the double standard is that your occupation doesn't involve passing judgment on murders, rapists, mafia, and other assorted shitbags who have, and would, given the chance, engage in violent retribution on the judge or their family simply for doing his or her job
so yeah, double standard
a completely 100% appropriate double standard
directly reflecting the nature of their work, compared to the nature of your work
your "double standard" complaint is similar to complaining that a nuclear missile silo gets more protection than an outhouse
1. the teenager's conception: "i can do whatever i want, damn the consequences." this is immaturity (not to denigrate actual chronological teenagers, only to denigrate psychological teenagers, who could be 47 years old. plenty of actual teenagers are more mature than many "adults")
2. the adult's conception: "i can do whatever i want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else." freedom, and responsibility. in fact, there is no no such thing as freedom in this world without also responsibility. if you have no sense of responsibility, you are not in fact truly free
if your definition of freedom does not take into consideration how you might impinge on the freedom of others (such as doxxing people for harassment purposes) then you might be an immature douchebag that has no fucking idea what you are talking about when you talk about freedom. more like freedumb
The core of Poe's law is that a parody of something extreme, by nature, becomes impossible to differentiate from sincere extremism. A corollary of Poe's law is the reverse phenomenon: sincere fundamentalist beliefs can be mistaken for a parody of those beliefs.
rather than fundamentalism though, what is being misunderstood is the sarcasm
the troll is speaking sarcastically. his position is "like NASA knows shit, and we should all bow down before mighty NASA, what a joke"
but since the position he is speaking sarcastically about is extreme (that NASA doesn't have anything useful to say), he sounds genuinely earnest about not heeding NASA's warnings. he sounds earnest, by accident
so i guess a follow up observation to poe's law would be "a sarcastic troll is unintentionally useful and perceptive"
when a corporation or group of corporations inhabits a large enough of a market, society and government does in fact have a right to intervene and alter or reduce their power and make demands on them
many people have this mental block where government demands or social demands on private corporations and individuals is the root of all evil
when simple economic and historical fact shows that when private entities dominate public spaces, they abuse the privilege
all stories are full of bullshit. but if you keep moving forward, the brain puts that aside and gets engrossed in a story that eventually eclipses the bullshit
but if it's not a good story, the mind gets bored and starts focusing on the inherent nonsensical bullshit
so what you're talking about is a symptom, a side effect. not a cause
stories full of the most ridiculous plot holes can be great stories, because you just don't care, the story grabs you
meanwhile, stories that go to great pains to make everything in the story make 100% good sense can be snoozefests and bores. because the story doesn't tell you anything interesting or absorbing
who cares if data rejiggers the inertial dampers in 3 seconds to create a phased tachyon field that moves the spatial anomaly to... blah blah blah ridiculous technobabble
why?
because the motherfucking borg, dude
storytelling matters
no one cares about the bullshit if it is good storytelling
to be a director or a critic implies someone who has sustained some effort in life
and to sustain effort in life requires optimism and positivity: motivation
there is no achievement without effort. and there is no effort without believing in something. and believing in something requires good feelings about something, anything
but some people in life are empty lumps of hate. they will never achieve anything in life. because of the lack of anything positive in their life
they make it this way. with their attitude. it holds them back. their attitude about life becomes self-fulfilling prophecy
but that's not good enough
they also have to rip others down. anyone who has ever made a positive effort and achieved something is a challenge to their attitude towards life: "if being positive results in something worthy, then maybe my negativity is wrong. therefore i have to tear down the concrete example that proves my attitude is wrong, rather than change my attitude"
so it must be that anything admirable in this life be a sticky target of endless bile from witless douchebags
open any youtube comment stream: the mindless negativity on the internet is an endless ocean, filled to the brim with great industry and agitated zeal by the useless empty thoughts of legions of mediocre losers
this is the vast majority of humanity: frustrated, desperate and angry about their own mediocrity. determined to denigrate anything worthy because it represents a challenge to their state of fail
people who sit on the internet and criticize nonconstructively are simply demonstrating the psychology of their self-destruction and their desire to export their fail to other people's lives. they aren't saying a damn thing about whatever they are criticizing
99% of criticism, especially criticism you didn't ask for, is poison. you must utterly ignore it if you hope to achieve anything in this life
you can take nicotine and you are still lucid. therefore you can still work and maintain relationships
heroin, cocaine, meth: they alter your ability to function as well as being addicting. this degrades your work and relationships
drugs have many qualities. two major ones are inebriation and addictiveness. for example, lsd is highly inebriating, but not addictive. so it should be legal (with a babysitter). while nicotine is highly addicitve, but not inebriating. so it should be legal
but it's the combination of addictiveness: forcing you to take the drug, and inebriation: blotting out the world and making you unable to deal with it lucidly, that makes certain drugs life destroying. because you wind up with only the drug in your life and your relationships and work degraded
do you understand? anything else i can help you with today?
No, the problem is the abuser's desire to avoid personal responsibility
you do understand that a chemical that overwhelms primitive reward pathways in the brain is stronger than judgment and willpower, right?
are you arguing that drug addicts should get jail out of personal failing? i think they should get healthcare. drug addiction is a disease
but with certainty recreational use of highly addictive and inebriating drugs like heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. will never be legal, because the use does not occur in a vacuum, and imposes costs on the rest of us. do you deny social costs of drug abuse exists?
it's like arguing with creationists or free market fundamentalists or antivaxxers
there's a belief, that contradicts reality and proof, and if anyone points that out them, instant emotional rejection
for pro drug morons, it's: misuse is simply a product of social laws and norms, not the actual drug. they actually believe a substance that highjacks biochemical pathways in the brain far stronger than willpower does not create problems, only pathetic social reactions to that does. incredible
marijuana should be legal. psilocybin, lsd, etc.: should be legal with a baby sitter
addicts should get healthcare, not jail and dealers should always get jail (this is how it works in switzerland and portugal, drug policy meccas)
but the highly addictive and inebriating stuff (so not nicotine, that's highly addicting but not highly inebriating, so you can maintain a job and and relationships) like meth, heroin, cocaine, will never be legal for recreational use. because abuse will happen. and lives will be ruined. and the costs for that abuse falls to the rest of us. there's no magic island bubble of freedom where only the addict suffers
certain morons actually believe highly addictive + inebriating substances can be used without abuse and addiction
or that there are no social costs for that
or that we actually owe them the maintenance costs of their drug use somehow
or that we should step over them and let them rot on the street like we are unfeeling sociopaths
or that all of the costs magically come from social norms and laws only, and not a substance that fucking overloads pleasure and reward centers and creates chemical dependence far stronger than willpower
fucking incredible
they discount or deny or ignore the concept of addiction on the topic of drugs, and actually believe that people still owe it to them to take them seriously!
the ignorance, blindness, and desperate rationalizing
but nahhh... until the 1900s the world was a utopia of drug use with no downside, right?
you really should educate yourself, on basic pharmacology and history, before you comment on a topic
or your words only serve to show how ignorant you are on a topic
the simple fact is, ever since groog wanted to drown his sorrows in fermented fruit all day instead of carry his weight in his tribe, drugs have been a problem
the drug addict, since even before we had fully evolved as humans, to today, and as long as we exist, is a weakness
it creates people who cannot support themselves. this is why society has to intervene
i'm not saying our current interventions work. the usa drug policy is fucking stupid. but because our methods suck doesn't mean the problem isn't real
portugal for example has much better *tactics* in the war on drugs (healthcare for addicts, prosecute pushers)
but the war on drugs has been going on forever, and will go on, forever
it's simply a maintenance function of civilization
if you don't understand that drug use costs us all, or don't admit, you're a fucking moron on this topic
if you deny that not everyone uses them responsibly, if you deny that many become addicts, you don't understand a fucking thing you are talking about
drugs will always be a problem. because people *always* misuse them
START with that thought, then you can say something intelligent about drug use and drug policy
Internet access does NOT lend itself to natural monopolies.
i stopped reading there. you're a moron. like talking to an antivaxxer. you can't be taken seriously in life if you want to deny basic fucking facts about a topic
this concept exists simply due to barriers to entry. you need to understand it. it doesn't seem like you do. you want to blame government in a desperate convoluted fantasy. the only one with blinders is you
if the government destroyed business, if the government embraced business, if the government was corrupt, if the government regulated fairly... none of it fucking matters
because this economic concept of the natural monopoly still stands and defines this topic
do you understand that? it doesn't seem like you do
educate yourself on a basic economic concept. then develop opinion. currently your opinion is based on an uneducated premise that government drives this problem. the problem is not government. all government bullshit on this topic is secondary nonsense that does not drive this problem. please understand the concept of the natural monopoly. if you avoid that concept, you do not understand economics
the united states has a poor corruption ranking compared to other countries without rent seeking parasites like broadband providers in the usa that are able to buy off legislators, unfortunately. you seem to dislike that status quo. good!
Slashdot Mirror
the double standard is that your occupation doesn't involve passing judgment on murders, rapists, mafia, and other assorted shitbags who have, and would, given the chance, engage in violent retribution on the judge or their family simply for doing his or her job
so yeah, double standard
a completely 100% appropriate double standard
directly reflecting the nature of their work, compared to the nature of your work
your "double standard" complaint is similar to complaining that a nuclear missile silo gets more protection than an outhouse
there's two concepts of freedom
1. the teenager's conception: "i can do whatever i want, damn the consequences." this is immaturity (not to denigrate actual chronological teenagers, only to denigrate psychological teenagers, who could be 47 years old. plenty of actual teenagers are more mature than many "adults")
2. the adult's conception: "i can do whatever i want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else." freedom, and responsibility. in fact, there is no no such thing as freedom in this world without also responsibility. if you have no sense of responsibility, you are not in fact truly free
if your definition of freedom does not take into consideration how you might impinge on the freedom of others (such as doxxing people for harassment purposes) then you might be an immature douchebag that has no fucking idea what you are talking about when you talk about freedom. more like freedumb
you're confused because this is a rare case of a reverse poe's law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
rather than fundamentalism though, what is being misunderstood is the sarcasm
the troll is speaking sarcastically. his position is "like NASA knows shit, and we should all bow down before mighty NASA, what a joke"
but since the position he is speaking sarcastically about is extreme (that NASA doesn't have anything useful to say), he sounds genuinely earnest about not heeding NASA's warnings. he sounds earnest, by accident
so i guess a follow up observation to poe's law would be "a sarcastic troll is unintentionally useful and perceptive"
how old are you?
microsoft is on a slow fade
nothing more, nothing less
everyone should enjoy such a slow steady comfortable decline
"OMFG! MICROSOFT IS DYING!" is just as drama queen useless as this "OMFG! GOOGLE IS DYING!" crap story we're commenting under
"hi, i'm from the government, and i'm here to tell you that jumping off a cliff is a bad idea"
"what? how dare you tell me what to do!" (jumps off cliff)
"stop criticizing, only i can"
because facebook doesn't dominate the market where this topic is important, of course /s
when a corporation or group of corporations inhabits a large enough of a market, society and government does in fact have a right to intervene and alter or reduce their power and make demands on them
many people have this mental block where government demands or social demands on private corporations and individuals is the root of all evil
when simple economic and historical fact shows that when private entities dominate public spaces, they abuse the privilege
and how would you characterize your comment?
when you respond to people, you need to try to understand what they actually say
me in the comment thread above:
you are criticizing positions and belief that i never said. in fact
i took the exact opposite position you are criticizing
what exactly is the point of responding to someone if you won't even fucking read what they write?
READ, moron. then respond
the architecture WAS historically accurate...
to a 1989 video game
Nerds have no taste and no culture, news at 11.
you might be on the wrong website
movies are full of bullshit. why does one pile of bullshit here matter, but the other pile of bullshit there not matter
selectively applying witless outrage at one pile of bullshit but not the other is stupid
no that's just lack of good storytelling
all stories are full of bullshit. but if you keep moving forward, the brain puts that aside and gets engrossed in a story that eventually eclipses the bullshit
but if it's not a good story, the mind gets bored and starts focusing on the inherent nonsensical bullshit
so what you're talking about is a symptom, a side effect. not a cause
stories full of the most ridiculous plot holes can be great stories, because you just don't care, the story grabs you
meanwhile, stories that go to great pains to make everything in the story make 100% good sense can be snoozefests and bores. because the story doesn't tell you anything interesting or absorbing
who cares if data rejiggers the inertial dampers in 3 seconds to create a phased tachyon field that moves the spatial anomaly to... blah blah blah ridiculous technobabble
why?
because the motherfucking borg, dude
storytelling matters
no one cares about the bullshit if it is good storytelling
to be a director or a critic implies someone who has sustained some effort in life
and to sustain effort in life requires optimism and positivity: motivation
there is no achievement without effort. and there is no effort without believing in something. and believing in something requires good feelings about something, anything
but some people in life are empty lumps of hate. they will never achieve anything in life. because of the lack of anything positive in their life
they make it this way. with their attitude. it holds them back. their attitude about life becomes self-fulfilling prophecy
but that's not good enough
they also have to rip others down. anyone who has ever made a positive effort and achieved something is a challenge to their attitude towards life: "if being positive results in something worthy, then maybe my negativity is wrong. therefore i have to tear down the concrete example that proves my attitude is wrong, rather than change my attitude"
so it must be that anything admirable in this life be a sticky target of endless bile from witless douchebags
open any youtube comment stream: the mindless negativity on the internet is an endless ocean, filled to the brim with great industry and agitated zeal by the useless empty thoughts of legions of mediocre losers
this is the vast majority of humanity: frustrated, desperate and angry about their own mediocrity. determined to denigrate anything worthy because it represents a challenge to their state of fail
people who sit on the internet and criticize nonconstructively are simply demonstrating the psychology of their self-destruction and their desire to export their fail to other people's lives. they aren't saying a damn thing about whatever they are criticizing
99% of criticism, especially criticism you didn't ask for, is poison. you must utterly ignore it if you hope to achieve anything in this life
haters gonna hate
squelch the static
it's a fucking superhero story, why are you taking it so seriously
i would think the largest plot hole would be, gee, i dunno, maybe the fucking guy who can fling webs because he was bit by a radioactive spider?
it might be slightly unrealistic that a dude would get large and green when he gets angry because of gamma ray exposure
and yes, it is for kids. the kid in all of us
or, at least, some of us
get the stick out of your ass
you can take nicotine and you are still lucid. therefore you can still work and maintain relationships
heroin, cocaine, meth: they alter your ability to function as well as being addicting. this degrades your work and relationships
drugs have many qualities. two major ones are inebriation and addictiveness. for example, lsd is highly inebriating, but not addictive. so it should be legal (with a babysitter). while nicotine is highly addicitve, but not inebriating. so it should be legal
but it's the combination of addictiveness: forcing you to take the drug, and inebriation: blotting out the world and making you unable to deal with it lucidly, that makes certain drugs life destroying. because you wind up with only the drug in your life and your relationships and work degraded
do you understand? anything else i can help you with today?
you do understand that a chemical that overwhelms primitive reward pathways in the brain is stronger than judgment and willpower, right?
are you arguing that drug addicts should get jail out of personal failing? i think they should get healthcare. drug addiction is a disease
but with certainty recreational use of highly addictive and inebriating drugs like heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. will never be legal, because the use does not occur in a vacuum, and imposes costs on the rest of us. do you deny social costs of drug abuse exists?
the intent is good
but the proposal fails a cost/ benefit analysis, that's all
all that will happen is north korea gets free drone technology, like iran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
it's like arguing with creationists or free market fundamentalists or antivaxxers
there's a belief, that contradicts reality and proof, and if anyone points that out them, instant emotional rejection
for pro drug morons, it's: misuse is simply a product of social laws and norms, not the actual drug. they actually believe a substance that highjacks biochemical pathways in the brain far stronger than willpower does not create problems, only pathetic social reactions to that does. incredible
marijuana should be legal. psilocybin, lsd, etc.: should be legal with a baby sitter
addicts should get healthcare, not jail and dealers should always get jail (this is how it works in switzerland and portugal, drug policy meccas)
but the highly addictive and inebriating stuff (so not nicotine, that's highly addicting but not highly inebriating, so you can maintain a job and and relationships) like meth, heroin, cocaine, will never be legal for recreational use. because abuse will happen. and lives will be ruined. and the costs for that abuse falls to the rest of us. there's no magic island bubble of freedom where only the addict suffers
certain morons actually believe highly addictive + inebriating substances can be used without abuse and addiction
or that there are no social costs for that
or that we actually owe them the maintenance costs of their drug use somehow
or that we should step over them and let them rot on the street like we are unfeeling sociopaths
or that all of the costs magically come from social norms and laws only, and not a substance that fucking overloads pleasure and reward centers and creates chemical dependence far stronger than willpower
fucking incredible
they discount or deny or ignore the concept of addiction on the topic of drugs, and actually believe that people still owe it to them to take them seriously!
the ignorance, blindness, and desperate rationalizing
because the biology of addiction was invented in the 1900s, right?
oh, and look, the opium wars, drug pushers weakening and subjugating an entire civilization:
http://www.sacu.org/opium2.htm...
but nahhh... until the 1900s the world was a utopia of drug use with no downside, right?
you really should educate yourself, on basic pharmacology and history, before you comment on a topic
or your words only serve to show how ignorant you are on a topic
the simple fact is, ever since groog wanted to drown his sorrows in fermented fruit all day instead of carry his weight in his tribe, drugs have been a problem
the drug addict, since even before we had fully evolved as humans, to today, and as long as we exist, is a weakness
it creates people who cannot support themselves. this is why society has to intervene
i'm not saying our current interventions work. the usa drug policy is fucking stupid. but because our methods suck doesn't mean the problem isn't real
portugal for example has much better *tactics* in the war on drugs (healthcare for addicts, prosecute pushers)
but the war on drugs has been going on forever, and will go on, forever
it's simply a maintenance function of civilization
if you don't understand that drug use costs us all, or don't admit, you're a fucking moron on this topic
if you deny that not everyone uses them responsibly, if you deny that many become addicts, you don't understand a fucking thing you are talking about
drugs will always be a problem. because people *always* misuse them
START with that thought, then you can say something intelligent about drug use and drug policy
Internet access does NOT lend itself to natural monopolies.
i stopped reading there. you're a moron. like talking to an antivaxxer. you can't be taken seriously in life if you want to deny basic fucking facts about a topic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
this concept exists simply due to barriers to entry. you need to understand it. it doesn't seem like you do. you want to blame government in a desperate convoluted fantasy. the only one with blinders is you
if the government destroyed business, if the government embraced business, if the government was corrupt, if the government regulated fairly... none of it fucking matters
because this economic concept of the natural monopoly still stands and defines this topic
do you understand that? it doesn't seem like you do
educate yourself on a basic economic concept. then develop opinion. currently your opinion is based on an uneducated premise that government drives this problem. the problem is not government. all government bullshit on this topic is secondary nonsense that does not drive this problem. please understand the concept of the natural monopoly. if you avoid that concept, you do not understand economics
start here:
http://www.transparency.org/co...
now click on canada or norway for comparison
the united states has a poor corruption ranking compared to other countries without rent seeking parasites like broadband providers in the usa that are able to buy off legislators, unfortunately. you seem to dislike that status quo. good!