means.
Everyone realises that the core of the program is to spy upon every potential politician or political activists and to blackmail them into serving the demands of the US military Industrial complex, specifically the North American Territorial Occupation farce - NATO and it's intelligence services tied to contractors and the CIA.
I can mostly agree with that. But the question is "why aren't people freaking over Vault 7" and I gave you the answer: Vault 7 (part 1) doesn't contain any evidence of the bad stuff you're talking about. If it does, please link me to the relevant documents.
Now I'm eagerly hoping part 2 will contain something like "here's the transcript of a phone call we illegally intercepted between Senator Bumblefuck and John Defensecontractorman." But part 1 doesn't have anything like that, so it's a yawn for the general public.
Slashdot Mirror
What does this tell us about our economic system?
That it's a damn good idea to keep government and economics as separate as possible. If you put the government in charge of the economy, then the same psychopaths have control of both government and industry. Right now we at least have the possibility of competition between the economic psychos and the government psychos, so we can get them fighting each other instead of us.
Counter-counterpoint: that's something everyone can see. I think women are more social than men. You can get women to geek out on something like photography, or fashion design, the end result of which is seen and appreciated by other women. But programming? Nobody gives a shit about your clever little algorithm or the vexxing bug that took 2 days to track down. Programming is mostly a solitary, lonely pursuit that no one gives a shit about.
Counter-counter-counterpoint: with the advent of twitch streaming-type stuff for programmers (I've seen this mentioned on slashdot before, where some coders will livestream their coding session and talk about what they're doing and why) this could actually become a social activity that would attract more women. At this point there will definitely be an issue with sexism, because the chat screen will be filled with demands the programmer show everyone her tits.
Grow up.
No, I will continue to make jokes, and your toxic leftism will not stop me.
Jesus fucking christ I think you're a god-damned monster.
That's not really an argument.
That's a great idea, but I think you'll still wind up with fewer women interested in programming. Being interested in programming means you're willing to spend hours and hours alone in front of a screen, cursing in frustration at life, the universe and everything. Few men and fewer women voluntarily put up with that kind of abuse.
There will never be a point, though, when the feminists say "oh, women just don't want to do these shitty jobs." They'll still blame the men.
However, something like 95% of workplace-related deaths are men. We need to close the death gap by killing more women.
why did women fall out of IT/Programming roles?
Because the "programming" most women did was laboriously transcribing algorithms written by men onto the punch cards. Those women were replaced by compilers.
It's the beginning of the end for Hollywood, IMO. Their model can only support smash blockbusters, and now they're out of them.
But the blockbusters are still making a billion dollars each. Transformers makes money. The new Star Wars are forgettable crap but they make money.
Saying it's the "beginning of the end" when they're still pulling in billions is like Yoga Bera's restaurant nobody goes to anymore because it's too crowded.
"Ball-In-the-Cup: This time, it's personal. Coming 2019."
The industrial revolution turned women into factory drones? Huh.
No, but why wouldn't they be able to subpoena you, in the US, to produce something from the Tuscany home? They're acting on you, in the US, not on the home, in Tuscany.
Yes you are. Very lefty-like of you. Leftists love to generalize. Makes it easier for them to dehumanize and push broad one-size-fits-all policies and (so called) solutions
I also eat, drink, and shit like a lefty. Do you do those things also?
So not so different from the majority of religions that have come and gone.
All I'm saying is the religious systems last longer. Some have lasted for thousands of years. No commie state is going to make it more than 3-4 generations, and the areligious western left will be gone soon, also.
Yet religious and non-religious alike fear the possibility that the NEXT commie regime would be 1984, where the boot will stomp on the face forever
If you're so sure communism will fail every time, then the level of fear of communism displayed by both religious and non-religious alike is irrational.
No, no one thinks the next commie regime will last forever, except retarded commies. People who want to avoid communism do so because they know it's doomed to failure. It's also a totalitarian hell while you're in it. Setting yourself on fire is guaranteed to fail if your goal is "keep living." Pretty miserable while you're dying from it, too. Is fear of setting yourself on fire irrational?
Second, science being useless for ethics does not automatically mean religion is somehow better. That is a false dilemma.
Wait, so you concede science is useless for ethics (which you absolutely should unless you can overturn Hume, in which case you should be world famous). So on the "usefulness for ethics" scale it scores a zero. Since religion is useful for ethics, then yes it's absolutely, undeniably better. The dullest knife in the world is more useful for slicing bread than a bowl of jell-o which cannot slice at all. Where is the false dilemma?
A great number of religious people are those things too. In fact, religious people love to take credit for those things. Abolition, civil rights, today's social justice movements
We've been over this before, and I already established why abolition was not at all anti-racist and the civil rights movement is complicated. However, you have this real bug up your ass to conflate SJWs and Christians, which makes no sense. If Christianity was SJW-y, then SJWs would be Christians, and they're not, and the Christians would be SJWs, and they're not. SJWs are pink-haired feminist landwhales screaming at "The Patriarchy," and The Patriarchy IS Christianity! They're completely anti-Christian. And the Christians can't stand them! Where on earth did you get this idea, and have you ever succeeded in convincing anyone else it's true?
Again, the few religions that managed to survive for thousands of years are the exceptions, not the rule. Religion has a very high failure rate, almost as high as that of the godless commies.
So, every commie system fails within 3-4 generations, but we have several major religions that have survived thousands of years (and are still going strong), and you're claiming that's equivalent? How can something that always fails after a relatively short time be as good as several things that have survived for orders of magnitude longer and not failed yet? Does not follow my friend. Does not follow.
I understand you don't like religion, or don't have one, or whatever, but you need to come to grips with the fact that non-religious societies don't last near as long as religious societies.
If your definition of being better or more useful is better than the commies, well... that's like saying you're smarter than a retard.
What does that say about the dying secular western world, that seems like it'll last about as long as the commies did? Equal to retards? I can agree with that.
"Nobody jihads for science?" That's a compliment.
It won't be considered a compliment in the history books the victorious Islamists write on the conquest of secular Europe.
Trollhunters was okay, but have you seen the new Netflix Voltron series? It's phenomenal. Story, art, voice acting, whole package.
Well, my kid sure didn't like hearing their messages at least. When my son was 3 his only exposure to video had been nature documentaries and sesame street on Netflix. Then one day he paid attention to some show my wife and I were watching on Hulu, a commercial came on and he screamed "I DON'T LIKE THIS SHOW CHANGE IT!" So at least he developed "disgust for advertising" at an early age.
What is control, though? Societal pressure, incentives, disincentives, threat of ostraciziation. These don't require guns. And force was rarely used or necessary. Society expected women to act one way and men another, and it pretty well worked out, and people were happy. Women too. You mentioned the happiness of women, and, well, surveys show women women were happier in the 1950s as housewives than they are in the 2010s in the workforce. It's almost like the vast majority of jobs fucking suck, and being at home baking cookies for lovable children is more rewarding than spending 8 hours a day in a cubicle at the call center. Huh.
And the people who are opposed to societal pressure towards traditional gender roles today don't seem to be interested in ending control. We see stories every week on Slashdot asking "how do we encourage more girls to get into coding and STEM?" That pressure is not an absence of control, it's just control directed away from productive and fulfilling activity in the home towards the stifling drudgery of the cube farm.
The culture that adopts the method of control that produces mothers and men with mates will thrive while the culture that adopts the method of control that produces office drones and bitter lonely men will die. But there is no society without controls. You don't think there is, do you? Because that would be sad.
They fall into a spectrum.
Of course. I'm making extremely broad generalizations and then you're putting out exceptions (like priests and nuns, really?!) that prove my general rule.
No, it could happen. If the godless commies take over, they could purge the religious, and it would be the religious who die off. And a commie take over is totally within the realm of possibility. That's something both religious and non-religious agree on.
And then the godless commie society collapses after a few generations because it doesn't work. It does every single time. It's not a useful ideology. See Russia, with its shrinking population that's only starting to turn around now that the Russian Orthodox Church is gaining steam. We'll see what happens with China, but I only give them another 30 years.
Except few people practice ancient Egyptian religion. Or that of worshiping Zeus or any other pagan religions that have come and gone. Of the hundreds if not thousands or more religions that have ever existed, only a handful of them lasted thousands of years. This doesn't mean the few that survived are correct. This means that religion has a high failure rate in figuring out what you "ought" to do.
And they got replaced by other religions, not areligion. I never said any of these religions were correct, just that they're useful, and far more useful than nothing. Something beats nothing every time, but that doesn't mean that something is correct, perfect, absolutely true, or that there isn't a better something.
Furthermore, I thought religion isn't about matters of flesh, but deals with matters of the spirit and soul?
Yes, exactly. How you ought to act, not what is. Spirit and soul is behavior, flesh is just what is. And as Hume proved, you can't derive an ought from an is. This is why science is useless as a basis for ethics. The best you can do is use science to identify effective or ineffective plans for achieving your goals, but that just kicks the can to a non-scientific evaluation of whether your goals are "good" or not. And the vast majority of the practitioners of Sciencism I see don't even do that, as they tend to be anti-racists, anti-sexists, and pro-homosexuality despite the science supporting none of those positions. You can't get a more useless ideology than the worship of what is while being completely wrong about what is.
And I have no idea what you mean by your last paragraph. I'm not arguing for or against the existence of God or gods. I'm essentially making a fascist argument for religion: religion is effective, and certainly more effective than areligion. If areligion were effective western europe wouldn't be falling to Islam, but it is. Nobody jihads for science.
What does it matter who owns the shipping box, when the letters are still in the another country?
Because if the shipping box is owned by an entity under the jurisdiction of US laws (a US citizen or corporation) they can be ordered to retrieve it? They're not ordering a foreigner or a foreign government to do anything.
That's not the same as protecting people.
Kinda similar, right? And remember I said their "alleged" purpose.
I agree with you. I think it's a great name. People will actually pay some attention to what antarctic explorer Boaty McBoatface does. If it were named something reasonable and boring we wouldn't be talking about it now. And given that the internet named it, they seriously dodged a bullet. I'm shocked it's not named "The SS Hitler Did Nothing Wrong."
Sounds like you gave up all chances of having a normal private life for 4 years to become a company drone.
Yeah but for 4 years, and look at all the money he saved. That's "putting yourself through college" money. No you're not going to do that and raise a family, but if you're poor or an immigrant and need to bootstrap yourself? That's a damn good opportunity.
Shouldn't it depend on who owns the servers? If the overseas servers are owned by a branch of Google incorporated in the US, then serve the warrant against the US corporation. If the servers are owned by a branch of Google incorporated in a foreign nation then the FBI should go through Interpol to obtain a warrant in the jurisdiction in which the servers/corporation are located.
Sigh. "No, you are the one who is the brainwashed." This is your argument. You don't have one. You just wildly claim things are "proven facts" with no proof or even a statement of fact.
Here's my proven fact: religious civilizations out-compete areligious civilizations on long time scales, as evidenced by almost every major civilization in existence today being religious, while the civilizations which have lost their religion shrink and their population is replaced by the still-breeding religious.
You: "Nuh uh you're wrong it's a proven fact I don't have to provide any evidence or give any argument you're brainwashed."
You're the one who can't put a coherent argument together. Sounds like brainwashing to me.
But what exactly do you propose we do, based on information in Vault 7 part 1. "Aha! Thanks to document A, we now know the CIA violated law B and Constitutional principle C!" Please fill in A, B, and C for me. And maybe what action, D, we should take in response.
This thread:
Me: "I don't like the CIA, but there's nothing damning in Vault 7 so far."
Slashdot: "Be angry!"
Me: "About what specifically?"
Slashdot: "Things!!!!"
Help me out here. Sure, fuck the CIA in general, but what about Vault 7 (so far) is fuckworthy?
None of that made any sense. Also, you know that "tired and poor" shit is just a poem written by some lady, right? It's cute but has nothing to do with American policy or culture.
Ahh the joys of American exceptionalism and delusions
That's not at all what American exceptionalism means.
Everyone realises that the core of the program is to spy upon every potential politician or political activists and to blackmail them into serving the demands of the US military Industrial complex, specifically the North American Territorial Occupation farce - NATO and it's intelligence services tied to contractors and the CIA.
I can mostly agree with that. But the question is "why aren't people freaking over Vault 7" and I gave you the answer: Vault 7 (part 1) doesn't contain any evidence of the bad stuff you're talking about. If it does, please link me to the relevant documents.
Now I'm eagerly hoping part 2 will contain something like "here's the transcript of a phone call we illegally intercepted between Senator Bumblefuck and John Defensecontractorman." But part 1 doesn't have anything like that, so it's a yawn for the general public.