213374U

You'd have to have a pretty big heart to love that pitbull of a man, I must say.

The thing is you cannot selectively justify the encroachment on civil liberties. For all I know, Uganda is a tyranny in the same sense Germany is one, even if functionally they are not the same. You do need to pick your battles though, you can find civil rights issues everywhere. Nobody is saying that it is fine in one country but not another, it's simply a matter of time, resources, and prioritizing. Well, I may be mistaken but there was some defense of hate speech laws back there somewhere. This was a general commentary on that tangent is all. I agree that everything cannot be tackled simultaneously and fixed overnight. But how do you suggest we choose which civil liberties issues take priority? My pet peeve is with "us" telling others how it's not nice to do something, when we are doing the equivalent ourselves. This makes any pretense of moral authority crumble.

The thing is you cannot selectively justify the encroachment on civil liberties. For all I know, Uganda is a tyranny in the same sense Germany is one, even if functionally they are not the same.

Not being fluent in Russian or Ukrainian, All I see is that Muzychko character bitchslapping a suit. Who is that and what is Muzychko ranting about?

You needn't say that—drawing parallels between a series of current events and events past that everyone knows about is subtly but surely laying out a slippery slope. You said: But it actually works both ways. A group takes power and decides that trait "X" is abhorrent and needs to be eradicated "for the betterment of society", though the excuses vary wildly. This trait can be religious beliefs, ethnic ties, economic status, affinity with certain political ideas, and yes, even sexual orientation; it can be pretty much anything. Backed by the majority and riding atop a self-reinforcing sense of moral righteousness, laws are passed to suppress the expression of this trait, damning the members of society targeted by these measures to an existence outside of mainstream society, as pariahs—using the power of the state to persecute people based on what they are. Once this is justified for "X", it can be justified for anything based on precedent. At this point a tyranny has effectively been enabled, and all bets are off. CAR, South Sudan, Iraq... it's old news brah. News pieces are consumption articles and nobody likes stale bread.

^ Maybe it works with the 1.2 beta patch?

Yeah, and that is the exact opposite to the slippery slope that "first you legalize hate" and then BAM! Treblinka. Given the subjective properties of language, hate speech laws are either extremely difficult to enforce, or an excuse to implement ideological tyranny. If you are indeed in a situation in which the particular audiences that can be convinced of whatever it is you want to suppress are large enough that their actions cannot be controlled, hate speech laws aren't going to do much good anyway. And if they are not large enough, the state already has broad powers to keep order. Hate speech laws are measures aimed at superficial symptoms of much deeper problems at best, or concealed attempts at social engineering at worst. To use your own example, the Third Wave experiment would not have infringed on any hate speech laws; it still took off no problem. I also contend that at a fundamental level, you cannot simultaneously sustain the paternalist stance that the existence of some ideas is inherently "dangerous" or "unacceptable" to society (and therefore manifesting them is in breach of the law) and also the postulate upon which democracy is based that a society can produce sensible, responsible adult individuals free to form their own opinions and exercise their political rights accordingly. Conveniently, it's always going to be those unaffected by free speech limitations that believe that it's the "others" that need their dangerous thoughts reined in, by virtue of how groupthink works in societies at large. <insert comparison in accordance to Godwin's law>

That's a good question. The weight of water above them is compensated by the normal (upwards) force exerted in reaction by the seabed that is transmitted through the column of water under the fish, as per Newton's third Law. This places an enormous pressure on fish, but as they are basically made of water, they are therefore as incompressible as the water that surrounds them. They just don't care about the pressure, provided they remain within the pressure ranges that are safe for them. As for the swimming through concrete idea, the internal property that describes the resistance of a fluid to shearing (to put it roughly) is viscosity. Viscosity is not a function of pressure, but of temperature. But even at the lowest temperatures at which water is still liquid and ostensibly still behaving as water, its viscosity is 1,000 to 10,000 times less than that of, say, chocolate syrup. http://www.research-equipment.com/viscosity%20chart.html Also, consider that when a fish swims, it's not fighting against the pressure, because the inroad it's making "against" the water in front of it is compensated by the empty space behind it that it no longer occupies, which is immediately filled with water. Pressure is not a factor. Again, I'm not a physicist, but I think that's the general idea.

It's not even "US press", as it's not homogeneous—just the big names that enjoy a reputation earned in times past and consequently get the most following and exposure. There is quite a bit of independent critical stuff, but for lack of means and what Zoraptor explained, the effectiveness of their efforts is limited. Do tell, who is the real power-structure in the US? http://billmoyers.com/episode/the-deep-state-hiding-in-plain-sight/ Enjoy.

Western-style nation-building proceeding at full speed: http://www.kyivpost.com/content/politics/thirteen-more-party-of-regions-members-leave-parliamentary-faction-337356.html http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/yefremov-complains-to-ashton-his-faction-mps-working-at-gunpoint-337587.html http://en.ria.ru/world/20140224/187857643/Ukraine-Parliament-Sacks-Constitutional-Court-Judges.html Yay "democracy". And because we have such short memories: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 Also, it appears the new cabinet has issued a decree disbanding the Berkut riot police—a demand put forth by Svoboda. I wonder who's going to stand up to the Right Sector nazi militias now? The recently-appointed-by-Russian-mobs mayor of Sevastopol has already declared himself in defiance of this and will apparently continue to finance Berkut regardless, even though Berkut units are outside of the normal police hierarchy and answer to the senior Interior Ministry official for the region. Interesting that these are the same police units that were deployed from Eastern Ukraine to crack down on protesters as Yanukovych wasn't too sure about the loyalties of western-based Berkut units, and the same that were cheered on by the people at Donetsk upon their return. All in all, it's increasingly looking like a major strategic defeat for Russia. Nice timing, too. It's not the first time.. and if I wanted to such arguments, i'd go somewhere were there is a religious sub-forum. Aww, poor boy. He so butthurt. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. You don't get to choose the arguments other people make.

"Some questioner[sic]" is actually the survey tool used by RWB to gather the data they later collate into the Press Freedom Index. You would have figured this out this if you a) actually read the Wikipedia articles you regurgitate, b) read the posts other people make to graciously explain why the stupid **** you post is baseless/irrelevant/outright wrong and c) put some thought into the discussion instead of saving all your available brainpower to make prepubescent jokes about other posters' aliases. But keep quoting me and talking about me. It's clear that you care.

I haven't played WoW, but have experience with other MMOs. The most common practical complaint I read related to this kind of thing is that by allowing people to max toons without actually doing the leveling they would make the already difficult problem of finding competent endgame partners a veritable nightmare, filling the upper ranks with "noobs" that would have otherwise quit or learned their toon while leveling. But from what I've read, WoW is hardly hardcore to begin with, so...

Im inclined to agree with your first paragraph but disagree with your second. Imo, paying my taxes doesn't buy me the right to classified weapons system / intelligence gathering / etc... I feel those type programs must stay secret or basically lose all effectiveness. Thanks for the answer. Right, I think I should clarify that. It's not that paying taxes buys me anything. Knowing what exactly has been done with the money ensures that it's not being pocketed by sleazy officials and that it's not being used for illegal purposes. And in a more practical sense, it may also serve to press for reasonable spending. It'd be closer to auditing than to having any rights over what the taxes money is buying. I mean, read the Washington Post link I pasted. $75bn for intelligence (article was written in 2010), not including "some military activities and domestic counterterrorism programs". And the people running it can't tell whether it's actually working at making the country more secure!

The line would be where the subject brings to light illegal (or even simply immoral) activities, government or corporate. If a person is aware that a crime is being committed and doesn't report it, he can be charged as accessory. The government doesn't (shouldn't) get exemption on that just because they claim to be doing it "for the common good", "for the people" or "for reasons". And yes, I feel everyone should know what their government is doing. Reason #1 is because they are doing it with my taxes' money. I don't get to choose whether I pay taxes or not. Reason #2 is that I'm a distrustful and cynical **** and cannot think of a single use of secrecy that cannot (and therefore will not) be abused and subverted. Doesn't mean everyone needs to know everything immediately though. But secrecy destroys accountability. And there can be no true democracy without accountability.

Oh, wow. A kindergarten reference to my handle here is the best you can do? Come on, be a bro and put some effort into it, make a "ur mum" joke or something. **** yeah babby!

No, it's not simple at all. Counting how many journalists are imprisoned or killed vs the same thing in Russia only tells you how many journalists are killed in each place. It says nothing about the independence and quality of journalism. And, by all means, keep bringing more figures and statistics from western-based organizations collated by obscure methodologies to prove that western journalism is "free". That's true. But mostly only because of Snowden—the dude that can't go back to his country because there is no whistleblower protection. A sad state of affairs for the country that is the vanguard of the "free world", don't you think? http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/1/ It's hard to find the hardcore stuff on mainstream publications, though. And I mean the news items regarding the ever-escalating drone assassinations, the role of intel agencies in foreign regime destabilization, the CIA secret prisons, etc. That kind of thing simply doesn't get as much exposure as other choice pieces do, and obviously nowhere near as much as it should. Instead the criticism is mostly regarding budgetary stuff, policy decisions, partisan tugs of war, etc. Yeah, you are right. Going through your posts is like cleaning a bar's toilet. No matter how hard you scrub, you know there's plenty more where that came from.

No need for wild imagination, you just described good ol' system in most Eastren countries(including Russia) where the government tells the press what is ok through harsh censorship. As demonstrated by the data I linked, so that we can avoid any statements based on our own beliefs or biases... Speaking of censorship, that film you linked to make your point about america was produced in and acted by Americans. In fact many films and other media in the "west" are openly critical of its various governments and policies. Which brings me back to Russia, when was last time that anyone was allowed to make a truly critical about Russia\Putin (in fact, some of the bigger fishes have been jailed on tramped up charges, so that others get the hint that you either with or against the "party" line ). So before we continue, you need to understand that from day one you have been exposed(brainwashed) to only one point of view i.e. "Putin daily". This is particularly hard to understand to people in the east where censorship is most brutal, thus their initial experience to global media is usually WTF?! LIES! this is usually passes once you expand your foundation and figure out that the world doesn't revolve around you. I really love how you get all high and mighty at the drop of a hat and accuse other people you know nothing about of being "brainwashed", "lazy", "complacent" and anything else you need to feel good about yourself. Compensating for something, are we? The link you posted is of questionable value, for reasons I already discussed. Clearly, an unbiased analysis and discussion is much harder and effort-intensive than copypasta of the first WP page that supports your view. Here is the post where I pre-emptively discussed the WP "data": bushthatsheetididntreaditlol.gif Now, I'm not an expert on Russian media, I know very little of the actual hurdles journalists have to overcome to do their job over there. And unless you are Russian, I'm not going to take your word for it, either. But what I do know is that western mainstream media are so under the control of private interests that there is no functional difference between a central government censorship agency and "editorial lines" that journalists have to follow or face sacking. What good is a right if it's not exercised? Heh. Aw, gee. I don't know. How about we shift the focus for once and cast the bad guys from our own backyard? The death toll worldwide attributable to the global MIC is difficult to calculate, but it sure beats war crimes during the Balkans wars. Of course, the idea that the people signing our paychecks (for those who are still getting one) are involved in the business of systematic global destabilization may be harder to swallow for some of us than some nice reinforcement of the "us vs them" mentality achieved by caricaturesque portrayals of bad guys from "the East" to whom we cannot establish any sort of emotional connection. Enjoy the Kool-Aid.

Sure, the day Larry King interviews Edward Snowden on CNN. Oh, wait... Lol "free press". That should raise all sorts of red flags by itself. Just saying...

You'd have to extend that to any Ugandan. Unless you can test for homosexuality somehow. Science has all the answers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginal_photoplethysmograph There's of course a male version as well. Thank you Stephen Fry and QI for highlighting this important information. Come on man, I leave everything set up for you to make a facile gaydar joke and you come up with... wtf is that, seriously. I just lost 1d6 SAN.

I was tempted to bring up a troll thread from 2005 that I started that turned out pretty well, as an example. Decided against it because... no real point. But yeah, funny how the memory works. Can't remember the name of this coworker I need to talk to or that formula that I absolutely need for this exam... but remember vividly some silly discussion from ten years ago.

I'm not big on western social colonialism, but moral minimums. Seriously, moral relativism is the road to chaos. I agree with your point on sanctions. It's always the little people that get the short end of the stick. You'd have to extend that to any Ugandan. Unless you can test for homosexuality somehow.

Yeah, I guess if anyone has reasons to be suspicious of the intentions of foreign powers, it would be the Balkan peoples. Austro-Hungary, Ottomans, Russians, Germans, NATO... you just can't seem to catch a break huh? My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

Yeah, well. With CRPG fans it's a bit like the old joke: "What do you get if you put two Trotskyists in a room? Three Trotskyist groups"

I honestly don't know about that. Encyclopedia Dramatica is a favorite of mine (I have a weakness for "an hero" shopped pics) and yet I'd like to think I'm a fairly well-adjusted individual. Who doesn't think the same, though? Despite my best efforts to be serious and non-offensive—when I choose to be—the deep aspects of my personality are going to leak through and affect the way I behave. The question is, if the person I am affects the way I behave online, can the way I behave online also affect the person I am? Another perspective is the relationship between language and thought. I remember reading a theory that suggested that thought and language both affect each other, as opposed to language being simply an imperfect tool to convey thoughts. If the use of language is distorted, the concepts behind it can be distorted as well—this mechanism is well established and a basic lesson in propaganda. The internet is a special setting where it's all language and no action, and it's basically one huge free for all, so the boundaries to which it's "acceptable" to distort language are poorly defined, if at all.

Right. I'm not so convinced either way. "Games turn kids into killers" is probably the most extreme example you can make, but there are other scenarios we could consider. For instance, the rise of "happy slapping" and other phenomena that transcend the barriers of the 'nets and affect people's physical lives. This is not the same as suggesting that 'Codex is a nest of rapists because they systematically trivialize rape, but it's difficult to establish whether a certain mindset becoming the norm online can affect individuals' mindsets when they log off. How good are we really at separating our online and RL personas? Social pressure is essential at curbing antisocial (oh, wow, I went there) conducts, but with the internet you have a space where standard social norms no longer apply and may or may not be substituted by something entirely different depending on the community you are looking at.