Ben No.3

Worst thing about it imo still is that they make money using your data. You’re a recourse. That’s pretty messed up when you think about it.

I like how he just drops the bottle

Oh no, how dare they... warn people that rape and violence is happening in these plays? Clearly this is the same thing as burning books! something something cultural marxism something something outrageNot the same thing... but the latter is only a short step from the former.you can’t be serious? What is essentially a brief summary of certain moments is close to the same as the censorship and symbolic destruction of literature? By that logic, I might as well say book titles are a short step from censorship, because they direct the readers interest without giving him explicit information. I didn't say they were the same or equate them in any way other than to point out the former is a step (even a small one) in the direction of the latter. No, you said that “the latter is only a short step from the former”, indicating not that one is a small step into a certain direction, but that one is only shortly apart from the other.

Also, why is this talk even a thing? Here’s some actually important information: -Over the past 12 years, the number of breeding birds in Europe has declined by 15% -Over the past 27 years, the number of flying insects in Europe of all types has declined by more than 75% Could this perhaps be in any way at least important symptoms of a larger issue? Maybe even causes of bigger problems? Caused by our actions? But instead of taking an honest look at ecological problems; let’s talk about triggers warnings over several pages! Because that sounds like a fundamental issue to modern society. Source;http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa-umwelt-insekten-101.html

Oh no, how dare they... warn people that rape and violence is happening in these plays? Clearly this is the same thing as burning books! something something cultural marxism something something outrage Not the same thing... but the latter is only a short step from the former. you can’t be serious? What is essentially a brief summary of certain moments is close to the same as the censorship and symbolic destruction of literature? By that logic, I might as well say book titles are a short step from censorship, because they direct the readers interest without giving him explicit information.

And someone thinks this is of any actual relevance or even just newsworthy.

Today: Driving lessons Scared the living hell out of me. But it could’ve been worse.

interesting sense of humour

Defending the rights of the media does not equate to defending the media. I will defend the media against unjust actions by the state, more precisely Trump, in the same way I will defend a convicted murderer against a death sentence. Because much like the death sentence, undermining the media is little but political savagery; and I will not be quiet while barbarians sit in the White House.

That sounds like a terrible idea. Wait, I’ll have to ask her for it.

So I will have to say that I spend some time abroad. Being in a different environment obviously changes the way people behave. Anyway, during this time, I met the girl who I am now in a relationship with. Now I’ve been back home for quite some months now. Accordingly, I’m finally acting like me again (and it feels good... looking back, I was alienating myself from myself abroad). However, I am stating to realise she fell in love with whoever I seemed to be back then. The fact that this is a distant relationship doesn’t exactly make things easier. I’m afraid she fell for a lie, in a way. And that isn’t particularly pleasant to even admit to myself; but I have no idea how to talk to her about this.

now I can remember obama very openly criticizing fox news, but I can't even remember him threatening to try to shut it down or anything along those lines Here’s a news outlet called “American Patriot”, a name that suggests objective, reasoned and fair discussion like no other, saying that Obama could maybe, in theory, perhaps shut down Fox. http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/this-obama-scheme-could-shut-down-fox-news/

truthfully, i do not want or wish to give the gov't that power to shut down news organizations or any organizations they do not agree with, but i will admit that is alot easier to do than to teach mankind not to believe everything they see or hear or even feel without searching the answers out on their own. Also make it legal to slap whoever says "but i heard on it the news so it must be true.." ( u can even put "i read it in the bible/koran/etc) What i am okay with the gov't doing to change/fix our media. 1. make it official that news of any type (including govt) is not a credible source of truth. 2. change or actually enforce the libel laws/restrictions (funny our govt actually DOES control our news lmao) and whoever is in charge of it force the news agency at the very beginning page list ALL enfractures and "mistakes" that were sold as news. 3. BAN any political party or big businesses as well from contributing financially to the news agency (other than commercials). Connect dots of business owned and political contributions and memberships. Otherwise top of screen and page of outlining story with "paid for by such and such". i think those 3 things would change how our "news" would work and operate. i can dream though. wouldn’t that exception make point three essentially irrelevant?

The motives changed. We don’t have state propaganda trying to force a world view onto us so that we might obey. Instead, we have news outlets building on whatever ideology we follow without ever expanding or questioning it so that we might pay. What is more dangerous is difficult to say; but both kills democracy. Then again, times change. In the realm of the internet, a user is not the customer, he is the recource; more specifically the data about him. The customers are right now mainly advertisement companies, but of course also entities such as political parties. But the nature of the information presented thereby also changes. Whereas the information previously was the product to he sold, and therefore quality information and research was a profitable option for newspapers, the product is now data about the readers. In turn, the quality (and truthfullness) of the information presented itself becomes close to irrelevant from an economic point of view. Data is collected through the observation of our behaviour; therefore we need to be triggered to behave somehow. The reaction to the information is now the object of economic interest. This ultimate commodification of our lives has the byproduct, that it becomes financially profitable for our suppliers of information to immerse us into essentially made up worlds; incomplete pictures of reality presented from a narrow point of view. But! It catches our attention. Then again, we always knew that facts weren’t “real”. “Fact” -> lat. “factum” (eng. “made”)

So what’s up with the UNESCO thing? Feels like Trump is doing yet another irrelevant political move; in a big time way. What a showman.

I’ve helped out in a psychiatry once. Considering what literally everyone around there said, you should definitely tell everything you know to authorities. Then again, they also said it’s almost impossible to pin down if there’s no proof; which usually meant either they turned themselves in or they were caught in the act.

Seriously, the poor ants. Imagine someone did that to you

which one?Well there's the one without 2049 at the end. Ah. Well then you shall meet him with fire and fury.

„I don't believe we are letting the wolves devour the sheep. I believe in empowering the sheep to take care of themselves.“ This belongs in the Fun Thread. This would have been a metaphor I would use to point out how dangerous the market and libertarianism is. It baffles me that a libertarian, a supposed advocate of capitalism, would use it. But I guess I should be thankful you did, GD. You can’t empower sheep to fight a wolf. That can’t and won’t ever happen. The only thing that could take care of them would be a third party that is capable of things like building a fence. Refusing to build that fence is not empowering the sheep; it is sentencing them to death. Quite similarly, getting rid of a strong state is not empowering anyone but the wolves (of Wall Street?). An employee can’t protect himself adequately against his employer through any mean but a string state apparatus. And don’t act like the company cares about him. You like to quote, GD. I have a quote for you. Mind you; I am the translator, so sorry for any inaccuracies. “Question: What is the difference between a worker and a slave? Answer: The slave is sold once and for all; the worker has to sell himself hourly and daily. The individual slave, [being the] property of his owner, has, already because of the interests of said owner, an guaranteed existence, however miserable it might be; the individual worker, property of the entire bourgeois class so to speak, who’s work is only bought when needed, does not have a guaranteed existence. Only the existence of the entire working class is guaranteed.” -F. Engels MEW 4 So the wolves need sheep as a whole; but they don’t give two ****s about the individual sheep. Even more, it lies in their interest that the sheep will be eaten; by them. The only thing protecting the individual sheep from being eaten is the fence. Now what was that about sheep-empowerment?

which one?

Me: You seem to overrule me way too often. Girlfriend: Yes, I do. Because you are stupid.

You can own guns in Russia. Great freedom over there. Guns don't protect you from fascism. They only mean the police will bring bigger guns; essentially resulting in more deaths and damage and nothing else. If you want to stand up against the government; you might as well build a bomb. But guns on their own only make the death toll go up

C'est la vie. Smartass that i am

The ammunition part is not true or "partially" true. The thing is Swiss Army since 2007 still gives the men serving in military (which are all men between 18 to 34) their service rifles or pistols, but they don't give ammunition to them. Swiss still can buy their own ammunition for their private guns and keep them at home. They cannot use this ammunition for the service gun or even use this gun to protect themselves from assailants. Those are strictly guns for protecting the country in case of foreign attack. The main difference between Swiss and US gun mentality is that Swiss have guns because they are all soldiers protecting the country, while US have guns for personal protection. So Switzerland approach is not something you want to mimic if you are for owning guns for personal protection. around here, if you own a gun you'll have an official coming by every so and so often to check wether you locked your gun away according to law. You'll have to pay if you didn't. Might seem a bit strict, but it does keep the number of babies playing with guns or teens shooting up schools down.

same thing, yeah. And the phenomenon you described would happen within any ideology; so they might as well be left wingers. But you must not forget the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie.