if i send you a rant saying you should kill yourself, and you do, my culpability is near zero because i don't know who you are, how old you are, what your mental state is, etc. i'm just an asshole
but this woman knew this girl. she knew she was a girl, she knew her mental state was unstable. she purposefully manipulated her and purposefully told her to kill herself after a long sustained period of purposeful manipulation
so when the woman acted, she acted with specific knowledge that if she manipulated the girl with a fake profile of a fake boy to get her interested, then suddenly switched it up as cruel as possible so as to cause the most mental trauma possible and said no boy would ever like her and she should just kill herself, this is pretty much murder because she KNOWS this kind of abuse has a good chance of actually making the girl kill herself
allegory: if you find a random person and scare them with a big BOO in the dark, and they die of a heart attack, you're an asshole, but not a murderer
however, if you KNOW the person you are going to scare and you KNOW they have a serious heart condition that a fright could push them into cardiac arrest... and you STILL scare them with a big boo in the dark and they die, then you are as a good as a murderer
see the difference?
if i drop rocks over a cliff randomly in the dark, in the middle of nowhere, and one kills a hiker, i'm pretty much innocent because i had no idea that would happen, and no one would expect me to know that would happen in the middle of nowhere
but if i look carefully for a hiker at the bottom of a cliff in broad daylight, and carefully aim the rock to hit the hiker, i'm a murdering piece of shit
that's the difference between free speech and what lori drew did
"I believe in the government not encroaching on the rights I am supposed to have."
this is an empty phrase. everyone agrees with that. the problem is: what are these rights you are supposed to have?
for example, if you yell fire in a crowded theatre, you are pitting your right to say whatever you want versus someone else's right to live. in this instance, their right is more important than your right, so your right is naturally and logically limited by reality
in reality, your rights exist in tension with other people's rights
i exert the right to blast all the music i want. well what if its 2 am and my neighbor is trying to sleep? then i need to give up my "right"
there are limits on your rights. those limits are simple: your rights end where other people's rights begin
a fundamentalist believes in absolute universal and unyielding concepts
it is a convenient way for you to avoid having to think about the world and how complex it really is, and all you wind up doing is create more suffering than you think you relieve
for making a nice list of red herrings and straw men
if you would like to actually write down some words that involve logical reasoning, rather than baseless hysteria, then at that point i would be interested in responding to you
but until then, you are as bad as everything you complain about, since you use the same tactics in your thinking as what you complain about: FUD
its all about the consequences of your actions, cause and effect. free speech or not free speech is really just a sideshow to the real issue: responsibility
people are always clamoring for their rights... and promptly shut up when the subject matter of their responsibilities comes up. guess what folks? if no one takes responsibility, there are no rights in this world. rights and responsibilities are fused at the hip. for every right you are granted, you are also, implicitly or explicitly, describing a responsibility you take ownership of as well
explicit right: freedom of speech. implicit, unmentioned responsibility: you are responsible for the consequences of what you say. nothing protects you from that reponsibility. nothing. well, something DOES protect you from that responsibility... in a society that has no right to freedom of speech at all. if you have no rights, you also have no responsibilities. so exercise your fucking responsibilities in this world if you want to retain your precious rights
if you avoid responsibility, you weaken the entire right to freedom of speech, as you have demonstrated that you, at least, are incapable of maintaining the social environment in which your rights work. if you do not exercise your responsibilities, you add fuel to the argument that you don't deserve the rights you cherish. no, we all deserve the right to free speech, we just need a big wake the fuck up to the morons who don't know that freedom of speech carries with it a burden: responsibility for the consequences of what you say
if someone says gw bush is a douchebag, a zealot would say that terrorists gain support when this kind of dissent is demonstrated, and therefore, this kind of speech should be censored. which is of course completely bullshit cause and effect. the holes in that "logic" are like swiss cheese
but if someone picks on 1. one specific 2. mentally unstable 3. minor for 4. months on end, a clueless "free speech defender" would say what the woman did has nothing to do with the teenager's suicide, and therefore the woman shouldn't be punished. fucking bullshit. the woman psychologically tortured and harassed the poor girl to death. the cause and effect is obvious and real
avoid responsibility, and you erode your rights. remember that
had to do with someone shouting fire when there was no fire
sure, if there is a fire and someone shouts fire, and someone gets trampled for that, well, that's not really anyone's fault, the fire made people panic in general
but if you shout fire when there is none just to see people panic and someone gets trampled, then you have just killed someone with your speech. you deserve to be punished. i don't see how you can disagree with that
as for the supreme court using it in a decision about wwi draft fliers, well obviously that decision is retarded
but if i say "correlation is not causation" (which is true), but then use that meme to justify a completely retarded line of thinking, that doesn't mean correlation IS causation. it just means i don't understand the concept and am using the meme inappropriately
same with the supremes using a perfectly good concept- don't yell fire in a theatre, to justify a totally retarded line of thinking. it reflects poorly on the supremes and their inability to understand concepts, it doesn't reflect poorly on the essential logical soundness of the allegory itself
a nice aesop's fable is "never cry wolf". if i use that fable to justify never crying wolf, even if there IS a wolf, then that just means i have crappy reasoning skills, not that the aesop's fable itself is flawed
over an extended period of time, i send to your email address explicit detailed accounts of how i am going to brutally murder you. i do this for months on end. i show you i know where you live on a map, i send you pictures of you getting in and out of your car, i send you pictures of your family
is that protected speech in your mind?
of course not, its stalking and harassment, and deserves to be punished
but all i did was communicate with you over the internet. its protected speech, right? bullshit
not all speech is protected. please understand that. what this woman did is like stalking and harassment cubed: it was pointed at a MINOR, a minor she KNEW had psychological problems, it lasted over an extended period of time, it involved lies, manipulation, setting someone up for a fall, suggestions of suicide
this is not shouting angry warped words at anyone in general or anonymous people you don't reallty know. thats free speech. but this is specific to one person, a crafted, tailored and dedicated long-term attempt at psychologically torturing a specific person, a minor, a minor with psychological problems the woman KNEW about
no, that's way, way, way beyond free speech, and it is criminal
the legal strategy the prosecuters used to try to punish this woman is retarded. i don't know why they just didn't go with some sort of laws pertaining to the psychological abuse of a minor
well, actually, no, there is no such thing as "simply speech." there are plenty of things that you can write on the internet or issue from your mouth that should rightfully result in you being imprisoned
such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre
such as an adult 1. purposefully playing with the emotions of one specific child (not general rants on the internet) 2. a child she knows to have psychologically problems 3. over an extended period of time 4. directly suggesting suicide after manipulating, setting up, and torturing this child
that's not "simply speech". not REMOTELY "simply speech"
this is nothing like me calling gw bush a douchebag or advocating for greater acceptance of necrophilia or defending westboro baptist church or anything else that someone might object to but is obviously free speech. there are lots of free speech that are odious but not criminal
your opinion is invalid because its too broad, and does not consider how complicated the interplay between your rights and your responsibilities are in this world
no, you do not get automatic protection from the consequences of EVERYTHING you can possibly say
i can specify a font to use on a webpage, but support for that font is all over the place, and often depends upon the underlying operating system
of course, the font not being there means what font is used degrades to some sort of default according to the browser. but in css, you can actually specify the degrade path. example:
p{font-family:"Times New Roman",Georgia,Serif}
which basically means: use times new roman for this paragraph. you don't have it? then use georgia. you don't have that? then use any serif font you have laying around. you don't have that? then... (and the browser does something default)
the point being, you could do the same with codecs. of course, different codec means different source files, but that's ok, use a value pair in the css. something like
where, much like font-family css, the codec css style specifies a degradation path. but unlike font, it includes value pairs, one value being the codec to use, the other value being the file source to use if that codec is available
of course, my little example is not the best nomenclature, but the basic idea is sound to solve this browser vendor vs html5 standard imbroglio
the issue is not education, as everyone getting a medical degree in anesthetics is impractical, nor is it competency and monitoring, as these celebrities are people who certainly could afford that, and still wound up dead. the issue is the fact you are dealing with addictive substances and intolerant thresholds to real damage and death
banning is superior to warning, as simple human nature is incompatible with responsible use of these substances. warning simply doesn't work
i'm not so glad you think your thoughts are original
anyone in the 6th grade and above can, and probably already has, realized these fears. yes, when you use new technology you create new risks that never existed before. this has never stopped mankind from using nor technology, nor should it, ever, considering the benefits that massively out weigh the risks
go ahead and stack the benefits of using this technology against your risks, some of them fanciful. if you are intellectually honest and not too hysterical, you will realize it should be full steam ahead
luddism was never a very compelling argument, and it never will be
poor impulse control, disinhibition, lack of concern for others, overly aggressive emphasis on one's own pleasure
this is the mental condition known as "internet troll"
familiarize yourself with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders entry for this particular disorder, and show some sensitivity to those affected
your anger doesn't help in the care and treatment of the mentally altered. more compassion next time please for these poor suffering souls. thank you
in that, you look at your average list of requirements that nanotech is supposed to fulfill, and pretty much some microbe or insect already does most of that
i think to satisfy the requirements here, you start with a preexisting microbe to do all the terraforming requirements. and if its something bizarre like surveillance you want, you work that into an insect somehow. now if you are thinking using insects for surveillance on mars is insane, i'm saying i agree with you. only that genetically engineering a preexisting insect to do that is LESS insane than satisfying the requirements here with something you are building out of nanotech from scratch... that can replicate, use energy sources, and transmit the info to a transponder for beaming back to earth? tall order, no?
plenty of insects subsist off of fungi and lichen, something that could be genetically engineered to grow on mars. andyou don't have your temperature concerns, insects for example are the kings of Antarctica:
and as for beaming info back to earth, you don't have to wire that ability into every insect. take a cue from foraging social insects like bees, wasps, or ants: each colony contains some sort of transponder that monitors the social cues the insects naturally communicate to each other in the hive about what is out there in the environment around them. the abilities of borrowing beetles prove you can do lots of below the surface exploration by swapping in those genetic components, etc.
i'm not saying any of this is easy, but what i am saying is that the far reaches of what we can do with genetic engineering are much closer to our abilities than the far reaches of what we can do with nanotech
the mole with the hair on the cheek, the kiss on the nose with the bad breath, the completely lame christmas presents, the drunk hysterical laughter at the adult table
"First off.. who are you (or who am I) to decide if an "ideology" is vile ?"
i have a conscience
the junta in burma is vile
based on the way they treat their citizens
if you see someone stabbing someone in the street, do you not call the police because you have no right to judge what is going on? same facile, lobotomized position as saying no one has a right to judge the varying crimes of regimes in this world
"The point is, if a people of a country want to have a certain type of government that is up to them"
the point is, moron, the PEOPLE of burma DON'T GET A FUCKING SAY. and when monks march to protest this, the regime MURDERS THEM
but if people think of "da gubmint" as some pointless alien mind control, they will never get rid of what they don't like world governments doing, because they don't understand why governments do what they do
but some people like living in that shallow one dimensional stupid hollywood plot way of thinking about their world. it fills them with empty righteous indignation and no real thought about real problems or need or ability to commit to changing anything, just pointless whining about moronic stereotypes that don't exist
question: is there another encyclopedia that can be trusted? answer: no, they are all compromised in the ways you demonstrate for wikipedia
question: so why wikipedia? answer: because its as transparent as can be
its only useful to point out wikipedia's shortcomings if you have some amazing product that does not have these shortcomings. otherwise, you're complaints have no meaning
horrible atrocities in the name of vile ideology in other countries is tolerable to you, because it makes for nice vacation pictures
that's some nice human conscience you got there
you know japan is a pretty wacky place to visit, and it shares a lot of the same legal standards as western countries. but according to you, that means it must be boring because its the same
you really need to rethink what you wrote above, right now it is pretty facile, self-serving, and shallow. you're the spitting image of the clueless westerner
china, meanwhile, wants to control what you read and what you think, because they are afraid of losing an ideological lock on the country
not that i am supporting the uk govt, nor the chinese govt, but what the uk does with cctv cameras is not the same as what china does with the internet
if you actually want to fight oppression, you have to be intelligent about it, and accurately understand what force you are fighting. not mindlessly thinking the govt wants to contol you just for the hell of it. WHY does the uk have cctv cameras? WHY does china want to filter everything? the uk govt, and the chinese govt, are mostly well meaning idiots, not sith lords or agent smith
the uk believes the cameras are what it has to do to protect its citizens from bombs. right or wrong, that is their motivation
china was psychologically scarred by decades of humiliation by foreign powers. china sees different ideological ideas and sees a gateway to controversy, loss of order, and therefore weakness and foreign domination again. china holds harmony and order to be more important than freedom. right or wrong, that is their motivation. of course in the modern world, china could just outright buy japan and great britain, two of the powers that most humiliated it (the opium wars, world war ii). so china really needs to wake up from its persecution complex and allow a flowering of modern democratic tolerance. it will take awhile, but the grumpy old men in beijing don't live forever
understand the reason the govt does what it does, and therefore arrive at an intelligent way to fight them. but just a mindless "the govt wants to control you just because its like a bad hollywood movie" is paranoid schizophrenia, not intelligence
Slashdot Mirror
ive been -1 troll plenty of times for not towing the party line like a good little slashbot
but i thought this line of thought was something many slashdotters would actually agree too
its pretty odd to find a partisan crowd of luddites with modpoints on this website. interesting
if i send you a rant saying you should kill yourself, and you do, my culpability is near zero because i don't know who you are, how old you are, what your mental state is, etc. i'm just an asshole
but this woman knew this girl. she knew she was a girl, she knew her mental state was unstable. she purposefully manipulated her and purposefully told her to kill herself after a long sustained period of purposeful manipulation
so when the woman acted, she acted with specific knowledge that if she manipulated the girl with a fake profile of a fake boy to get her interested, then suddenly switched it up as cruel as possible so as to cause the most mental trauma possible and said no boy would ever like her and she should just kill herself, this is pretty much murder because she KNOWS this kind of abuse has a good chance of actually making the girl kill herself
allegory: if you find a random person and scare them with a big BOO in the dark, and they die of a heart attack, you're an asshole, but not a murderer
however, if you KNOW the person you are going to scare and you KNOW they have a serious heart condition that a fright could push them into cardiac arrest... and you STILL scare them with a big boo in the dark and they die, then you are as a good as a murderer
see the difference?
if i drop rocks over a cliff randomly in the dark, in the middle of nowhere, and one kills a hiker, i'm pretty much innocent because i had no idea that would happen, and no one would expect me to know that would happen in the middle of nowhere
but if i look carefully for a hiker at the bottom of a cliff in broad daylight, and carefully aim the rock to hit the hiker, i'm a murdering piece of shit
that's the difference between free speech and what lori drew did
"I believe in the government not encroaching on the rights I am supposed to have."
this is an empty phrase. everyone agrees with that. the problem is: what are these rights you are supposed to have?
for example, if you yell fire in a crowded theatre, you are pitting your right to say whatever you want versus someone else's right to live. in this instance, their right is more important than your right, so your right is naturally and logically limited by reality
in reality, your rights exist in tension with other people's rights
i exert the right to blast all the music i want. well what if its 2 am and my neighbor is trying to sleep? then i need to give up my "right"
there are limits on your rights. those limits are simple: your rights end where other people's rights begin
is it the bullet's fault that it was propelled by an explosion forward into someone's body? not your fault?
cause and effect
you know people panic
you did something that made them panic
same damn thing as pulling the trigger on a gun
you knowingly set off a chain of events you know would result in lives put at risk
a fundamentalist believes in absolute universal and unyielding concepts
it is a convenient way for you to avoid having to think about the world and how complex it really is, and all you wind up doing is create more suffering than you think you relieve
for making a nice list of red herrings and straw men
if you would like to actually write down some words that involve logical reasoning, rather than baseless hysteria, then at that point i would be interested in responding to you
but until then, you are as bad as everything you complain about, since you use the same tactics in your thinking as what you complain about: FUD
its all about the consequences of your actions, cause and effect. free speech or not free speech is really just a sideshow to the real issue: responsibility
people are always clamoring for their rights... and promptly shut up when the subject matter of their responsibilities comes up. guess what folks? if no one takes responsibility, there are no rights in this world. rights and responsibilities are fused at the hip. for every right you are granted, you are also, implicitly or explicitly, describing a responsibility you take ownership of as well
explicit right: freedom of speech. implicit, unmentioned responsibility: you are responsible for the consequences of what you say. nothing protects you from that reponsibility. nothing. well, something DOES protect you from that responsibility... in a society that has no right to freedom of speech at all. if you have no rights, you also have no responsibilities. so exercise your fucking responsibilities in this world if you want to retain your precious rights
if you avoid responsibility, you weaken the entire right to freedom of speech, as you have demonstrated that you, at least, are incapable of maintaining the social environment in which your rights work. if you do not exercise your responsibilities, you add fuel to the argument that you don't deserve the rights you cherish. no, we all deserve the right to free speech, we just need a big wake the fuck up to the morons who don't know that freedom of speech carries with it a burden: responsibility for the consequences of what you say
if someone says gw bush is a douchebag, a zealot would say that terrorists gain support when this kind of dissent is demonstrated, and therefore, this kind of speech should be censored. which is of course completely bullshit cause and effect. the holes in that "logic" are like swiss cheese
but if someone picks on 1. one specific 2. mentally unstable 3. minor for 4. months on end, a clueless "free speech defender" would say what the woman did has nothing to do with the teenager's suicide, and therefore the woman shouldn't be punished. fucking bullshit. the woman psychologically tortured and harassed the poor girl to death. the cause and effect is obvious and real
avoid responsibility, and you erode your rights. remember that
had to do with someone shouting fire when there was no fire
sure, if there is a fire and someone shouts fire, and someone gets trampled for that, well, that's not really anyone's fault, the fire made people panic in general
but if you shout fire when there is none just to see people panic and someone gets trampled, then you have just killed someone with your speech. you deserve to be punished. i don't see how you can disagree with that
as for the supreme court using it in a decision about wwi draft fliers, well obviously that decision is retarded
but if i say "correlation is not causation" (which is true), but then use that meme to justify a completely retarded line of thinking, that doesn't mean correlation IS causation. it just means i don't understand the concept and am using the meme inappropriately
same with the supremes using a perfectly good concept- don't yell fire in a theatre, to justify a totally retarded line of thinking. it reflects poorly on the supremes and their inability to understand concepts, it doesn't reflect poorly on the essential logical soundness of the allegory itself
a nice aesop's fable is "never cry wolf". if i use that fable to justify never crying wolf, even if there IS a wolf, then that just means i have crappy reasoning skills, not that the aesop's fable itself is flawed
over an extended period of time, i send to your email address explicit detailed accounts of how i am going to brutally murder you. i do this for months on end. i show you i know where you live on a map, i send you pictures of you getting in and out of your car, i send you pictures of your family
is that protected speech in your mind?
of course not, its stalking and harassment, and deserves to be punished
but all i did was communicate with you over the internet. its protected speech, right? bullshit
not all speech is protected. please understand that. what this woman did is like stalking and harassment cubed: it was pointed at a MINOR, a minor she KNEW had psychological problems, it lasted over an extended period of time, it involved lies, manipulation, setting someone up for a fall, suggestions of suicide
this is not shouting angry warped words at anyone in general or anonymous people you don't reallty know. thats free speech. but this is specific to one person, a crafted, tailored and dedicated long-term attempt at psychologically torturing a specific person, a minor, a minor with psychological problems the woman KNEW about
no, that's way, way, way beyond free speech, and it is criminal
the legal strategy the prosecuters used to try to punish this woman is retarded. i don't know why they just didn't go with some sort of laws pertaining to the psychological abuse of a minor
no. but that's "simply speech"
well, actually, no, there is no such thing as "simply speech." there are plenty of things that you can write on the internet or issue from your mouth that should rightfully result in you being imprisoned
such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre
such as an adult
1. purposefully playing with the emotions of one specific child (not general rants on the internet)
2. a child she knows to have psychologically problems
3. over an extended period of time
4. directly suggesting suicide after manipulating, setting up, and torturing this child
that's not "simply speech". not REMOTELY "simply speech"
this is nothing like me calling gw bush a douchebag or advocating for greater acceptance of necrophilia or defending westboro baptist church or anything else that someone might object to but is obviously free speech. there are lots of free speech that are odious but not criminal
your opinion is invalid because its too broad, and does not consider how complicated the interplay between your rights and your responsibilities are in this world
no, you do not get automatic protection from the consequences of EVERYTHING you can possibly say
i can specify a font to use on a webpage, but support for that font is all over the place, and often depends upon the underlying operating system
of course, the font not being there means what font is used degrades to some sort of default according to the browser. but in css, you can actually specify the degrade path. example:
p{font-family:"Times New Roman",Georgia,Serif}
which basically means: use times new roman for this paragraph. you don't have it? then use georgia. you don't have that? then use any serif font you have laying around. you don't have that? then... (and the browser does something default)
the point being, you could do the same with codecs. of course, different codec means different source files, but that's ok, use a value pair in the css. something like
where, much like font-family css, the codec css style specifies a degradation path. but unlike font, it includes value pairs, one value being the codec to use, the other value being the file source to use if that codec is available
of course, my little example is not the best nomenclature, but the basic idea is sound to solve this browser vendor vs html5 standard imbroglio
the issue is not education, as everyone getting a medical degree in anesthetics is impractical, nor is it competency and monitoring, as these celebrities are people who certainly could afford that, and still wound up dead. the issue is the fact you are dealing with addictive substances and intolerant thresholds to real damage and death
banning is superior to warning, as simple human nature is incompatible with responsible use of these substances. warning simply doesn't work
i'm not so glad you think your thoughts are original
anyone in the 6th grade and above can, and probably already has, realized these fears. yes, when you use new technology you create new risks that never existed before. this has never stopped mankind from using nor technology, nor should it, ever, considering the benefits that massively out weigh the risks
go ahead and stack the benefits of using this technology against your risks, some of them fanciful. if you are intellectually honest and not too hysterical, you will realize it should be full steam ahead
luddism was never a very compelling argument, and it never will be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
poor impulse control, disinhibition, lack of concern for others, overly aggressive emphasis on one's own pleasure
this is the mental condition known as "internet troll"
familiarize yourself with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders entry for this particular disorder, and show some sensitivity to those affected
your anger doesn't help in the care and treatment of the mentally altered. more compassion next time please for these poor suffering souls. thank you
JEWEL OK HEADS DC 1000 DC EPA
obviously some sort of instructions on assembling a dc powered environmental disruptor
don't think the NSA isn't noticing this friend, they have extensive steganographic data mining techniques. we're onto you
in the opening scene of terminator salvation?
in that, you look at your average list of requirements that nanotech is supposed to fulfill, and pretty much some microbe or insect already does most of that
i think to satisfy the requirements here, you start with a preexisting microbe to do all the terraforming requirements. and if its something bizarre like surveillance you want, you work that into an insect somehow. now if you are thinking using insects for surveillance on mars is insane, i'm saying i agree with you. only that genetically engineering a preexisting insect to do that is LESS insane than satisfying the requirements here with something you are building out of nanotech from scratch... that can replicate, use energy sources, and transmit the info to a transponder for beaming back to earth? tall order, no?
plenty of insects subsist off of fungi and lichen, something that could be genetically engineered to grow on mars. andyou don't have your temperature concerns, insects for example are the kings of Antarctica:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE50C0B020090113
and as for beaming info back to earth, you don't have to wire that ability into every insect. take a cue from foraging social insects like bees, wasps, or ants: each colony contains some sort of transponder that monitors the social cues the insects naturally communicate to each other in the hive about what is out there in the environment around them. the abilities of borrowing beetles prove you can do lots of below the surface exploration by swapping in those genetic components, etc.
i'm not saying any of this is easy, but what i am saying is that the far reaches of what we can do with genetic engineering are much closer to our abilities than the far reaches of what we can do with nanotech
the mole with the hair on the cheek, the kiss on the nose with the bad breath, the completely lame christmas presents, the drunk hysterical laughter at the adult table
everywhere, everywhere on the globe
(shudder)
"First off.. who are you (or who am I) to decide if an "ideology" is vile ?"
i have a conscience
the junta in burma is vile
based on the way they treat their citizens
if you see someone stabbing someone in the street, do you not call the police because you have no right to judge what is going on? same facile, lobotomized position as saying no one has a right to judge the varying crimes of regimes in this world
"The point is, if a people of a country want to have a certain type of government that is up to them"
the point is, moron, the PEOPLE of burma DON'T GET A FUCKING SAY. and when monks march to protest this, the regime MURDERS THEM
wake the fuck up you shallow sheltered prick
it just wouldn't feel right if they consolidated or incorporated the data, or, heaven forbid, unified or merged the data
about the media and its supposed vast ability to control our thoughts
of course, as you say, you have a number of convenient reasons to completely ignore what i say
but then one wonders why you even bothered to fucking respond
i guess i am part of the media, and as such exert mind control over you, and compelled you to respond (snicker)
know your enemy
know their motivations and their psychology
but if people think of "da gubmint" as some pointless alien mind control, they will never get rid of what they don't like world governments doing, because they don't understand why governments do what they do
but some people like living in that shallow one dimensional stupid hollywood plot way of thinking about their world. it fills them with empty righteous indignation and no real thought about real problems or need or ability to commit to changing anything, just pointless whining about moronic stereotypes that don't exist
question: is there another encyclopedia that can be trusted? answer: no, they are all compromised in the ways you demonstrate for wikipedia
question: so why wikipedia? answer: because its as transparent as can be
its only useful to point out wikipedia's shortcomings if you have some amazing product that does not have these shortcomings. otherwise, you're complaints have no meaning
horrible atrocities in the name of vile ideology in other countries is tolerable to you, because it makes for nice vacation pictures
that's some nice human conscience you got there
you know japan is a pretty wacky place to visit, and it shares a lot of the same legal standards as western countries. but according to you, that means it must be boring because its the same
you really need to rethink what you wrote above, right now it is pretty facile, self-serving, and shallow. you're the spitting image of the clueless westerner
and then al qaeda bombs
so the uk wants to track street movement
china, meanwhile, wants to control what you read and what you think, because they are afraid of losing an ideological lock on the country
not that i am supporting the uk govt, nor the chinese govt, but what the uk does with cctv cameras is not the same as what china does with the internet
if you actually want to fight oppression, you have to be intelligent about it, and accurately understand what force you are fighting. not mindlessly thinking the govt wants to contol you just for the hell of it. WHY does the uk have cctv cameras? WHY does china want to filter everything? the uk govt, and the chinese govt, are mostly well meaning idiots, not sith lords or agent smith
the uk believes the cameras are what it has to do to protect its citizens from bombs. right or wrong, that is their motivation
china was psychologically scarred by decades of humiliation by foreign powers. china sees different ideological ideas and sees a gateway to controversy, loss of order, and therefore weakness and foreign domination again. china holds harmony and order to be more important than freedom. right or wrong, that is their motivation. of course in the modern world, china could just outright buy japan and great britain, two of the powers that most humiliated it (the opium wars, world war ii). so china really needs to wake up from its persecution complex and allow a flowering of modern democratic tolerance. it will take awhile, but the grumpy old men in beijing don't live forever
understand the reason the govt does what it does, and therefore arrive at an intelligent way to fight them. but just a mindless "the govt wants to control you just because its like a bad hollywood movie" is paranoid schizophrenia, not intelligence