avatar is a good movie, well done. i saw it in theatres twice: in 3D, and not in 3D. both times were enjoyable stories. 3D had nothing to do with how good a movie avatar was, how well it did. it simply boosted sales numbers because there's a premium on 3D ticket prices. but even without that premium ticket cost avatar was a groundbreaking movie (the computer animation) and it was a story by james cameron that was greatly anticipated
the story was as good as cameron's other efforts like titanic and terminator. i know that there's a lot of mindless hate on the internet, and it makes a few strange gollum like creatures feel good about themselves by saying avatar sucks, for some ill defined ego reason. but its complete bullshit: avatar is a good movie, period, no 3D need apply to qualify that statement, and no stupid internet hate need apply. who says? not me. sales figures say so
when they made movies that were seen in cinema houses, which people bought tickets too. how quaint and historic
oh wait!
that's not history: the most profitable movie ever made, "avatar", just made a mint, less than a year ago, excluding all dvd sales. they made a massive profit in these quaint historic relics called "cinemas"
the cinema house is not a historic relic. it still works as a solid revenue generator and business model. i'm certain some strange gollum like creatures are happy watching movies alone in their cold basement on a 17 inch screen, but most of will go drive or walk to the cinema and pay to see movies, even with the cell phones and babies and expensive popcorn, its still a superior experience. they've even done sociological studies that all the oohs and aahs in the theatre alongside you in the dark heightens the movie going experience: we're social creatures, that someone else is crying or laughing or afraid heightens your enjoyment. it's the same sociology that drives people to go to church: shared emotional experience equals enjoyment (i know, this is probably the wrong website to talk about this social phenomenon)
cinemas, in other words, with the latest in IMAX tech, with their huge screens: you can't recreate that at home. cinema is a solid business. they said cinema houses were dead... in the 1950s. tv was supposed to kill them, it didn't. vhs tape was supposed to kill them, it didn't. and now the internet is supposed to kill the cinema. guess what: it's not. profits have been going up and up and up, no dvd sales, no internet streaming or cable deals needed
the mpaa is not protecting its existence, its protecting its dvd cash cow (which is already dying) and other cable deals/ internet ways to stream movies
but if they limited themselves to revenue just from theatres, and DID THEIR FUCKING JOB and protected the movie files form being pirated/ stolen from cinema houses... guess what? they would still make plenty of money to fund plenty of moviemaking from cinema houses. imagine that!
so basically: fuck you mpaa. stay in your cinema house, and don't mess with the internet. assholes
you are conflating the new legislation with horrible portentous meaning. the new legislation is not releasing the president from some sort of legal or moral obligation to act responsibly, but in fact the new legislation is binding the president more firmly to legal and moral obligations that are not currently spelled out
as if there is no CURRENT legislation that says the president can shut off the internet? there is!
so the new legislation is an IMPROVEMENT, not a step towards improper power, because the new proposed legislation addresses concerns, contingencies, and scenarios that aren't addressed under existing rules, already existing rules which currently grants the president all the powers people are fearful of
if you are arguing against the new internet kill switch legislation you are actually arguing against your own interests: it is legislation which more exactingly limits the president's abilities
caucasians? who cares about caucasians? this has nothing to do with race ("oh, but it does..." no, it really doesn't, all of my points are completely race neutral)
furthermore, i see the real problem now: we're way off track. back on track: yes, the usa is objectively superior to egypt, china, iran in terms of DOMESTIC RIGHTS, which was the point of my initial post
if you want to start getting into international behavior, then clearly the usa's slate is far more heinous
but now we're just wandering around large topics of conversation, which leads you to believe you can write conflationary crap like "Your initial post, how we are great and shouldn't be lumped together with such horrible places like Egypt or China or Iran... is indecent."
i followed you on this tangent about international behavior, which i shouldn't have, because conflating domestic rights and international behavior is not logically coherent, because they are separate subject matters
no, my point, which is 100% valid and not indecent, is the usa enjoys orders of magnitude better domestic rights than egypt or china or iran, and why talk of an internet kill switch by china or egypt or iran doesn't have anything to do with the usa at all, and isn't remotely comparable, because the usa is far, far superior to those countries in terms of domestic rights
i think what i was trying to say, which you twisted into this subject matter far beyond the initial purview, is that the usa's foreign policy should focus on nothing but bringing every other country's internal domestic policy's up to this level of strong rights, abandon the cold war strongmen. "fuck you" mubarak like we said "fuck you" marcos and should have said "fuck you" to the shah
some people conflate certain legislation with horrible portentous meaning. when they just don't even understand the legal landscape or common sense purposes. such that with the kill switch you have legislation which is not releasing the president from some sort of legal or moral obligation to act responsibly, but in fact the new legislation is binding the president more firmly to legal and moral obligations that are not currently spelled out
meaning some people complaining about the internet kill switch legislation are actually arguing against their own interests, for legislation which more exactingly limits the president's abilities
as if there is no CURRENT legislation that says the president can shut off the internet? there is! so the new legislation is an IMPROVEMENT, not a step towards improper power, because the new proposed legislation addresses concerns, contingencies, and scenarios that aren't addressed under existing rules, which currently grants the president all the powers people are fearful of
look i said it twice: "there are many problems with the american government"
do you want me to say it four more times?
i get the impression you read my words and thought "this jerkwad is saying that since china does something bad, it's ok the usa does something bad. well let me remind this jerkwad how much the usa really sucks"
no
what i am saying is: when china does something really bad, don't dismiss it because the usa does bad things too
THAT'S my point. i am not an apologist for the usa, i am not deflecting criticism of the usa. everything you wrote above is shameful about the usa
all i am saying is that there are times where some other country does something really heinous, and there are certain people who's first reaction is to not condemn that other country for doing that, but to criticize the usa instead. which just blows my mind. some people just can't think about the world's problems objectively. they are obsessed with the usa!
china's record is sufficiently heinous in internet rights to be used as a prime example:
i am asking you, when china is criticized, to not fire back about the usa's crimes
likewise: i am asking you, when the usa is criticized, to not fire back about china's crimes
i am asking you, criticize china AND the usa. BOTH. SEPARATELY. separate tracks. don't conflate and mix them up. the desire in some minds to conflate two countries separate crimes, that's a problem to me. to me, it is possible to hold both countries in contempt, on separate tracks, to different degrees of proportionality, and not try to mix their crimes up and try to form false equivalencies. get it?
false equivalency kneejerk thinking: 1. china or iran or egypt commits some crime 2. their first thought is "yeah but, the usa..." NO! fuck the usa! why are you babbling about the usa? are you obsessed?
the subject is the evil another country is doing, and if you can't think about those crimes of other countries without shoehorning the usa into your words, you are suffering from an unhealthy obsession. intellectual coherence means you can criticize all countries for the crimes they do in the world
i don't understand what you are saying. are you saying the ussr did less evil on the international front in the cold war? i don't believe that's true. and i honestly can't believe someone from behind the iron curtain would even suggest that, as you would know better than i the extent of the ussr's international crimes
the usa was fighting the spread of communism, yes? which, if you truly are from behind the iron curtain, i can see you supporting as a worthy goal. to achieve that goal, the usa did horrible things internationally. the legacy of those horrible relationships, like in egypt with mubarak, still exist to this day. and they should end, and the usa should be about its true principles, the spread of democracy
so if you want to settle vendettas, if you want to try the usa for cold war crimes and find them guilty, i will offer no defense, i will agree with you all of your charges. i don't understand what the point would be. do you want to punish the usa? what do you think would be achieved by pursuing such a trial?
but if you want to talk about what the usa should be doing instead, then we can have a more interesting conversation, because really, that's the only conversation that matters
this shit is a legacy of the cold war. the ussr did the same
that doesn't excuse this disgusting behavior. i agree with you: this shit better stop. it does no good anymore to get in bed with strongmen. the usa might be inclined to continue to do so in the middle east, but that only increases the people's hartred of the usa and makes the usa a valid target in their eyes
the only valid foreign policy for the usa is: spread democracy with soft power. its the only way to not appear a hypocrite. it might cost the usa, such as with trade with china, but the cost is less in the long run when you appear that you actually stand for some principles in this world
the american president is not going to cut off the internet and start goose stepping around the white house. this ranks right up there with other paranoid schizophrenic fantasies like rednecks with guns in the woods are going to save us from fascism. please stop mentioning the american internet kill switch in the same sentence as egypt, china, or iran. its just... dumb
we live in an abused, yes, compromised, yes, but still functioning democracy. meaning rule is by consent, not force and fear. any president who cuts off the internet is going to have to explain his or herself to the people who elected him or her. and the american people are still electing presidents (now comes the part where some genius complains about liberal media and propagandized morons or conservative media and propagandized morons... snore... thank you for thinking so lowly of your fellow citizens. oh where is your nonexistent utopia where every citizen is perfectly ideologically in tune with you as only an "educated" person would be?)
in egypt or china or iran the kill switch can be invoked, and then: you got a problem with that? there's no accountability to the people of those countries. if the people get angry, crack skulls until they cower again in fear (until blessedly, as the people in egypt show us, the people just aren't afraid anymore, and it is revealed to the world exactly why democracy, as messy as it is, is still so superior to despotism: its simply more stable because it manufactures legitimacy by consulting the people)
but fear is not how it works in the usa. really, mr. snarky teenager. do you feel afraid criticizing the us government on slashdot? oh, why not? maybe because you have that right AND THAT RIGHT IS RESPECTED. aka: you do not live in a society ruled by fear. want to test that? ok: try criticizing the chinese government in china or the iranian government in iran as vocally and as vociferously and as loudly and as repeatedly as some of you false equivalency geniuses, who think your democracy is just as bad as despotism. go ahead, go on with your bad self. what happens to squeaky wheels like you in iran, china, or egypt?
now that you understand the difference, please understand that the reasons for the use of an internet kill switch are for entirely different criteria in democracies versus despotic countries. a valid use: some armageddeon level ddos or a warhol virus, versus an invalid use: preventing the people from coordinating and rising up against their oppressors
look: there are many problems with the american government. i repeat: there are many problems with the american government. i am not an american apologist. but making snark about the american internet kill switch in the same breath as the policies of egypt, or iran, or china, governments clearly far, far worse in terms of the rights of its citizens, that doesn't advance any cause you believe in. it just makes you look stupid and either ungrateful for how well you have it, or simply naive and uneducated about how little rights people have in other countries
teenage level snark might get snickers from other snarky teenagers, but its not the path to valid commentary on your government or any other government in the world
it's not. what the bleep does that have to do with anything? we're talking in broad strokes, and broadly speaking, what i am saying is 100% accurate:
any movement, or movements, has core fanatics and a wider group of sort-of-interesteds. the group of core fanatics are always much smaller in number and generate the majority of effort in the name of the movement. remove them, and the core will grow back. but continuously remove the core, and you do, indeed, cripple anonymous. this is sociological reality, i'm sorry, and anonymous is part of reality, so it is subject to these same rules. it is not a science fiction concept like the borg from star trek. you CAN cripple anonymous. not that the forces crippling anonymous are invalid. not that anonymous is invalid. i am not making moral judgments about anonymous being good or bad, or the authorities being good or bad. i am merely describing the inescapable rules of reality that define anonymous's limitations, no matter how much idealists are excited about it
when i say that there is a core group of fanatics: do you deny this?
when i say the core is small: do you deny this?
when i say the core generates the majority if the movements output: do you deny this?
so if you shut down the core, you decimate the movement. no talk of rules and structures involved. it's a simple straightforward observation
any movement, or movements, has core fanatics and a wider group of sort-of-interesteds. the group of core fanatics are always much smaller in number and generate the majority of effort in the name of the movement. remove them, and the core will grow back. but continuously remove the core, and you do, indeed, cripple anonymous. this is sociological reality, i'm sorry, and anonymous is part of reality, so it is subject to these same rules. it is not a science fiction concept like the borg from star trek. you CAN cripple anonymous. not that the forces crippling anonymous are invalid. not that anonymous is invalid. i am not making moral judgments about anonymous being good or bad, or the authorities being good or bad. i am merely describing the inescapable rules of reality that define anonymous's limitations, no matter how much idealists are excited about it
no. if anonymous is composed of human beings, it is subject to the sociological rules of any other movement in history. that's just reality. i'm sorry if that doesn't get your philosophical rocks off, but we're talking about reality here, not some science fiction concept
uh.. you do realize if you talk that nebulously about anonymous, you are ceasing to be talking about anything at all. of COURSE anonymous is a movement with core fanatics and sort-of-interesteds, like any movement in history. if it gets your philosophical rocks off to talk about it like the borg from star trek, good for you. but so what? there's also the real world, where the sociological rules of any movement inevitably play out, that anonymous is most definitely subject to, i'm sorry to say, for the sake of your philosophical masturbatory purposes
the legitimacy of any movement is driven by the passion for the idea behind the movement. so something like the egyptian democracy movement, the passion is strong, and can, and should, bust any security apparatus to control it. well, al qaeda is also a movement, except the legitimacy behind the idea is not so valid, obviously
you talk like words are only pointed against disrupting good movements. but my words are neutral. they could just as well apply to al qaeda or child pornography distributors
comparing anonymous to egyptian democracy protestors might make you fell good, but what i am saying applies to ANY movement, good AND bad. you only think i am talking about authorities busting good movements. there's also bad movements, that SHOULD be busted. anonymous is more neutral in this category, simply because it has no real purpose or reason, unlike al qaeda or the egyptian democracy movement
the variables in play are the legitimacy and power of the authorities, and the legitimacy and the power of the movement. some movements aren't that powerful or legitimate. some authorities aren't that powerful or legitimate. but you comparing anonymous ONLY to the egyptian democracy movement is very suspect, merely because anonymous isn't nearly as noble or purpose driven as the egyptian democracy movement. anonymous isn't evil like al qaeda either. anonymous exists in the grey area in between
yes, you just defined what a movement is. which is what anonymous is, which is what i called them
(slaps forehead)
you think you're telling me something i don't know. you think i think anonymous has a physical location, a board of directors, and a command and control structure. i believe none of these things. there is no social coordination. i know that. like any other movement: pokemon cards, facebook, justin bieber fans, etc.
and in any of those movements, just like anonymous, there is a small core group of fanatics, and a much larger group of sort-of-interesteds. and in any of those movements, just like anonymous, if you remove the core group, you cripple the movement. really
it's kind of weird to say my mistake is to call them a movement, then you talk about things the movement is doing
anonymous IS a movement. all it takes is people acting in tandem. which is what anonymous is. its about similarity of behaviors, not a social structure. you are acting like my words have no meaning because i think anonymous is a corporate entity with a physical location, board of directors and command and control apparatus. i believe none of these things
another movement might be kids buying pokemon cards or facebook gaining members or teens going to a justin bieber concert. like facebook, or pokemon cards, or justin bieber fans, there is a large group of casual members of the movement, and there is a small core of fanatics. remove the core of fanatics AND YOU HURT THE GROWTH OF THE MOVEMENT
that's my point, and its a valid point, even if you don't understand what a movement is, and that anonymous IS a movement
anonymous is a movement. as such, it follows certain sociological rules. #1: in any movement, there is a small group of core fanatics, and a much larger group of one-offs and on-and-offs. same with wikipedia, or al qaeda, or drug gangs, or a whole set of other movements
now you could take out a portion of the core competency, and nothing will change. but if you tracked and profiled the core competency over time, and took them all out at once, you really would cripple the movement. yes, you would really cripple anonymous. that they are everyone and no one is mythology, not sociological fact. they are not the borg from start trek
however, since the "cause" of anonymous is so simplistic, others would quickly fill the void and anonymous would be back in action in no time. again, same with wikipedia or al qaeda or drug gangs, etc. but maybe not forever. if law enforcement keeps siphoning off the core fanatics, after 2,3,4x, anonymous will definitely be less influential. if you keep siphoning off the regular crop of persons who can do something with the idea of anonymous. law enforcement can profile, and cripple anonymous, by tracking its core competency, forever, and constantly hamstring it: the core fanatics of anonymous is a well that slowly refills over time. if law enforcement is constantly draining the well, anonymous as a potent force is permanently dimmed
the point is, you don't understand sociology, nor anonymous, if you don't understand that what anonymous is is primarily a core group of fanatics, with a much larger ring of sort-of-interesteds. remove the core, and you at least temporarily cripple the movment. continually remove the core as it tries to grow back, and you have permanently decimated the movement and weakened it to ineffectuality
rewritten? who is talking about rewriting anything? i said it 2x, now for a third time, maybe you will finally understand: if you commit a heinous crime, this pretty much outshines any positive contributions you made
do you understand?
that's what i am saying. stop putting words in my mouth
if you commit a heinous crime, this pretty much outshines any positive contributions you made. what is the problem you have with this basic concept of the reality of the world you live in?
Slashdot Mirror
i purposefully did not mention 3D in the comment you are replying to because i think 3D is a stupid fad:
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/11/01/25/2231254/3D-Cinema-Doesnt-Work-and-Never-Will
(look who submitted that story to slashdot)
avatar is a good movie, well done. i saw it in theatres twice: in 3D, and not in 3D. both times were enjoyable stories. 3D had nothing to do with how good a movie avatar was, how well it did. it simply boosted sales numbers because there's a premium on 3D ticket prices. but even without that premium ticket cost avatar was a groundbreaking movie (the computer animation) and it was a story by james cameron that was greatly anticipated
the story was as good as cameron's other efforts like titanic and terminator. i know that there's a lot of mindless hate on the internet, and it makes a few strange gollum like creatures feel good about themselves by saying avatar sucks, for some ill defined ego reason. but its complete bullshit: avatar is a good movie, period, no 3D need apply to qualify that statement, and no stupid internet hate need apply. who says? not me. sales figures say so
when they made movies that were seen in cinema houses, which people bought tickets too. how quaint and historic
oh wait!
that's not history: the most profitable movie ever made, "avatar", just made a mint, less than a year ago, excluding all dvd sales. they made a massive profit in these quaint historic relics called "cinemas"
the cinema house is not a historic relic. it still works as a solid revenue generator and business model. i'm certain some strange gollum like creatures are happy watching movies alone in their cold basement on a 17 inch screen, but most of will go drive or walk to the cinema and pay to see movies, even with the cell phones and babies and expensive popcorn, its still a superior experience. they've even done sociological studies that all the oohs and aahs in the theatre alongside you in the dark heightens the movie going experience: we're social creatures, that someone else is crying or laughing or afraid heightens your enjoyment. it's the same sociology that drives people to go to church: shared emotional experience equals enjoyment (i know, this is probably the wrong website to talk about this social phenomenon)
cinemas, in other words, with the latest in IMAX tech, with their huge screens: you can't recreate that at home. cinema is a solid business. they said cinema houses were dead... in the 1950s. tv was supposed to kill them, it didn't. vhs tape was supposed to kill them, it didn't. and now the internet is supposed to kill the cinema. guess what: it's not. profits have been going up and up and up, no dvd sales, no internet streaming or cable deals needed
the mpaa is not protecting its existence, its protecting its dvd cash cow (which is already dying) and other cable deals/ internet ways to stream movies
but if they limited themselves to revenue just from theatres, and DID THEIR FUCKING JOB and protected the movie files form being pirated/ stolen from cinema houses... guess what? they would still make plenty of money to fund plenty of moviemaking from cinema houses. imagine that!
so basically: fuck you mpaa. stay in your cinema house, and don't mess with the internet. assholes
i see in your words that paranoid schizophrenia has become more subtle too
you are conflating the new legislation with horrible portentous meaning. the new legislation is not releasing the president from some sort of legal or moral obligation to act responsibly, but in fact the new legislation is binding the president more firmly to legal and moral obligations that are not currently spelled out
as if there is no CURRENT legislation that says the president can shut off the internet? there is!
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1983954&cid=35127998
so the new legislation is an IMPROVEMENT, not a step towards improper power, because the new proposed legislation addresses concerns, contingencies, and scenarios that aren't addressed under existing rules, already existing rules which currently grants the president all the powers people are fearful of
if you are arguing against the new internet kill switch legislation you are actually arguing against your own interests: it is legislation which more exactingly limits the president's abilities
caucasians? who cares about caucasians? this has nothing to do with race ("oh, but it does..." no, it really doesn't, all of my points are completely race neutral)
furthermore, i see the real problem now: we're way off track. back on track: yes, the usa is objectively superior to egypt, china, iran in terms of DOMESTIC RIGHTS, which was the point of my initial post
if you want to start getting into international behavior, then clearly the usa's slate is far more heinous
but now we're just wandering around large topics of conversation, which leads you to believe you can write conflationary crap like "Your initial post, how we are great and shouldn't be lumped together with such horrible places like Egypt or China or Iran... is indecent."
i followed you on this tangent about international behavior, which i shouldn't have, because conflating domestic rights and international behavior is not logically coherent, because they are separate subject matters
no, my point, which is 100% valid and not indecent, is the usa enjoys orders of magnitude better domestic rights than egypt or china or iran, and why talk of an internet kill switch by china or egypt or iran doesn't have anything to do with the usa at all, and isn't remotely comparable, because the usa is far, far superior to those countries in terms of domestic rights
i think what i was trying to say, which you twisted into this subject matter far beyond the initial purview, is that the usa's foreign policy should focus on nothing but bringing every other country's internal domestic policy's up to this level of strong rights, abandon the cold war strongmen. "fuck you" mubarak like we said "fuck you" marcos and should have said "fuck you" to the shah
mod parent up
some people conflate certain legislation with horrible portentous meaning. when they just don't even understand the legal landscape or common sense purposes. such that with the kill switch you have legislation which is not releasing the president from some sort of legal or moral obligation to act responsibly, but in fact the new legislation is binding the president more firmly to legal and moral obligations that are not currently spelled out
meaning some people complaining about the internet kill switch legislation are actually arguing against their own interests, for legislation which more exactingly limits the president's abilities
as if there is no CURRENT legislation that says the president can shut off the internet? there is! so the new legislation is an IMPROVEMENT, not a step towards improper power, because the new proposed legislation addresses concerns, contingencies, and scenarios that aren't addressed under existing rules, which currently grants the president all the powers people are fearful of
look i said it twice: "there are many problems with the american government"
do you want me to say it four more times?
i get the impression you read my words and thought "this jerkwad is saying that since china does something bad, it's ok the usa does something bad. well let me remind this jerkwad how much the usa really sucks"
no
what i am saying is: when china does something really bad, don't dismiss it because the usa does bad things too
THAT'S my point. i am not an apologist for the usa, i am not deflecting criticism of the usa. everything you wrote above is shameful about the usa
all i am saying is that there are times where some other country does something really heinous, and there are certain people who's first reaction is to not condemn that other country for doing that, but to criticize the usa instead. which just blows my mind. some people just can't think about the world's problems objectively. they are obsessed with the usa!
china's record is sufficiently heinous in internet rights to be used as a prime example:
i am asking you, when china is criticized, to not fire back about the usa's crimes
likewise: i am asking you, when the usa is criticized, to not fire back about china's crimes
i am asking you, criticize china AND the usa. BOTH. SEPARATELY. separate tracks. don't conflate and mix them up. the desire in some minds to conflate two countries separate crimes, that's a problem to me. to me, it is possible to hold both countries in contempt, on separate tracks, to different degrees of proportionality, and not try to mix their crimes up and try to form false equivalencies. get it?
false equivalency kneejerk thinking:
1. china or iran or egypt commits some crime
2. their first thought is "yeah but, the usa..." NO! fuck the usa! why are you babbling about the usa? are you obsessed?
the subject is the evil another country is doing, and if you can't think about those crimes of other countries without shoehorning the usa into your words, you are suffering from an unhealthy obsession. intellectual coherence means you can criticize all countries for the crimes they do in the world
i don't understand what you are saying. are you saying the ussr did less evil on the international front in the cold war? i don't believe that's true. and i honestly can't believe someone from behind the iron curtain would even suggest that, as you would know better than i the extent of the ussr's international crimes
the usa was fighting the spread of communism, yes? which, if you truly are from behind the iron curtain, i can see you supporting as a worthy goal. to achieve that goal, the usa did horrible things internationally. the legacy of those horrible relationships, like in egypt with mubarak, still exist to this day. and they should end, and the usa should be about its true principles, the spread of democracy
so if you want to settle vendettas, if you want to try the usa for cold war crimes and find them guilty, i will offer no defense, i will agree with you all of your charges. i don't understand what the point would be. do you want to punish the usa? what do you think would be achieved by pursuing such a trial?
but if you want to talk about what the usa should be doing instead, then we can have a more interesting conversation, because really, that's the only conversation that matters
you know, people actually voted, and their votes were tallied, and the tally determined the president. sorry about that, i guess?
this shit is a legacy of the cold war. the ussr did the same
that doesn't excuse this disgusting behavior. i agree with you: this shit better stop. it does no good anymore to get in bed with strongmen. the usa might be inclined to continue to do so in the middle east, but that only increases the people's hartred of the usa and makes the usa a valid target in their eyes
the only valid foreign policy for the usa is: spread democracy with soft power. its the only way to not appear a hypocrite. it might cost the usa, such as with trade with china, but the cost is less in the long run when you appear that you actually stand for some principles in this world
the american president is not going to cut off the internet and start goose stepping around the white house. this ranks right up there with other paranoid schizophrenic fantasies like rednecks with guns in the woods are going to save us from fascism. please stop mentioning the american internet kill switch in the same sentence as egypt, china, or iran. its just... dumb
we live in an abused, yes, compromised, yes, but still functioning democracy. meaning rule is by consent, not force and fear. any president who cuts off the internet is going to have to explain his or herself to the people who elected him or her. and the american people are still electing presidents (now comes the part where some genius complains about liberal media and propagandized morons or conservative media and propagandized morons... snore... thank you for thinking so lowly of your fellow citizens. oh where is your nonexistent utopia where every citizen is perfectly ideologically in tune with you as only an "educated" person would be?)
in egypt or china or iran the kill switch can be invoked, and then: you got a problem with that? there's no accountability to the people of those countries. if the people get angry, crack skulls until they cower again in fear (until blessedly, as the people in egypt show us, the people just aren't afraid anymore, and it is revealed to the world exactly why democracy, as messy as it is, is still so superior to despotism: its simply more stable because it manufactures legitimacy by consulting the people)
but fear is not how it works in the usa. really, mr. snarky teenager. do you feel afraid criticizing the us government on slashdot? oh, why not? maybe because you have that right AND THAT RIGHT IS RESPECTED. aka: you do not live in a society ruled by fear. want to test that? ok: try criticizing the chinese government in china or the iranian government in iran as vocally and as vociferously and as loudly and as repeatedly as some of you false equivalency geniuses, who think your democracy is just as bad as despotism. go ahead, go on with your bad self. what happens to squeaky wheels like you in iran, china, or egypt?
now that you understand the difference, please understand that the reasons for the use of an internet kill switch are for entirely different criteria in democracies versus despotic countries. a valid use: some armageddeon level ddos or a warhol virus, versus an invalid use: preventing the people from coordinating and rising up against their oppressors
look: there are many problems with the american government. i repeat: there are many problems with the american government. i am not an american apologist. but making snark about the american internet kill switch in the same breath as the policies of egypt, or iran, or china, governments clearly far, far worse in terms of the rights of its citizens, that doesn't advance any cause you believe in. it just makes you look stupid and either ungrateful for how well you have it, or simply naive and uneducated about how little rights people have in other countries
teenage level snark might get snickers from other snarky teenagers, but its not the path to valid commentary on your government or any other government in the world
it's not. what the bleep does that have to do with anything? we're talking in broad strokes, and broadly speaking, what i am saying is 100% accurate:
any movement, or movements, has core fanatics and a wider group of sort-of-interesteds. the group of core fanatics are always much smaller in number and generate the majority of effort in the name of the movement. remove them, and the core will grow back. but continuously remove the core, and you do, indeed, cripple anonymous. this is sociological reality, i'm sorry, and anonymous is part of reality, so it is subject to these same rules. it is not a science fiction concept like the borg from star trek. you CAN cripple anonymous. not that the forces crippling anonymous are invalid. not that anonymous is invalid. i am not making moral judgments about anonymous being good or bad, or the authorities being good or bad. i am merely describing the inescapable rules of reality that define anonymous's limitations, no matter how much idealists are excited about it
when i say that there is a core group of fanatics: do you deny this?
when i say the core is small: do you deny this?
when i say the core generates the majority if the movements output: do you deny this?
so if you shut down the core, you decimate the movement. no talk of rules and structures involved. it's a simple straightforward observation
any movement, or movements, has core fanatics and a wider group of sort-of-interesteds. the group of core fanatics are always much smaller in number and generate the majority of effort in the name of the movement. remove them, and the core will grow back. but continuously remove the core, and you do, indeed, cripple anonymous. this is sociological reality, i'm sorry, and anonymous is part of reality, so it is subject to these same rules. it is not a science fiction concept like the borg from star trek. you CAN cripple anonymous. not that the forces crippling anonymous are invalid. not that anonymous is invalid. i am not making moral judgments about anonymous being good or bad, or the authorities being good or bad. i am merely describing the inescapable rules of reality that define anonymous's limitations, no matter how much idealists are excited about it
no. if anonymous is composed of human beings, it is subject to the sociological rules of any other movement in history. that's just reality. i'm sorry if that doesn't get your philosophical rocks off, but we're talking about reality here, not some science fiction concept
uh.. you do realize if you talk that nebulously about anonymous, you are ceasing to be talking about anything at all. of COURSE anonymous is a movement with core fanatics and sort-of-interesteds, like any movement in history. if it gets your philosophical rocks off to talk about it like the borg from star trek, good for you. but so what? there's also the real world, where the sociological rules of any movement inevitably play out, that anonymous is most definitely subject to, i'm sorry to say, for the sake of your philosophical masturbatory purposes
the legitimacy of any movement is driven by the passion for the idea behind the movement. so something like the egyptian democracy movement, the passion is strong, and can, and should, bust any security apparatus to control it. well, al qaeda is also a movement, except the legitimacy behind the idea is not so valid, obviously
you talk like words are only pointed against disrupting good movements. but my words are neutral. they could just as well apply to al qaeda or child pornography distributors
comparing anonymous to egyptian democracy protestors might make you fell good, but what i am saying applies to ANY movement, good AND bad. you only think i am talking about authorities busting good movements. there's also bad movements, that SHOULD be busted. anonymous is more neutral in this category, simply because it has no real purpose or reason, unlike al qaeda or the egyptian democracy movement
the variables in play are the legitimacy and power of the authorities, and the legitimacy and the power of the movement. some movements aren't that powerful or legitimate. some authorities aren't that powerful or legitimate. but you comparing anonymous ONLY to the egyptian democracy movement is very suspect, merely because anonymous isn't nearly as noble or purpose driven as the egyptian democracy movement. anonymous isn't evil like al qaeda either. anonymous exists in the grey area in between
yes, you just defined what a movement is. which is what anonymous is, which is what i called them
(slaps forehead)
you think you're telling me something i don't know. you think i think anonymous has a physical location, a board of directors, and a command and control structure. i believe none of these things. there is no social coordination. i know that. like any other movement: pokemon cards, facebook, justin bieber fans, etc.
and in any of those movements, just like anonymous, there is a small core group of fanatics, and a much larger group of sort-of-interesteds. and in any of those movements, just like anonymous, if you remove the core group, you cripple the movement. really
it's kind of weird to say my mistake is to call them a movement, then you talk about things the movement is doing
anonymous IS a movement. all it takes is people acting in tandem. which is what anonymous is. its about similarity of behaviors, not a social structure. you are acting like my words have no meaning because i think anonymous is a corporate entity with a physical location, board of directors and command and control apparatus. i believe none of these things
another movement might be kids buying pokemon cards or facebook gaining members or teens going to a justin bieber concert. like facebook, or pokemon cards, or justin bieber fans, there is a large group of casual members of the movement, and there is a small core of fanatics. remove the core of fanatics AND YOU HURT THE GROWTH OF THE MOVEMENT
that's my point, and its a valid point, even if you don't understand what a movement is, and that anonymous IS a movement
anonymous is a movement. as such, it follows certain sociological rules. #1: in any movement, there is a small group of core fanatics, and a much larger group of one-offs and on-and-offs. same with wikipedia, or al qaeda, or drug gangs, or a whole set of other movements
now you could take out a portion of the core competency, and nothing will change. but if you tracked and profiled the core competency over time, and took them all out at once, you really would cripple the movement. yes, you would really cripple anonymous. that they are everyone and no one is mythology, not sociological fact. they are not the borg from start trek
however, since the "cause" of anonymous is so simplistic, others would quickly fill the void and anonymous would be back in action in no time. again, same with wikipedia or al qaeda or drug gangs, etc. but maybe not forever. if law enforcement keeps siphoning off the core fanatics, after 2,3,4x, anonymous will definitely be less influential. if you keep siphoning off the regular crop of persons who can do something with the idea of anonymous. law enforcement can profile, and cripple anonymous, by tracking its core competency, forever, and constantly hamstring it: the core fanatics of anonymous is a well that slowly refills over time. if law enforcement is constantly draining the well, anonymous as a potent force is permanently dimmed
the point is, you don't understand sociology, nor anonymous, if you don't understand that what anonymous is is primarily a core group of fanatics, with a much larger ring of sort-of-interesteds. remove the core, and you at least temporarily cripple the movment. continually remove the core as it tries to grow back, and you have permanently decimated the movement and weakened it to ineffectuality
no damnit!
gerokelptocracy: rule of government by old seaweed
don't twist my words! ;-)
what the fuck are you babbling about?
rewritten? who is talking about rewriting anything? i said it 2x, now for a third time, maybe you will finally understand: if you commit a heinous crime, this pretty much outshines any positive contributions you made
do you understand?
that's what i am saying. stop putting words in my mouth
what are you babbling about?
if you commit a heinous crime, this pretty much outshines any positive contributions you made. what is the problem you have with this basic concept of the reality of the world you live in?
so in other words, you endorse stasi style rule by fear... in order to get rid of the stasi?
you're a moron, you know that?
see this guy?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser
he made a great file system. he's also a MURDERING SCUMBAG. guess what? HIS STATUS AS MURDERING SCUMBAG OBLITERATES EVERYTHING ELSE HE DID
welcome to reality, get used to it
"Just one aspect of a person's actions taints everything else about them in your mind? "
uh... YES!
you're fucking insane. really you are
see this guy?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser
he made a great file system. he's also a MURDERING SCUMBAG. guess what? HIS STATUS AS MURDERING SCUMBAG OBLITERATES EVERYTHING ELSE HE DID
welcome to reality