You will see some responses to this comment of mine attempting to falsely equate Chinese authoritarian control of political opinion with various vile things the West does. Don't get me wrong: the West does plenty of evil things and there is plenty I criticize about my government. The difference is: they can express this political opinion of theirs freely, here in the West, and ironically, as they indulge false equivalency, they do not admit or do not know they would experience fear and intimidation if they tried to equally criticize Beijing, from within China.
I myself disagree with those who falsely believe that the West is just as bad as China in regards to suppression of freedoms, but I fully support their right to spout their nonsense, unhindered by fear of government backlash.
see how I inoculated my comment against yours?
it's so easy to see you braindead false equivalency idiots coming a mile away. i'm sure you didn't even read my comment before formulating your useless mental vomit
We distrust and dislike your authoritarian government. We do not want your government to have more power in the world. Not because we are afraid of or oppose the empowerment of China on the world stage, or have anything against Chinese culture or Chinese people. But because we oppose authoritarian government, of any kind, from any part of the world.
We DO have a built in prejudice against your government (not against you), because your government clearly attempts to control and manipulate communication channels. Yes, they also manipulate communication channels in the West, but not for state control of political dialogue.
We in the West believe the ability to express our political opinions freely is very important to the health of our society, that is how and why we call our society free (despite the fact some of our media companies are trying to hurt our freedoms on our communication structure in the effort to prop a media business model that only works in a world without the Internet: don't worry, they will clearly fail, their efforts are the death throes of a dying way of business).
You will see some responses to this comment of mine attempting to falsely equate Chinese authoritarian control of political opinion with various vile things the West does. Don't get me wrong: the West does plenty of evil things and there is plenty I criticize about my government. The difference is: they can express this political opinion of theirs freely, here in the West, and ironically, as they indulge false equivalency, they do not admit or do not know they would experience fear and intimidation if they tried to equally criticize Beijing, from within China.
I myself disagree with those who falsely believe that the West is just as bad as China in regards to suppression of freedoms, but I fully support their right to spout their nonsense, unhindered by fear of government backlash. Here in the West, we believe that the natural competition of ideas that only comes from every single one of them being freely expressed, NATURALLY leads to the flawed opinions sinking and the good opinions rising. Only in this natural competition of ideas do good ones endure the test of criticism and one fail it. If the state attempts to impose its own idea son the people, the state itself might wind up imposing ideas that are flawed, because they are unexamined. The people know better than the state, in this way. In other words, state control of politicla thought is a form of weakness that will eventually harm China.
So Chinese people: since you cannot likewise criticize your own government freely within China, do you not have a problem with this fact? If you are proud to be Chinese, as you should be, do you not believe you should be free to speak your mind like I can in your effort to make China strong as a Chinese patriot?
Chinese people: please understand that we in the West respect the Chinese people and wish you prosperity and freedom. And so we await the day you respect yourselves as well to not be treated like slaves by your own government, and to throw off the yolk of the efforts at mind control which exists in Beijing, pointed against the Chinese people and the free expression of your own thoughts, an effort whose only purpose is to serve the continuation of a power structure that is not necessarily good for China, only good for a few rich and connected Chinese at the detriment of all other Chinese.
Sure, this authoritarian power structure has done great things for you economically. But growth doesn't last forever, and when your economy fully matures, I am confident you finally turn your attention to freeing yourselves from the authoritarian government who wants to control your mind and your thoughts.
that simple fact alone makes it pretty addictive, psychopharmacologically. see: methamphetamine
i don't know why it is so important to you to belittle cocaine's power, but you are obviously wrong
perhaps you enjoy coca leaf tea, or munching on coca leaves with lime. in such aboriginal use scenarios, cocaine is ok, because it is weak, no worse than coffee. but modern technology has intervened. in most of the world, tea or leaf with lime is not the way it is consumed: it is concentrated and taken in crack or powder or paste form, sniffed or smoked, giving a strong rush and feelings of invincibility and alertness. the addictiveness profile is strong and large in this use scenario
these are pretty objective statements of mine, but go ahead and call me part of a blind political backlash if it suits you. but it seems you are the one with some sort of agenda or prejudice on cocaine, as your opinion on it's addictive strength is clearly and objectively wrong
the USA weathered a crack epidemic in the 80s and 90s which devastated communities. cocaine continues to devastate argentina, uruguay, and brazil as "paco":
do you understand their position? any hand holding required for you to understand that they will do anything in their power to gain marketshare and extract more money from consumers, no matter how flawed the lame premise? or do you actually agree with them on their premise(!? you may, i don't know the depths of your propagandized blindness here)
scenario #1, no regulation: verizon raises prices on you, and squashes competition. do you deny this?
scenario #2: the government yes, get's more power, in YOUR name, as a citizen of a DEMOCRATIC country, in SPECIFIC and WELL-DEFINED ways (see net neutrality, above). do you understand that?
and it uses that specific power, granted to it by YOU, to curtail the power of verizon to abuse you as it sees fit, beholden as it is to the bottom line at all costs
is there anything unclear to you? do you require any more simpleton level explanation as you have requested?
regulatory capture: verizon, et al dictating to the fcc regulations that only reward large entrenched players
genuine effective regulating power: net neutrality
problem: corporations manipulating politicians with financial donations
moron's solution, planted in their minds by corporate propaganda channels like Faux News: get rid of government regulation, thereby ensuring verizon et al abuses consumers and smaller players completely unhindered. "because regulations ruin capitalism." no: MONOPOLIES and OLIGOPOLIES ruin capitalism, genuine effective government regulation ensures an even playing field between small players and large players and protects consumers. but corporate cash warps the regulatory bodies to serve their will. that's the real problem
so real solution: get rid of corporate financial meddling in our government. is it easy? hell no, money is opiate. but since when was the right thing to do easy?
wake up, Faux News propagandized morons and free market fundamentalist true believers
"the government is sick so let's kill the government and reward all power to the disease that sickens it"
my counter argument:
genuine effective regulating power replacing regulatory capture. i didn't say it was easy. the opiate of corporate cash makes it hard
but take away regulating power, and then nothing remains between the monopoly/ oligopoly and complete subjugation of the consumer and domination of the market by abuse of smaller upstart competitors by the big players
anything else i can help you with today, anonymous asshole?
the solution is NOT "to take the regulating power away from the government"
the solution is to have genuine effective regulating power. i didn't say it was easy. the opiate of corporate cash makes it hard
but take away regulating power, and then nothing remains between the monopoly/ oligopoly and complete subjugation of the consumer and domination of the market by abuse of smaller upstart competitors by the big players
i never understood this insane idea that so many people have:
"the government is sick so let's kill the government and reward all power to the disease that sickens it"
marijuana, alcohol, lsd, mushrooms, etc., should be legal because they do not easily addict (although you shouldn't use drugs that produce strong hallucinations without a babysitter, and the irresponsible assholes that do will mean these drugs will stay illegal)
but strongly addicting and inebriating substances (this excludes nicotine, because it is not strongly inebriating), such as heroin, cocaine, meth, etc., when made easily and freely available, become the "solution" to many more people for the average problems of life, to the point they can no longer maintain a job and a relationship, and the "solution" becomes a much larger life destroying problem
of course, you can still get these drugs, but there are financial and distribution barriers to acquiring them, which means these drugs destroy far less lives than if they were legal and freely available. the war on drugs will never be perfect. that's not the point. marijuana should be made legal and the highly addicting and inebriating substances should be focused on more effectively. to simply keep the addict population as low as is possible. that's the point
also of course, for those who are addicted, HEATH CARE, not incarceration, is the key to rebuilding destroyed lives
but i will never understand, and never respect, the blind idealistic opinions of people who only consider the evil effects of prohibition on society, and do not consider the far greater evil effects of highly addicting + inebriating drugs themselves on destroyed lives. and for those of you who say it is your right to destroy your life if you want, you don't ever do that in a vacuum, you drag your family, friends, community, and random innocents who you hit with your car while inebriated or you wind up stealing from to support your habit (right, like government should hand out free drugs, like i want my tax dollars to bankroll your empty life: no i want to bankroll your recovery)
no one has infinite willpower, everyone has moments of weakness, and most people don't act with responsibility (especially in regards to drugs, since that is the whole point: escape from responsibility and the stress). and when something like cocaine or heroin or meth becomes more easily available during those times of weakness we all have because some magically thinking society made them legal, you have introduced a permanently hobbling deficit on many more people's lives. if you don't understand this phenomenon, stop talking about drug policy, as you know absolutely nothing about drugs, or are being dishonest in the service of your own blindness on the subject, perhaps even your own addiction or addictive personality
more than war, slavery, government brutality: drugs have destroyed more human lives in the history of homo sapiens. understand that, or understand nothing about the subject
intellectual property law is ripe for a complete overhaul. and if the rent seeking litigious parasites have bought enough politicians that movement on this common sense issue is impossible, than the people via civil disobedience will undermine and destroy the financial basis for their contrived destructive existence
death to intellectual property law. undermine it, subvert it, destroy it. deny the trolls their oxygen: destroy their flows of money by ruining or bypassing the control structures in the internet world they rely on to extract their extortion
this will be the story of the 21st century when they write the history books in the 22nd
roll up your sleeves, we have work to do. death to intellectual property
Of course I don't support some assholes opening their own sandwich shop called McDonalds across from a real McDonalds. This is valid intellectual property law. This is a core concern. But we have gone FAR FAR away from this example. Your error is in thinking this basic obvious protection has anything to do with the far overreaching absurd "protections" like thinking use of the abstract word "metro" for a retailer and a piece of software falls under the same logic.
You don't admit that with 70 year copyright extensions, and a completely unrelated use of a common word, that things in the world of intellectual property are a complete farce, only useful to litigious rent seeking parasites?
the story of capitalism is mostly a story of manipulating markets unfairly and cheating
but if i am going to skewer the quasireligion known as free market fundamentalism, where unicorns and pixie dust mean all markets are free until governments get involved (lol!), you have to start by contrasting the myths and idealistic attitudes of the capitalism groupies with the ugly reality of how things actually work, and maybe the how and why their faith based belief system is so wrong will eventually dawn on them. i know, most of them have permanently closed dim minds beyond redemption and critical thinking skills, but there are always an honest few younguns who can still see reason
i believe that control of your information is the only valid form of "intellectual property" control. in other words, if i am a major hollywood studio, and i have the files for my new film that no one else has seen, if someone steals those files, i would be the first to support prosecution of the thief. what i do not support is that once the studio releases that movie to the internet, that they have a right to control how those files are used on your computer. if a studio releases the files to projectionists at theaters, they also retain control: they can screen people who enter theater and confiscate recording equipment. that's fair too
you believe i am a hypocrite because i don't share with you information. this is a gross mischaracterization of what i believe and proves you an ignorant simpleton on the subject matter
no, i would only be a hypocrite if i shared with you information, and then thought i was still entitled to dictate to you how you use that information once it is under your control
you don't win arguments by misunderstanding what someone stands for
1. by working hard and providing attractive product: ok
2. by embedding yourself as an oligopolisitc rent seeking parasite on the political landscape: not ok *
* but by #2 cloaking itself falsely as a capitalist force like #1, and spreading propaganda to that effect, riling up fools who believe that nonsense, such as with healthcare insurance, we can remain embedded in the body politic, and siphon off cash in a noncapitalistic way, all the while protected by idiots who think they are championing capitalism
yes, and it is easier to just to hold up your hands and exit your own car and leave the keys in the ignition when a gun is stuck in your face at a stop light
not that this situation is right, and not that a litigious troll should be allowed to claim "metro"
Slashdot Mirror
from the comment you are responding to:
see how I inoculated my comment against yours?
it's so easy to see you braindead false equivalency idiots coming a mile away. i'm sure you didn't even read my comment before formulating your useless mental vomit
There is nothing shrill in what I said. My words were even tempered and rational. The same can not be said for your words. Grow up.
We do not distrust you, we do not dislike you.
We distrust and dislike your authoritarian government. We do not want your government to have more power in the world. Not because we are afraid of or oppose the empowerment of China on the world stage, or have anything against Chinese culture or Chinese people. But because we oppose authoritarian government, of any kind, from any part of the world.
We DO have a built in prejudice against your government (not against you), because your government clearly attempts to control and manipulate communication channels. Yes, they also manipulate communication channels in the West, but not for state control of political dialogue.
We in the West believe the ability to express our political opinions freely is very important to the health of our society, that is how and why we call our society free (despite the fact some of our media companies are trying to hurt our freedoms on our communication structure in the effort to prop a media business model that only works in a world without the Internet: don't worry, they will clearly fail, their efforts are the death throes of a dying way of business).
You will see some responses to this comment of mine attempting to falsely equate Chinese authoritarian control of political opinion with various vile things the West does. Don't get me wrong: the West does plenty of evil things and there is plenty I criticize about my government. The difference is: they can express this political opinion of theirs freely, here in the West, and ironically, as they indulge false equivalency, they do not admit or do not know they would experience fear and intimidation if they tried to equally criticize Beijing, from within China.
I myself disagree with those who falsely believe that the West is just as bad as China in regards to suppression of freedoms, but I fully support their right to spout their nonsense, unhindered by fear of government backlash. Here in the West, we believe that the natural competition of ideas that only comes from every single one of them being freely expressed, NATURALLY leads to the flawed opinions sinking and the good opinions rising. Only in this natural competition of ideas do good ones endure the test of criticism and one fail it. If the state attempts to impose its own idea son the people, the state itself might wind up imposing ideas that are flawed, because they are unexamined. The people know better than the state, in this way. In other words, state control of politicla thought is a form of weakness that will eventually harm China.
So Chinese people: since you cannot likewise criticize your own government freely within China, do you not have a problem with this fact? If you are proud to be Chinese, as you should be, do you not believe you should be free to speak your mind like I can in your effort to make China strong as a Chinese patriot?
Chinese people: please understand that we in the West respect the Chinese people and wish you prosperity and freedom. And so we await the day you respect yourselves as well to not be treated like slaves by your own government, and to throw off the yolk of the efforts at mind control which exists in Beijing, pointed against the Chinese people and the free expression of your own thoughts, an effort whose only purpose is to serve the continuation of a power structure that is not necessarily good for China, only good for a few rich and connected Chinese at the detriment of all other Chinese.
Sure, this authoritarian power structure has done great things for you economically. But growth doesn't last forever, and when your economy fully matures, I am confident you finally turn your attention to freeing yourselves from the authoritarian government who wants to control your mind and your thoughts.
no, arguing with A.L.I.C.E. would make more sense
furthermore, computers may some day persuasively mimic an intelligent person, but i propose a corollary to the turing test:
no computer could ever sound as stupid as a genuine human moron. genuine human-style stupidity is far more difficult to fake than human intelligence
that simple fact alone makes it pretty addictive, psychopharmacologically. see: methamphetamine
i don't know why it is so important to you to belittle cocaine's power, but you are obviously wrong
perhaps you enjoy coca leaf tea, or munching on coca leaves with lime. in such aboriginal use scenarios, cocaine is ok, because it is weak, no worse than coffee. but modern technology has intervened. in most of the world, tea or leaf with lime is not the way it is consumed: it is concentrated and taken in crack or powder or paste form, sniffed or smoked, giving a strong rush and feelings of invincibility and alertness. the addictiveness profile is strong and large in this use scenario
these are pretty objective statements of mine, but go ahead and call me part of a blind political backlash if it suits you. but it seems you are the one with some sort of agenda or prejudice on cocaine, as your opinion on it's addictive strength is clearly and objectively wrong
the USA weathered a crack epidemic in the 80s and 90s which devastated communities. cocaine continues to devastate argentina, uruguay, and brazil as "paco":
http://www.argentinaindependent.com/feature/paco-drug-epidemic-sweeping-the-streets-of-argentina/
you should educate yourself about how powerful cocaine is. your current opinion wrongly dismisses the obvious power of a highly addictive substance
it's like arguing with a creationist!
"Your solution gives HBO and Time Warner more power, the government more power, and less liberty to me"
that is the opposite of what i am saying. here is my argument: you are a moron. you are not worth my time. good luck with your WHARGARBBBLLL existence
hold your hand and explain it like to a toddler, since this is apparently what you want
this is net neutrality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
can you read and understand that? or do you need that concept broken down for you as well?
this is what verizon thinks:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/verizon-net-neutrality-violates-our-free-speech-rights/
do you understand their position? any hand holding required for you to understand that they will do anything in their power to gain marketshare and extract more money from consumers, no matter how flawed the lame premise? or do you actually agree with them on their premise(!? you may, i don't know the depths of your propagandized blindness here)
scenario #1, no regulation: verizon raises prices on you, and squashes competition. do you deny this?
scenario #2: the government yes, get's more power, in YOUR name, as a citizen of a DEMOCRATIC country, in SPECIFIC and WELL-DEFINED ways (see net neutrality, above). do you understand that?
and it uses that specific power, granted to it by YOU, to curtail the power of verizon to abuse you as it sees fit, beholden as it is to the bottom line at all costs
is there anything unclear to you? do you require any more simpleton level explanation as you have requested?
i just gave you an example with the fcc and net neutrality. what was wrong with that example? i can't do your thinking for you
SHHHHH!!!!
that particular supertroll has failed to notice this thread so far
do not awaken the mindless creature
example: fcc
regulatory capture: verizon, et al dictating to the fcc regulations that only reward large entrenched players
genuine effective regulating power: net neutrality
problem: corporations manipulating politicians with financial donations
moron's solution, planted in their minds by corporate propaganda channels like Faux News: get rid of government regulation, thereby ensuring verizon et al abuses consumers and smaller players completely unhindered. "because regulations ruin capitalism." no: MONOPOLIES and OLIGOPOLIES ruin capitalism, genuine effective government regulation ensures an even playing field between small players and large players and protects consumers. but corporate cash warps the regulatory bodies to serve their will. that's the real problem
so real solution: get rid of corporate financial meddling in our government. is it easy? hell no, money is opiate. but since when was the right thing to do easy?
wake up, Faux News propagandized morons and free market fundamentalist true believers
the argument of the real retards:
"the government is sick so let's kill the government and reward all power to the disease that sickens it"
my counter argument:
genuine effective regulating power replacing regulatory capture. i didn't say it was easy. the opiate of corporate cash makes it hard
but take away regulating power, and then nothing remains between the monopoly/ oligopoly and complete subjugation of the consumer and domination of the market by abuse of smaller upstart competitors by the big players
anything else i can help you with today, anonymous asshole?
the solution is NOT "to take the regulating power away from the government"
the solution is to have genuine effective regulating power. i didn't say it was easy. the opiate of corporate cash makes it hard
but take away regulating power, and then nothing remains between the monopoly/ oligopoly and complete subjugation of the consumer and domination of the market by abuse of smaller upstart competitors by the big players
i never understood this insane idea that so many people have:
"the government is sick so let's kill the government and reward all power to the disease that sickens it"
seriously?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
marijuana, alcohol, lsd, mushrooms, etc., should be legal because they do not easily addict (although you shouldn't use drugs that produce strong hallucinations without a babysitter, and the irresponsible assholes that do will mean these drugs will stay illegal)
but strongly addicting and inebriating substances (this excludes nicotine, because it is not strongly inebriating), such as heroin, cocaine, meth, etc., when made easily and freely available, become the "solution" to many more people for the average problems of life, to the point they can no longer maintain a job and a relationship, and the "solution" becomes a much larger life destroying problem
of course, you can still get these drugs, but there are financial and distribution barriers to acquiring them, which means these drugs destroy far less lives than if they were legal and freely available. the war on drugs will never be perfect. that's not the point. marijuana should be made legal and the highly addicting and inebriating substances should be focused on more effectively. to simply keep the addict population as low as is possible. that's the point
also of course, for those who are addicted, HEATH CARE, not incarceration, is the key to rebuilding destroyed lives
but i will never understand, and never respect, the blind idealistic opinions of people who only consider the evil effects of prohibition on society, and do not consider the far greater evil effects of highly addicting + inebriating drugs themselves on destroyed lives. and for those of you who say it is your right to destroy your life if you want, you don't ever do that in a vacuum, you drag your family, friends, community, and random innocents who you hit with your car while inebriated or you wind up stealing from to support your habit (right, like government should hand out free drugs, like i want my tax dollars to bankroll your empty life: no i want to bankroll your recovery)
no one has infinite willpower, everyone has moments of weakness, and most people don't act with responsibility (especially in regards to drugs, since that is the whole point: escape from responsibility and the stress). and when something like cocaine or heroin or meth becomes more easily available during those times of weakness we all have because some magically thinking society made them legal, you have introduced a permanently hobbling deficit on many more people's lives. if you don't understand this phenomenon, stop talking about drug policy, as you know absolutely nothing about drugs, or are being dishonest in the service of your own blindness on the subject, perhaps even your own addiction or addictive personality
more than war, slavery, government brutality: drugs have destroyed more human lives in the history of homo sapiens. understand that, or understand nothing about the subject
government is the source of all problems in the market!
without government around, the large players will treat small players and consumers nicely!
free market fundamentalist WHARGARBBBLLL...
(the last remark should indicate that i am being facetious to those who are humor impaired)
the story for the last decade or so in regards to intellectual property is how it is being extended into the realm of farce
therefore is incumbent on you to admit it is failing, rather than incumbent on me to explain my problem with the whole rotten scheme
"If they have time to watch porn, then the position they are filling is not required."
Filling various positions is required in porn worth watching.
stupid, useless, and absurd
intellectual property law is ripe for a complete overhaul. and if the rent seeking litigious parasites have bought enough politicians that movement on this common sense issue is impossible, than the people via civil disobedience will undermine and destroy the financial basis for their contrived destructive existence
death to intellectual property law. undermine it, subvert it, destroy it. deny the trolls their oxygen: destroy their flows of money by ruining or bypassing the control structures in the internet world they rely on to extract their extortion
this will be the story of the 21st century when they write the history books in the 22nd
roll up your sleeves, we have work to do. death to intellectual property
I agree 100%.
Of course I don't support some assholes opening their own sandwich shop called McDonalds across from a real McDonalds. This is valid intellectual property law. This is a core concern. But we have gone FAR FAR away from this example. Your error is in thinking this basic obvious protection has anything to do with the far overreaching absurd "protections" like thinking use of the abstract word "metro" for a retailer and a piece of software falls under the same logic.
You don't admit that with 70 year copyright extensions, and a completely unrelated use of a common word, that things in the world of intellectual property are a complete farce, only useful to litigious rent seeking parasites?
i agree
the story of capitalism is mostly a story of manipulating markets unfairly and cheating
but if i am going to skewer the quasireligion known as free market fundamentalism, where unicorns and pixie dust mean all markets are free until governments get involved (lol!), you have to start by contrasting the myths and idealistic attitudes of the capitalism groupies with the ugly reality of how things actually work, and maybe the how and why their faith based belief system is so wrong will eventually dawn on them. i know, most of them have permanently closed dim minds beyond redemption and critical thinking skills, but there are always an honest few younguns who can still see reason
you don't win arguments based on grossly mischaracterizing what people believe and what their past actions represent
not that that stops demagogues from exactly doing that: grossly mischaracterizing situations for simpletons and thereby manipulating their actions
thanks for showing this phenomenon in action and proving a warning example to anyone with a still functional critical thinking capacity
i believe that control of your information is the only valid form of "intellectual property" control. in other words, if i am a major hollywood studio, and i have the files for my new film that no one else has seen, if someone steals those files, i would be the first to support prosecution of the thief. what i do not support is that once the studio releases that movie to the internet, that they have a right to control how those files are used on your computer. if a studio releases the files to projectionists at theaters, they also retain control: they can screen people who enter theater and confiscate recording equipment. that's fair too
you believe i am a hypocrite because i don't share with you information. this is a gross mischaracterization of what i believe and proves you an ignorant simpleton on the subject matter
no, i would only be a hypocrite if i shared with you information, and then thought i was still entitled to dictate to you how you use that information once it is under your control
you don't win arguments by misunderstanding what someone stands for
1. by working hard and providing attractive product: ok
2. by embedding yourself as an oligopolisitc rent seeking parasite on the political landscape: not ok *
* but by #2 cloaking itself falsely as a capitalist force like #1, and spreading propaganda to that effect, riling up fools who believe that nonsense, such as with healthcare insurance, we can remain embedded in the body politic, and siphon off cash in a noncapitalistic way, all the while protected by idiots who think they are championing capitalism
Anyone eating official Taco Bell food--prepare for an ass wiping!
yes, and it is easier to just to hold up your hands and exit your own car and leave the keys in the ignition when a gun is stuck in your face at a stop light
not that this situation is right, and not that a litigious troll should be allowed to claim "metro"