"so, its ok if a country's government is not controlling the lives of its citizens completely, but, doing it to 90% through use of indirect means ? "
you really believe that?
then you aren't an idiot. you're a paranoid schizophrenic
in your mind, the usa is like sauron in mordor or emperor palpatine in star wars. these are fanciful comparisons, because the way you think about world affairs is fanciful creative lunacy
you imagine the usa has these vast powers over governments and people outside its borders that simply. do. not. exist. really, they don't exist
oops, my grandma stubbed her toe. must be usa's fault
what? you're reaching. he made a lie of the notion of secrecy in the age of the internet. in this regard he succeeded spectacularly. be transparent, and you win the game. secrecy is for doing wrong. an honest man, an honest regime, has nothing to fear from the truth. the usa should just be open about everything it says and does, and then let all the shadowy backstabbing secrecy laden nations trip up in their own web of lies
in fact, most of the content of what assange has released is rather boring, humdrum, funny even. it certainly doesn't counteract anything anyone already knows. there's no great reveal, it's all very predictable. in fact, the most damage is to other regimes: saudi arabia for example. which publicly embraced iran, while secretly telling the usa to attack it. so saudi arabia suffers. as if saudi arabia is an open country. and if you say our relations with saudi arabia suffer,s who cares? why as a freedom loving citizen do i care about the vlaue of our relations with closed regimes? good! let those relations suffer. if we are freedom loving people, we only value our relations with other freedom loving peoples
nothing is served from respecting secrets in an open society. so any other harm you can demonstrate is imagined or temporary, a wash
totalitarianism is a country's government controlling its citizens lives completely. there is no such thing as totalitarianism in foreign relations, it's a completely different scenario. no really. don't try to fucking redefine the meaning of the word, moron
all you are demonstrating with your comment is that you don't even know the definition of the word you are talking about. and if you don't know that, why are you even talking?
again: i am not defending the usa. it is perfectly valid to prosecute the usa for its very real crimes in this world. and there are people in this world who do understand the nature of those crimes and are busy making the case against the usa. good for them
then there is a different class of people who don't know anything except moronic tribal chest thumping and blathering on about big scary words they don't even fucking understand
you need to prosecute the usa for its actual crimes. not rave about the usa moronically in such a way that shows you don't even understand what those crimes actually are. when you open your mouth, you paint the good cause of fighting the usa as a dumb cause, if you are representative of what that cause is composed of
you damage the image of intelligent people who are mounting the good fight against the usa, because when you open your mouth, you sound dumb. those who are fighting the usa aren't all idiots. but you are. so shut up, and let those who actually understand the terminology fight the usa on the basis of its actual real foreign policy crimes, rather than low iq imagined crimes that don't even make sense. all you do is help the evils of the usa, by delegitimizing the cause of the fight against the usa by making it look like the cause is populated by morons. you make the fight against the usa harder, because anyone impartial will look at your words and think "what a moron. i guess only morons hate the usa"
you don't proseucte bank robbers for rape. you don't prosecute drunk drivers for domestic violence. do you understand that? then why are blabbering about totalitarianism on the subject matter of american foreign policy? i know why: because you're a simpleton low iq moron who doesn't even know what totalitarianism is
his goal is to overthrow all governments, not just the usa. obviously this is stupid, because anarchy is always temporary, and whatever government replaces the previous one will have its own set of crimes
so obviously, as you say, the proper goal is to reform government from within. the problem is complacency, secrets, inertia and lies. so you have to stir things up. how about: dump a bunch of secrets. this changes government behavior. it shows they can't hide, so they better just act honestly. in this regard, assange furthers the noble cause you agree with, even if his cause is loony
look: joan of arc was a schizophrenic. she's still a hero. assange has problems with transgressing boundaries of respecting his partner in his sex life, and he's a loony tunes anarchist. but so what, he's still a hero, because he's helping with the very cause you agree with
punish assange for his crimes against women in sweden, celebrate him for furthering the good cause of transparency, and have a good laugh at his anachronistic idealism about the value of anarchy
no, its not totalitarian. it's wrong, but its not totalitarian
terrorism is killing civilians in peacetime in a civil environment en masse and by surprise. terrorism is not a government's foreign policy. totalitarianism is attempting to control every aspect of your citizen's lives. totalitarianism is not a government's foreign policy
you don't have to like the usa, you don't have to like the usa's policies. but throwing every bad word you can think of at the usa and seeing what will stick is hardly intelligent, and just shows you don't even know what you are talking about
if someone robs a bank, you don't call them a rapist. if someone shoots his wife, you don't call them a drunk driver. american foreign policy has done plenty of evil and criminal things. but it is not totalitarian. and it is not terrorism. really
if you continue to call it such things, you just make yourself sound ignorant. and you aren't helping to stop the usa. because the only way the usa will be stopped is by people who understand exactly what the usa is doing and are able to clearly identify the nature of the crime, the cause, and how to stop it. not by throwing as many bad words against the usa they can think of. if you are an actual principled person, and you honestly want to stop the usa, start thinking for once
you don't have to like the usa. but you better sound intelligent when you articulate exactly why you dislike the usa. or you're just another garden variety tribal chest thumping moron in the world, certainly no better than what you dislike
Assange doesn't hate the USA, Assange hates all governments. He's more like the archetypal anarchist from the late 1800s than your common garden variety USA hater in the world today.
The chief Wikileaker who the U.S. promised today to prosecute said his Internet site was just beginning to unload its diplomatic secrets and said the documents will skewer "lying, corrupt and murderous leadership from Bahrain to Brazil."
What does that mean? Assange hates Brazil? No, Assange hates all authority. Next he's going after corporations, big banks. I heartily applaud that.
Assange is not anti-American. He hates the American government as much as any other government. He's a bomb thrower in the traditional anarchist sense of a century ago. He hates all authority.
therefore, if my understanding of the Slashdot demographic is correct, there will be a total of 22 comments in this thread all day, and all of them will by non WoW players commenting how much WoW sucks
Sexual promiscuity is not immoral, it is in fact completely natural.
What is immoral is transgression: when you go against the wishes of your sexual partner.
In the West, you can live the most debauched sexual life you want, without judgment, as long as anyone partaking of that lifestyle with you does so as a freely consenting equal adult. The principle concepts here are freedom and equality between the sexes. But as soon as you do something with someone by force, you are a criminal. There is no hypocrisy or contradiction here, as long as you understand the most important principles in play.
Meanwhile, it seems to many of us in the West that in the Muslim world (as well as in the conservative Jewish or fundamentalist Christian worlds as well) women are forced into lives by conservative religious and cultural teachings that are very much about coercion and force about how to behave, including violent punishments for choosing their own path. Therefore, we in the West view these conservative religious and cultural teachings as far more immoral than the most debauched orgy. Because we don't view the expression of simple natural human sexuality as a crime. But we view force and transgression against the notion of equality and freedom as a crime.
Women don't seem to be treated as equals by conservative religious and cultural teachings emanating from the traditional religious conservative societies in the Muslim world (or traditional Christian or Jewish worlds). This is immoral. These cultural and religious teachings to us are a form of transgression, in which the woman is not seen as an equal. And therefore, according to a morality that values freedom and equality, conservative Muslim, Christian, and Jewish teachings are immoral, where they devalue the lives and freedom of women.
Human sexuality is not a crime. Forcing someone to do something and not treating them as an equal is a a crime. In this regard, the way the conservative religious world (Muslim, Christian, or Jewish) treats woman is the real crime, and a woman in the West enjoying her completely natural sexuality is not in any way whatsoever criminal. Nor is there any logic whereby a woman or a man enjoying their natural sexuality is a crime.
So I ask you to stop judging human sexuality, and start judging the use of force against women into roles they did not choose of their own free will. In order to be a more moral person.
It's completely possible to like and dislike different aspects of the same person.
Assange has done something laudable with Wikileaks. For this he deserves out admiration. At the same time, he has problems with transgression in the sexual arena of his life, and he must answer for his crimes in Sweden. It is possible to see both aspects of the same person at the same time. Assange is human, like all of us, not some demigod beyond reproach.
But what politics does is insist we view him as an angel or a devil only. So many comments here insist that it is only possible to process the identity of Assange as an angel. It's silly. Just admire the man, and insist he pay for his crimes, at the same time. Can some of you do that please? He does not get a walk on his crimes because of the good he has done. Does OJ Simpson deserve to walk on murder charges because he was a celebrity? Obviously no. But he DID walk. Why? Because of the same psychology you see on display in the comments here: admiration for the man clouds your ability to keep different aspects of his life as separate in your judgment of the man.
So anyone who forgives Assange, or downplays his crimes: congratulations, you think just like the fools on the OJ Simpson jury that let OJ Simpson walk. Do you consider the fact that a jury let OJ Simpson walk an outrage? Good: then stop defending Assange, or otherwise, you are a hypocrite.
Look: Wikileaks will continue after Assange. And the facts of Assange's crucial role in Wikileaks creation will never go away and will always serve as his virtue. No matter what crimes Assange committed, he did something very good in Wikileaks, and he deserves our thanks for that. But he committed a crime in Sweden, so he must pay for it. BOTH realities are true.
The cause does not die. We are humans, and we are fallible, and we fail. But the cause goes on. Remember that, and don't whitewash Assange in your mind because you suffer from the same cult of personality delusions as the most shallow TMZ watcher.
the man who doesn't own a television and in pure narcissism tells this fact to anyone at the slightest chance
i am the same sort of laughable curmudgeon when it comes to facebook: i don't have a page, and never will, and proudly announce the fact to people whenever the subject of facebook comes up. i am the fringe weirdo, and i know it. and regardless of my level of narcissism, i am apparently also turning out to be wise. people are feeding facebook so much detail about their lives they are doing nothing than feeding a beast which makes privacy in their lives impossible
facebook is a future myspace/ friendster. give it a few years. simply as a matter of fact that facebook's business goals will make people more and more uncomfortable and more and more creeped out. yet facebook cannot back away from their business goals of exploiting and cashing in on the massive data stores about us that they are sitting on, because those server farms cost a heck of a lot to maintain. so as facebook rushes to fulfill the promise of their business plan, they will inevitably repulse and drive away their members
cantankerous weirdos like me who don't have a facebook account will begin to look cool again, prescient even. i promise i won't loudly bleat "i told you so" in 2013 when the latest slashdot story is about the decline of facebook
but here's the big thing: the phenomenon of social networking sites have a real world analogy: the hot club/ restaurant/ bar. take any metropolitan area, and you will have some nightlife hangouts that are THE place to be and be seen, some that are past their prime, and some that are up and coming. social networking sites are the online analogy of this continuous sociological process of rising and falling. after a certain amount of time as the "center of the world", a new dynamic takes places where a new "in" crowd begins to consider the hot hangout spot to be over the hill, declasse, tired, over. and they have a new little place where the "coolest of the cool" hang out. and then the exodus begins in earnest. soon the new place has lines out the door every night, the old place is empty. somehow everyone knows about the new place, and they all want to get in. the old place can't pay people to come. then a new "in" crowd rises... repeat ad nauseum. what's notable for those who would extend this analogy completely, is that there is subcultural rift lines. the internet is still young. maybe the future of social networking sites will fractionate according to those who identify themselves according to certain subcultural identifiers. well, that's true already to some extent
now if i were REALLY smart i'd be busy maneuvering around the next feature set that will make the next social networking site the "got to have it" place to put up your profile. and ride that pile of money to its bitter end. well, there's probably already about a hundred thousand zuckerberg wannabes out there doing exactly that already. 99% of those wannabes absolutely suck, but in that remaining 1%, all i know is, one of them will actually succeed
because facebook is jumping the shark, and the internet still needs an "it" social hangout spot. which site that will be... i wish i had that crystal ball
well then stop caring if the government knows you bought extra small condoms at the pharmacy. or continue using cash FOR SMALL INCIDENTAL PURCHASES that you are actually interested in keeping secret. large transactions are always traceable, cash or no cash
i read email text only. i'm not paranoid, i just prefer it. the conversion to text sometimes results in some really fugly emails, and they are always emails from businesses, usually ads. and i'm talking about valid businesses i have some sort of demographic contact with with my lame public email address (as opposed to my personal public email address, that i actually attempt to protect and actually pay attention to): starbucks, cvs, best buy, verizon, etc
i pay attention to 1% of such emails, usually for half a second, when i scan this folder maybe once a month for any valid correspondence. but the image links always stand out since they usually burst the flow of text when converted to text. they are always something like 88daeef445bb23c1.jpg. never banner.jpg or greatoffer.jpg. it's always some unique code
yes, every time you view an html email (with automatic image download), you are spied on. this should be of no surprise to anyone half awake, since this is true for i would say a decade or more as the normal status quo
when you use an electronic network, your default assumption should be that anything communicated on it will be snooped on, backed up as data, and exploited. this applies to the internet as much as using your credit card
if you don't like that, use cash
but don't depend upon the government... to protect you from the government. that's absurd. besides, its not only the government that does this, all sorts of unscrupulous activity goes on with your data outside their purview. and i'm not talking about hackers and criminals and mafia. i'm talking about the merchants themselves: they freely offer your info up for advertising and data mining and targeted offers and other intrusive purposes. you know this already. facebook does the same thing. you are basically giving facebook the means to exploit you when you use facebook
there's money to be made in taking advantage of your data. so why do you think rules will ever be passed against the exploitation of your data, and even if there were rules made about that, why do you expect the players to respect those rules? so don't feed your data to the beast
don't depend upon the government to protect you from the government
don't depend upon corporations to protect you from corporations
depend upon YOURSELF and alter your own behavior
use cash. and stop blabbing about your social life to a beast which exists for the expressed business purpose to take your info and use it to market, track, and otherwise deny you your privacy. if you continue to use facebook, and you know that, THEN YOU ONLY HAVE YOURSELF TO BLAME
but if it's too inconvenient for you to stop using facebook and credit cards, then stop complaining, because that lack of effort on your part reveals how unimportant to you these concerns really are to you. sure, you'll cry high holy indignation here on slashdot, but you won't change your behavior will you? lots of people talk a good game, and back it up with no action whatsoever
so either you are horrified that the feds know what you buy at the grocery store, or you don't. put your money where your mouth is, and take responsibility for your privacy. if you put it on a network, whether facebook, or using your credit card, you WILL be violated and exploited. now you know. so choose. its as simple as that
but don't look at the exploiters as your protectors or express surprise when they do what already know they will do. it's absurd to expect privacy on a network. so stop being surprised when you find out you don't have any
i am simply saying my argument has nothing to do with rendition. you bought up an unrelated subject matter. we are talking about wikileaks and other countries. that's the subject matter. you don't prove anything by bring up another subject matter
and i am not excusing the usa. i repeat: i am not excusing the usa. for the fourth time, including my previous post: i am not excusing or defending the usa
i am simply saying what you are talking about is a different subject matter. you can't make two different crimes equivalent. what the usa does wrong is not worse than what russia and china do, and it is not better than what china and russia do. just different. and i already said this in the previous post. so please stop labeling what i am saying with a preconceived prejudicial notion of yours that has nothing to with what i am saying, and actually read what i am actually saying, and respond to that
if you are going to say that all crimes are equivalent, you completely lose the ability to say anything relevant, because all countries have committed crimes, and all countries always will. if you can dismiss and make equivalent all the crimes of all countries, you can't say anything useful at all
sure, the usa will do that to you. if they think you are a terrorist
and china will send you to hard labor prison camp, for the crime of voicing your political opinion too loudly
and don't you dare trying to be an actual investigative journalist in russia
i'm not apologizing for the usa. i'm asking you to pick and choose your government when you release that government's secrets. and i'm saying that if your game is the free expression of politically charged media, then the usa is the government you want to unload on, because you won't be alive if you try to do that to china or russia
and please, don't try to say that is equivalent to rendition on botched terror charges. its simply not the same thing. better? worse? i'm not going to get in that ridiculous argument. but its obviously different. and to say that lack of freedom of political expression is the same thing as mistreating possible terrorists, that's simply logic failure
all politicians are the same, no one is different. my prejudices do not have to be examined. cynicism is a suitable replacement for actual intelligence. my opinions never have to be examined
because if you mess with china or russia, you'll be drinking polonium or have a "driving accident"
you don't have to like the usa if you don't want to, but the usa is not an enemy of the free exchange of information. no, the usa is not exactly a friend of the free exchange of information either, and the usa can be quite brutal if it wants to. for one, stay off of battlefields in afghanistan. and don't try to download taylor swift or harry potter. then the usa won't mess with you. in a way, american media is politically free, in terms of thought, but not free when it comes to the commerce of media. its becoming more and more a corporatocracy, but its political arena is still wide open in terms of what you choose to speak
but you really have to know that when it comes to sensitive government documents, china and russia will simply kill you. china and russia are authoritarian countries, they derive their power from intimidation, not consensus with their citizens. these countries explicitly derive their authority and their power from controlling the information that you hear, and the thoughts you wish to express. go ahead and tell an american that their government sucks, and prove it with supporting documents showing this to be true. the american government, and the american citizen, pretty much considers this standard operating procedure in the world at this point
but if you tell a chinese citizen their government sucks, and then proves it to them with the actual secrets the chinese government has been hiding from their citizens, then you are going to be a target. there is no freedom of choice when questioning the governments of these countries. here in the west we take political speech for granted, but you really have to think twice before you loudly question beijing or moscow in china or russia. for all of the sins of the usa, its still ruled by consensus (of citizens... and corporations). consensus often warped by corporate cash, yes, but at least the usa, as a matter of cultural and legal status quo, still considers the free exchange of information to be a virtue, and no one in power is going to say you don't have a right to say whatever you want, politically. china and russia quite simply do NOT like the free exchange of political information, that you can be sure of
again, go ahead and hate the usa if you want, that's your choice. but don't be so naive to believe that other countries out there, if they saw someone like assange as a threat to their secret government communications, that there wouldn't be a rapid succession of dead bodies and dead links, without any hesitation, and you wouldn't get any wikileaks about those countries whatsoever. china derives its power by walling its citizens off into a political garden of false benevolence, and no one is going to threaten that placid wall of lies. so for all the heat and moaning and whining on assange coming now from the usa, its amateur hour compared to what other governments would do to assange: it would be quick, it would be cold, and it would deadly, and there would be no such leaks... just a western lie, you see, by this CIA operative assange, who has been dealt with appropriately
bush was in the pocket of big oil, gore wasn't. you are forgetting the pentagon memos about "full spectrum dominance" from that era: dominating all petroleum resources, such as invading iraq. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, it was completely fabricated bullshit
i could be diplomatic about it, but i was never good at that: you are a complete moron if you think gore would have invaded iraq. afghanistan yes, but not iraq. that's a special bush-oil industry scheme
there's people who also say gore and bush- no difference. but gore would not have invaded iraq. gore would not have nominated that asshole john g roberts to the supremes who spearheaded the ruling earlier this year that corporate cash in elections is free speech(!)
in other words, policy matters, a hell of a lot more than your take home feelings about her personality, and palin would do more of the same asshole policy
Slashdot Mirror
"so, its ok if a country's government is not controlling the lives of its citizens completely, but, doing it to 90% through use of indirect means ? "
you really believe that?
then you aren't an idiot. you're a paranoid schizophrenic
in your mind, the usa is like sauron in mordor or emperor palpatine in star wars. these are fanciful comparisons, because the way you think about world affairs is fanciful creative lunacy
you imagine the usa has these vast powers over governments and people outside its borders that simply. do. not. exist. really, they don't exist
oops, my grandma stubbed her toe. must be usa's fault
get real, retard
what? you're reaching. he made a lie of the notion of secrecy in the age of the internet. in this regard he succeeded spectacularly. be transparent, and you win the game. secrecy is for doing wrong. an honest man, an honest regime, has nothing to fear from the truth. the usa should just be open about everything it says and does, and then let all the shadowy backstabbing secrecy laden nations trip up in their own web of lies
in fact, most of the content of what assange has released is rather boring, humdrum, funny even. it certainly doesn't counteract anything anyone already knows. there's no great reveal, it's all very predictable. in fact, the most damage is to other regimes: saudi arabia for example. which publicly embraced iran, while secretly telling the usa to attack it. so saudi arabia suffers. as if saudi arabia is an open country. and if you say our relations with saudi arabia suffer,s who cares? why as a freedom loving citizen do i care about the vlaue of our relations with closed regimes? good! let those relations suffer. if we are freedom loving people, we only value our relations with other freedom loving peoples
nothing is served from respecting secrets in an open society. so any other harm you can demonstrate is imagined or temporary, a wash
you're an idiot
totalitarianism is a country's government controlling its citizens lives completely. there is no such thing as totalitarianism in foreign relations, it's a completely different scenario. no really. don't try to fucking redefine the meaning of the word, moron
all you are demonstrating with your comment is that you don't even know the definition of the word you are talking about. and if you don't know that, why are you even talking?
again: i am not defending the usa. it is perfectly valid to prosecute the usa for its very real crimes in this world. and there are people in this world who do understand the nature of those crimes and are busy making the case against the usa. good for them
then there is a different class of people who don't know anything except moronic tribal chest thumping and blathering on about big scary words they don't even fucking understand
you need to prosecute the usa for its actual crimes. not rave about the usa moronically in such a way that shows you don't even understand what those crimes actually are. when you open your mouth, you paint the good cause of fighting the usa as a dumb cause, if you are representative of what that cause is composed of
you damage the image of intelligent people who are mounting the good fight against the usa, because when you open your mouth, you sound dumb. those who are fighting the usa aren't all idiots. but you are. so shut up, and let those who actually understand the terminology fight the usa on the basis of its actual real foreign policy crimes, rather than low iq imagined crimes that don't even make sense. all you do is help the evils of the usa, by delegitimizing the cause of the fight against the usa by making it look like the cause is populated by morons. you make the fight against the usa harder, because anyone impartial will look at your words and think "what a moron. i guess only morons hate the usa"
you don't proseucte bank robbers for rape. you don't prosecute drunk drivers for domestic violence. do you understand that? then why are blabbering about totalitarianism on the subject matter of american foreign policy? i know why: because you're a simpleton low iq moron who doesn't even know what totalitarianism is
his goal is to overthrow all governments, not just the usa. obviously this is stupid, because anarchy is always temporary, and whatever government replaces the previous one will have its own set of crimes
so obviously, as you say, the proper goal is to reform government from within. the problem is complacency, secrets, inertia and lies. so you have to stir things up. how about: dump a bunch of secrets. this changes government behavior. it shows they can't hide, so they better just act honestly. in this regard, assange furthers the noble cause you agree with, even if his cause is loony
look: joan of arc was a schizophrenic. she's still a hero. assange has problems with transgressing boundaries of respecting his partner in his sex life, and he's a loony tunes anarchist. but so what, he's still a hero, because he's helping with the very cause you agree with
punish assange for his crimes against women in sweden, celebrate him for furthering the good cause of transparency, and have a good laugh at his anachronistic idealism about the value of anarchy
his reasons are not important, his effect is
no, its not totalitarian. it's wrong, but its not totalitarian
terrorism is killing civilians in peacetime in a civil environment en masse and by surprise. terrorism is not a government's foreign policy. totalitarianism is attempting to control every aspect of your citizen's lives. totalitarianism is not a government's foreign policy
you don't have to like the usa, you don't have to like the usa's policies. but throwing every bad word you can think of at the usa and seeing what will stick is hardly intelligent, and just shows you don't even know what you are talking about
if someone robs a bank, you don't call them a rapist. if someone shoots his wife, you don't call them a drunk driver. american foreign policy has done plenty of evil and criminal things. but it is not totalitarian. and it is not terrorism. really
if you continue to call it such things, you just make yourself sound ignorant. and you aren't helping to stop the usa. because the only way the usa will be stopped is by people who understand exactly what the usa is doing and are able to clearly identify the nature of the crime, the cause, and how to stop it. not by throwing as many bad words against the usa they can think of. if you are an actual principled person, and you honestly want to stop the usa, start thinking for once
you don't have to like the usa. but you better sound intelligent when you articulate exactly why you dislike the usa. or you're just another garden variety tribal chest thumping moron in the world, certainly no better than what you dislike
Assange doesn't hate the USA, Assange hates all governments. He's more like the archetypal anarchist from the late 1800s than your common garden variety USA hater in the world today.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/official-wikileaks-greatest-danger-loss-trust/story?id=12263971
What does that mean? Assange hates Brazil? No, Assange hates all authority. Next he's going after corporations, big banks. I heartily applaud that.
Assange is not anti-American. He hates the American government as much as any other government. He's a bomb thrower in the traditional anarchist sense of a century ago. He hates all authority.
they are all busy playing
therefore, if my understanding of the Slashdot demographic is correct, there will be a total of 22 comments in this thread all day, and all of them will by non WoW players commenting how much WoW sucks
Sexual promiscuity is not immoral, it is in fact completely natural.
What is immoral is transgression: when you go against the wishes of your sexual partner.
In the West, you can live the most debauched sexual life you want, without judgment, as long as anyone partaking of that lifestyle with you does so as a freely consenting equal adult. The principle concepts here are freedom and equality between the sexes. But as soon as you do something with someone by force, you are a criminal. There is no hypocrisy or contradiction here, as long as you understand the most important principles in play.
Meanwhile, it seems to many of us in the West that in the Muslim world (as well as in the conservative Jewish or fundamentalist Christian worlds as well) women are forced into lives by conservative religious and cultural teachings that are very much about coercion and force about how to behave, including violent punishments for choosing their own path. Therefore, we in the West view these conservative religious and cultural teachings as far more immoral than the most debauched orgy. Because we don't view the expression of simple natural human sexuality as a crime. But we view force and transgression against the notion of equality and freedom as a crime.
Women don't seem to be treated as equals by conservative religious and cultural teachings emanating from the traditional religious conservative societies in the Muslim world (or traditional Christian or Jewish worlds). This is immoral. These cultural and religious teachings to us are a form of transgression, in which the woman is not seen as an equal. And therefore, according to a morality that values freedom and equality, conservative Muslim, Christian, and Jewish teachings are immoral, where they devalue the lives and freedom of women.
Human sexuality is not a crime. Forcing someone to do something and not treating them as an equal is a a crime. In this regard, the way the conservative religious world (Muslim, Christian, or Jewish) treats woman is the real crime, and a woman in the West enjoying her completely natural sexuality is not in any way whatsoever criminal. Nor is there any logic whereby a woman or a man enjoying their natural sexuality is a crime.
So I ask you to stop judging human sexuality, and start judging the use of force against women into roles they did not choose of their own free will. In order to be a more moral person.
It's completely possible to like and dislike different aspects of the same person.
Assange has done something laudable with Wikileaks. For this he deserves out admiration. At the same time, he has problems with transgression in the sexual arena of his life, and he must answer for his crimes in Sweden. It is possible to see both aspects of the same person at the same time. Assange is human, like all of us, not some demigod beyond reproach.
But what politics does is insist we view him as an angel or a devil only. So many comments here insist that it is only possible to process the identity of Assange as an angel. It's silly. Just admire the man, and insist he pay for his crimes, at the same time. Can some of you do that please? He does not get a walk on his crimes because of the good he has done. Does OJ Simpson deserve to walk on murder charges because he was a celebrity? Obviously no. But he DID walk. Why? Because of the same psychology you see on display in the comments here: admiration for the man clouds your ability to keep different aspects of his life as separate in your judgment of the man.
So anyone who forgives Assange, or downplays his crimes: congratulations, you think just like the fools on the OJ Simpson jury that let OJ Simpson walk. Do you consider the fact that a jury let OJ Simpson walk an outrage? Good: then stop defending Assange, or otherwise, you are a hypocrite.
Look: Wikileaks will continue after Assange. And the facts of Assange's crucial role in Wikileaks creation will never go away and will always serve as his virtue. No matter what crimes Assange committed, he did something very good in Wikileaks, and he deserves our thanks for that. But he committed a crime in Sweden, so he must pay for it. BOTH realities are true.
The cause does not die. We are humans, and we are fallible, and we fail. But the cause goes on. Remember that, and don't whitewash Assange in your mind because you suffer from the same cult of personality delusions as the most shallow TMZ watcher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereogram
seriously authentic geek cred
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/
the man who doesn't own a television and in pure narcissism tells this fact to anyone at the slightest chance
i am the same sort of laughable curmudgeon when it comes to facebook: i don't have a page, and never will, and proudly announce the fact to people whenever the subject of facebook comes up. i am the fringe weirdo, and i know it. and regardless of my level of narcissism, i am apparently also turning out to be wise. people are feeding facebook so much detail about their lives they are doing nothing than feeding a beast which makes privacy in their lives impossible
facebook is a future myspace/ friendster. give it a few years. simply as a matter of fact that facebook's business goals will make people more and more uncomfortable and more and more creeped out. yet facebook cannot back away from their business goals of exploiting and cashing in on the massive data stores about us that they are sitting on, because those server farms cost a heck of a lot to maintain. so as facebook rushes to fulfill the promise of their business plan, they will inevitably repulse and drive away their members
cantankerous weirdos like me who don't have a facebook account will begin to look cool again, prescient even. i promise i won't loudly bleat "i told you so" in 2013 when the latest slashdot story is about the decline of facebook
but here's the big thing: the phenomenon of social networking sites have a real world analogy: the hot club/ restaurant/ bar. take any metropolitan area, and you will have some nightlife hangouts that are THE place to be and be seen, some that are past their prime, and some that are up and coming. social networking sites are the online analogy of this continuous sociological process of rising and falling. after a certain amount of time as the "center of the world", a new dynamic takes places where a new "in" crowd begins to consider the hot hangout spot to be over the hill, declasse, tired, over. and they have a new little place where the "coolest of the cool" hang out. and then the exodus begins in earnest. soon the new place has lines out the door every night, the old place is empty. somehow everyone knows about the new place, and they all want to get in. the old place can't pay people to come. then a new "in" crowd rises... repeat ad nauseum. what's notable for those who would extend this analogy completely, is that there is subcultural rift lines. the internet is still young. maybe the future of social networking sites will fractionate according to those who identify themselves according to certain subcultural identifiers. well, that's true already to some extent
now if i were REALLY smart i'd be busy maneuvering around the next feature set that will make the next social networking site the "got to have it" place to put up your profile. and ride that pile of money to its bitter end. well, there's probably already about a hundred thousand zuckerberg wannabes out there doing exactly that already. 99% of those wannabes absolutely suck, but in that remaining 1%, all i know is, one of them will actually succeed
because facebook is jumping the shark, and the internet still needs an "it" social hangout spot. which site that will be... i wish i had that crystal ball
implementation is the thing
and money
and timing
and hard work
and persistence
and luck
and a strong positive belief in the face of withering negativity
etc., etc.
there's a lot of things that goes into the Next Big Thing (tm) besides just the idea
1. what group's slogan is "because none of us are as cruel as all of us"
2. what do 2 girls do with 1 cup?
3. who is pedobear? who is /b/?
3. go to the mudkip page on encyclopedia dramatica. describe the brain damage you are experiencing
idiots. yeah sure, the internet is controllable... maybe if you had a BILLION PEOPLE at your disposal!
oh... wait, never mind
well then stop caring if the government knows you bought extra small condoms at the pharmacy. or continue using cash FOR SMALL INCIDENTAL PURCHASES that you are actually interested in keeping secret. large transactions are always traceable, cash or no cash
it wants its story back
this news is very old
i read email text only. i'm not paranoid, i just prefer it. the conversion to text sometimes results in some really fugly emails, and they are always emails from businesses, usually ads. and i'm talking about valid businesses i have some sort of demographic contact with with my lame public email address (as opposed to my personal public email address, that i actually attempt to protect and actually pay attention to): starbucks, cvs, best buy, verizon, etc
i pay attention to 1% of such emails, usually for half a second, when i scan this folder maybe once a month for any valid correspondence. but the image links always stand out since they usually burst the flow of text when converted to text. they are always something like 88daeef445bb23c1.jpg. never banner.jpg or greatoffer.jpg. it's always some unique code
yes, every time you view an html email (with automatic image download), you are spied on. this should be of no surprise to anyone half awake, since this is true for i would say a decade or more as the normal status quo
when you use an electronic network, your default assumption should be that anything communicated on it will be snooped on, backed up as data, and exploited. this applies to the internet as much as using your credit card
if you don't like that, use cash
but don't depend upon the government... to protect you from the government. that's absurd. besides, its not only the government that does this, all sorts of unscrupulous activity goes on with your data outside their purview. and i'm not talking about hackers and criminals and mafia. i'm talking about the merchants themselves: they freely offer your info up for advertising and data mining and targeted offers and other intrusive purposes. you know this already. facebook does the same thing. you are basically giving facebook the means to exploit you when you use facebook
there's money to be made in taking advantage of your data. so why do you think rules will ever be passed against the exploitation of your data, and even if there were rules made about that, why do you expect the players to respect those rules? so don't feed your data to the beast
don't depend upon the government to protect you from the government
don't depend upon corporations to protect you from corporations
depend upon YOURSELF and alter your own behavior
use cash. and stop blabbing about your social life to a beast which exists for the expressed business purpose to take your info and use it to market, track, and otherwise deny you your privacy. if you continue to use facebook, and you know that, THEN YOU ONLY HAVE YOURSELF TO BLAME
but if it's too inconvenient for you to stop using facebook and credit cards, then stop complaining, because that lack of effort on your part reveals how unimportant to you these concerns really are to you. sure, you'll cry high holy indignation here on slashdot, but you won't change your behavior will you? lots of people talk a good game, and back it up with no action whatsoever
so either you are horrified that the feds know what you buy at the grocery store, or you don't. put your money where your mouth is, and take responsibility for your privacy. if you put it on a network, whether facebook, or using your credit card, you WILL be violated and exploited. now you know. so choose. its as simple as that
but don't look at the exploiters as your protectors or express surprise when they do what already know they will do. it's absurd to expect privacy on a network. so stop being surprised when you find out you don't have any
are you female?
pics or it didn't happen 8-)
and is compatible with sharia law
OOPS
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/opinion/29mon1.html
no
i am simply saying my argument has nothing to do with rendition. you bought up an unrelated subject matter. we are talking about wikileaks and other countries. that's the subject matter. you don't prove anything by bring up another subject matter
and i am not excusing the usa. i repeat: i am not excusing the usa. for the fourth time, including my previous post: i am not excusing or defending the usa
i am simply saying what you are talking about is a different subject matter. you can't make two different crimes equivalent. what the usa does wrong is not worse than what russia and china do, and it is not better than what china and russia do. just different. and i already said this in the previous post. so please stop labeling what i am saying with a preconceived prejudicial notion of yours that has nothing to with what i am saying, and actually read what i am actually saying, and respond to that
if you are going to say that all crimes are equivalent, you completely lose the ability to say anything relevant, because all countries have committed crimes, and all countries always will. if you can dismiss and make equivalent all the crimes of all countries, you can't say anything useful at all
sure, the usa will do that to you. if they think you are a terrorist
and china will send you to hard labor prison camp, for the crime of voicing your political opinion too loudly
and don't you dare trying to be an actual investigative journalist in russia
i'm not apologizing for the usa. i'm asking you to pick and choose your government when you release that government's secrets. and i'm saying that if your game is the free expression of politically charged media, then the usa is the government you want to unload on, because you won't be alive if you try to do that to china or russia
and please, don't try to say that is equivalent to rendition on botched terror charges. its simply not the same thing. better? worse? i'm not going to get in that ridiculous argument. but its obviously different. and to say that lack of freedom of political expression is the same thing as mistreating possible terrorists, that's simply logic failure
i apologize. you've shown me the light
all politicians are the same, no one is different. my prejudices do not have to be examined. cynicism is a suitable replacement for actual intelligence. my opinions never have to be examined
wow, you're awesome dude
because if you mess with china or russia, you'll be drinking polonium or have a "driving accident"
you don't have to like the usa if you don't want to, but the usa is not an enemy of the free exchange of information. no, the usa is not exactly a friend of the free exchange of information either, and the usa can be quite brutal if it wants to. for one, stay off of battlefields in afghanistan. and don't try to download taylor swift or harry potter. then the usa won't mess with you. in a way, american media is politically free, in terms of thought, but not free when it comes to the commerce of media. its becoming more and more a corporatocracy, but its political arena is still wide open in terms of what you choose to speak
but you really have to know that when it comes to sensitive government documents, china and russia will simply kill you. china and russia are authoritarian countries, they derive their power from intimidation, not consensus with their citizens. these countries explicitly derive their authority and their power from controlling the information that you hear, and the thoughts you wish to express. go ahead and tell an american that their government sucks, and prove it with supporting documents showing this to be true. the american government, and the american citizen, pretty much considers this standard operating procedure in the world at this point
but if you tell a chinese citizen their government sucks, and then proves it to them with the actual secrets the chinese government has been hiding from their citizens, then you are going to be a target. there is no freedom of choice when questioning the governments of these countries. here in the west we take political speech for granted, but you really have to think twice before you loudly question beijing or moscow in china or russia. for all of the sins of the usa, its still ruled by consensus (of citizens... and corporations). consensus often warped by corporate cash, yes, but at least the usa, as a matter of cultural and legal status quo, still considers the free exchange of information to be a virtue, and no one in power is going to say you don't have a right to say whatever you want, politically. china and russia quite simply do NOT like the free exchange of political information, that you can be sure of
again, go ahead and hate the usa if you want, that's your choice. but don't be so naive to believe that other countries out there, if they saw someone like assange as a threat to their secret government communications, that there wouldn't be a rapid succession of dead bodies and dead links, without any hesitation, and you wouldn't get any wikileaks about those countries whatsoever. china derives its power by walling its citizens off into a political garden of false benevolence, and no one is going to threaten that placid wall of lies. so for all the heat and moaning and whining on assange coming now from the usa, its amateur hour compared to what other governments would do to assange: it would be quick, it would be cold, and it would deadly, and there would be no such leaks... just a western lie, you see, by this CIA operative assange, who has been dealt with appropriately
bush was in the pocket of big oil, gore wasn't. you are forgetting the pentagon memos about "full spectrum dominance" from that era: dominating all petroleum resources, such as invading iraq. iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, it was completely fabricated bullshit
i could be diplomatic about it, but i was never good at that: you are a complete moron if you think gore would have invaded iraq. afghanistan yes, but not iraq. that's a special bush-oil industry scheme
there's people who also say gore and bush- no difference. but gore would not have invaded iraq. gore would not have nominated that asshole john g roberts to the supremes who spearheaded the ruling earlier this year that corporate cash in elections is free speech(!)
in other words, policy matters, a hell of a lot more than your take home feelings about her personality, and palin would do more of the same asshole policy