213374U

Hmm. But wouldn't "doing it right" amount to large-scale reconditioning? Yep. If you have a message that rings true to our base emotions, then anything's is possible; The good and the bad. So what's left is only the moral component on what the message is to serve. So, in this case, it's a bad attempt to look good (treat people well, we are the same) when the message used with in euphemism which is inheritly unequal (a talbot is not the same as ferrari, nor the status of having one). So therefore it is a, lazy, untrustworthy and unconvincing piece of video. Which leads bad moral premise, which leads it to be another lofty ideal by people who secretly wishes to be the aristocrats that they are fighting against. This guy mastered these things to such a degree that we can thank him for all modern advertising, focus groups before and during election cycles, marketing, you name it, if you're more interested in what i am getting at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays I have, like, no idea what you just said. And in light of your increasingly disjointed posting, I'm kinda scared to ask. Regardless, I don't see how Bernays is relevant. Hating (if that's what you're doing, it's hard to tell) on PR and propaganda is like hating on calculus or gunpowder. This stuff gets discovered/invented as time goes on and it's neither good nor bad, intrinsically. Not to mention that none of that is the point of the video, as others have repeatedly pointed out...

Hmm. But wouldn't "doing it right" amount to large-scale reconditioning?

Maybe think less in terms of "grand social engineering" and more in terms of "basic empathy". You might want to look that up, btw. Bah, why bother.

No offense, but that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at life, humanity, or just biology in general. Altruism is an inbuilt imperative for many species, including humans. Yeah, it's rather appalling how these reactionary, quasi-Randian outlooks are unfailingly based on... factually incorrect premises. On cooperation vs competition On DNA unfair bluh bluh On meritocracy Bonus series, because why the **** not (not directly related, fascinating nonetheless, free will mind over matter yadda yadda) These links have all appeared in these boards in one shape or another, btw. But really, it wouldn't be so bad if you guys just up and admitted that you live by "I got mine, **** you (because my grandaddy XYZ)". At least be honest, if nothing else, with yourselves.

Not just for Assassins. There was a 1v1 tournament this weekend on TRE; while there was room for some of that crazy PT/VG burst everyone is talking about (ouch), the winner was once again a stealther, and not an Assassin, either. Link if anyone is interested. Of course with the devs being average from what I hear and Musco not even playing the game anymore, the odds of a serious effort to balance the game for both PVE and PVP are low.

Fair enough, I was wrong about the security sweep. I read an old news item that pointed to this case and misrepresented facts. Thing is, sadly I don't really need to make up hypothetical scenarios, when actual real life occurrences illustrate the point better. In this case, they were serving a warrant, "probable cause" being trace amounts of weed found in the trash. No previous criminal record, no history of violence. Funny that you mentioned me coming out of my boudoir brandishing a butter knife (and in a pink robe no less, whatever floats your boat I guess...), because that's basically what happened in this case. No questions asked, just some guy getting shot in the face inside his house, in the middle of the night, by militarized police. Must have been one of those "fatally stoopid" folks you mentioned. That's for a minor drug-related offense. Are they going to go any easier on suspected terrorists? Interesting asides about the British in Boston, and regarding the exclusionary rule not applying even when knock-and-announce is violated. SCOTUS recently left the ruling in place, btw. edit: thanks for the exhaustive explanation, too.

Yep, I read it. From what I understand the guy who gave consent couldn't legitimately do so, and: "Buie is about a reasonable, articulable suspicion “that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 337. Here, there is no such fear, and the majority opinion allows the officers to do something they normally would need a warrant to do, search a residence which they do not have consent to search and where the resident is either not present or not interested in talking to them. Again, the majority’s neglect of this requirement leads to an overly broad new exception to the Fourth Amendment." Go flippant if you want, but I'd appreciate a serious take. You are far more likely to die in an altercation with a cop than in a terrorist attack. Does that mean cops are more dangerous than terrorists? But that's beside the point; I couldn't care less if you call the cops when your neighbor looks at you sideways. I'm just saying that doing so and expecting law enforcement to act on every instance of mundane stuff sounds a tad unreasonable. Knock yourself out, though.

Several points. How am I comparing traffic stops to what WOD suggested? Because traffic stops involve cops routinely interrogating citizens about everyday activities. In this case, driving around. I'm not a lawyer (not even American), but since you are, I'd like you to explain this to me: "We turn initially to the primary issue now before us, namely whether there is an across-the-board, hard and fast per se rule that a protective sweep can be valid only if conducted incident to an arrest. We hold there is not." [...] "Buie makes clear that that worthy principle does not preclude application in the in-home sweep context of the general reasonableness standard calculated by balancing the intrusion on Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests, including those of officer safety. Indeed, Buie expressly noted and rejected the Maryland Court of Appeals’ refusal to apply the reasonable suspicion standard of Terry and Long on the ground that “the sanctity of the home” required a more demanding standard." [...] "Applying this balancing principle, and mindful of Buie’s heavy reliance on Terry and Long, neither of which involved an arrest, we hold that arrest is not always, or per se, an indispensable element of an in-home protective sweep, and that although arrest may be highly relevant, particularly as tending to show the requisite potential of danger to the officers, that danger may also be established by other circumstances." [...] Several decisions of other circuits have upheld an in-home Buie protective sweep even though not incident to an arrest. In United States v. Patrick, 959 F.2d 991 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the D.C. Circuit dealt, as we do here, with a consent entry case and upheld the protective sweep of a bedroom in the apartment which the party authorizing entry (the court assumed arguendo) had no right to authorize search of, even though the sweep was not incident to an arrest. [...] "We recognize that protective sweeps following a consent entry may in certain circumstances pose Fourth Amendment concerns not present in cases where the initial entry is pursuant to a warrant. For example, concerns might arise respecting a consent to entry requested for a stated common purpose but actually intended not for that purpose but rather for the purpose of gaining access in order to then make a protective sweep of the entire home for unrelated reasons and thus circumvent the warrant requirement" [...] "In this case, however, the officers conducted an intrusive search of a bedroom with neither consent, nor search warrant, nor arrest warrant, nor any exigent circumstances. The majority has created an exception that permits an officer to ask for permission to enter a home from a third party who may have authority to consent to only part of the home but not all of the home and then immediately contend that he, the officer, is so apprehensive about his own safety that he must conduct a protective sweep of areas where he has no consent to be, when the officer had no obligation or duty to enter the home in the first place. This new exception is really a “knock, enter, maybe talk, and search” police investigatory tactic, all conducted without a warrant, and resulting in an end-run around the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment." etc. So no warrant, no exigent circumstances or consent. I might be missing something, but that sounds a lot like the worst case scenario I described earlier. The first part seems to be the court leaving the door open for sweeps at the officer's discretion, which is a concern expressed in the dissenting opinion. But I've probably read that wrong, I'm imagining things, and cops can do nothing beyond knocking and politely asking some questions. How does that prevent terrorism? Cops' "probable cause" being declared bogus in court post hoc doesn't help me much if I'm beaten up or shot in the process. Of course, that shouldn't happen because I'm not supposed to resist, but then we are back to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", and puts citizens in a situation where they have to defend their rights in court against a doctrine that encourages government agents to encroach on them systematically. And... for what? Because receiving parcels is suspicious and anyone could be a communist terrorist.

No, looking at traffic stops, that's not a worst case scenario at all. Worst case scenario is cops show up, ask if they can come in first thing, I say no, but they come in regardless to make an "officer security sweep" of the entire house. They make a tenuous or outright bogus probable cause claim, I object, things escalate and I'm arrested or shot because they considered me a threat. And all because my neighbor figured it's suspicious to receive parcels, or work in my garage. What you described is a best case scenario if cops start investigating every call they receive for "suspicious" (read: everyday) home activity. Do you really want to have cops on your doorstep at the drop of a hat? Enjoy your police and surveillance state, I guess. All in the name of security!

Oh, so is my neighbor going to investigate it now? Or is he going to call the cops so they break into my house or set up a hidden camera? Which one is it? I guess it's the second. But we should worry not, because they "probably aren't even going to run it through their db". Then, what is the point of reporting it to begin with, other than fostering even more mistrust? In retrospect, all sorts of everyday mundane stuff is "suspicious" in the aftermath of such an event. This is hindsight, not prescience.

Sadly that is the price of a free society, though. No one wants to live in a place where you have to live in fear of your neighbours ratting you out to the State, I would hope. I feel that regardless of who ever the target might be. Hard to believe getting a lot of packages and working in their garage alone is suspicious, no ? No, it's a price of a stupid, PC society. You live in fear of your neighbor? You think this is Stalin's Soviet Union, where the next day you're reported you disappear forever? At most the FBI would run you through their database, and probably not even that. The neighbor thought it was suspicious, you don't need to have iron clad proof to be suspicious, it's not the same as a conviction. Ah, of course. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right?

Nah, I'm not buying either story because... Breitbart. No evidence to speak of in Jumblatt's article, but Guandolo is not just a nutjob, he's a morally suspect nutjob that makes a living from fearmongering after his FBI career was finished. Who or what he sleeps with is none of my business and I couldn't care less. Steven Emerson's credibility is on the same level as Alex Jones'. Being on the internet doesn't make random tripe automatically "evidence". And that's even going into the whole conspiracy to institute Sharia in the US thing, I'm not touching that one with a laser pointer.

Glad you and yours are OK. Not much else to say in a ****ty situation like this.

LOL So a Lebanese politician believing the shooting down was carried out at the very least with NATO awareness is not to be believed, but a disgraced former FBI agent accusing Obama as part of a conspiracy to impose Sharia law in the US is straight from the horse's mouth, right? TIL doublethink is a thing.

Haha, those Christian terrorists don't really matter because they aren't areally Christian terrorists, just random Africans. And Muslim extremists generally work well with each other, except when they don't, but that doesn't matter because **** you, that's why. And here's my evidence that "hundreds of TV stations worldwide" are applauding Islamic terrorism: two YT vids from the same, totally unbiased [1] [2] (and because you can find links for everything on the internet, [3]), source. Guys guys, I spent five seconds researching the matter, I know what I'm talking about.

^ Cheap shot man, cheap shot.

Well, there's The Finnisher. Too bad they arrested him on sex assault charges later, though.

I wish I lived in Switzerland, now.

Yeah, you apparently missed the other thread where we found out that right-wing white Americans are a bigger threat than Muslims. Here: http://www.mintpressnews.com/white-americans-are-the-biggest-terror-threat-in-the-united-states/211608/ Of course, "but there are way more whites than Muslims in the US, so that's to be expected", only it really isn't, unless you expect people to randomly turn into mass murderers for no other reason than "X segment of citizens with the terrorist gene is above Y threshold". The causes of why people decide to throw everything away and go out in a blaze are more complicated than "Islam" or "Reactionary Conservatism". Reductionists gon' reduce.

Not really. Just guessing, but I think that was what most players who have been around for a bit expected. Nothing more, nothing less. No new end game content, next chapter released as late as possible within the promised time frame (late January/early February). Subscriber rewards that I for one couldn't care less about (Never got around to use the previous ones, Nico Ocarr gathers dust and the stim vendor got all the coats and guns). So yeah, par for the course or however the saying goes They were trying to drum up interest regarding sub rewards pretty hard, AFAIK, which have turned out to be pretty weak. More useless trash and the stuff people actually want is still heavily monetised (dyes/unlocks) or non-existent (more MP content). I liked how the sub rewards survey did not allow to rate all rewards so far "1". And still no Yavin PVP announcement.

Can you like, put away the strawman for just a second? Nobody has argued that Christian influence has "no bearing" on the European heritage. In fact, we have asserted the opposite, but also that it is not the only thing that defines European culture. Whatever the hell that is, anyway. Am I also "arguing for the sake of arguing" now? Regarding Middle Eastern/African men being accused of "more serious kinds of rape", lolwut? Marital rape is rape. From this I suspect that somebody doesn't understand what the concept of rape is. I'll give you a hint: it's you. If there were only 6,500 reported rapes in Sweden in 2014, how do you know that there were 5 times more actual occurrences? How do you know that reported rapes in Finland amount to 25% of all occurrences? Because Amnesty International estimates it's actually 2-10%. Do you have any more current estimates? And please, elaborate on how Swedish men are "often regarded" as effeminate. By whom, your lawyer friend too? What is this "public image" of Swedish males? And most importantly, what the **** does that **** have to do with anything?

Well, not necessarily the ethnicity, though, he didn't make much mention of it. Saying all Americans are dumb or that the British are bunch of drunkards isn't racist, it's being prejudiced against a large group, for example. If he had said he assumes the rape statistics would be high as those rascally Magyars like a bit of raping now and then, that would be racist. But that's what's implied. Hungary doesn't have any significant minorities (Roma?), so other than "Magyars liking a bit of raping now and then", why would anyone assume such a thing? It's not "hai guise here's Hungary rape stats, they pretty high", or "hai guise what are Hungary rape stats?". It's just BVC assuming random stupid **** about an Eastern Europe (read: non-Western) country. Unlike American or British, Hungarian is an ethnicity. Prejudice about a particular ethnicity is hard to write off as not racism. *braces for a YT rant from a random "not racist" guy with really bad taste in hairdos*

Yeah... not a particularly innovative tactic either. I'm guessing not many people are actually going to bother reading the 1,000+ pages of critique that are being added to Mein Kampf's 2016 edition. Because, 140 characters.

Yeah, perhaps we should perfect "democracy" over here before attempting to export it. But dem mad profits tho. It's interesting how people have been tricked into voting against their own collective interests. Are you familiar with Owen Jones?

So what you are saying is you are deliberately contributing to a perversion of language in which words have no meaning and are simply thrown around for shock value ("cultural marxist!" is the Twitter age equivalent of "filthy commie!"), instead of using your superior education to spread knowledge properly to those who aren't so lucky. And for what, to sound more appealing? To reach a wider audience? This is pandering. There is a reason you don't applaud kids calling anything with more than three sides a triangle. Sure, the kid may have a point, but most likely it's a pretty irrelevant point because he was never made to get the basics down. Yeah, that's also a sign of the times, and the widespread acceptance of words being constantly redefined ad-hoc makes people much easier to deceive and manipulate. Or nothing anyone says really matters anymore -assuming it ever did- and it's all an unabashed appeal to emotion in a gigantic echo-chamber. As you know, this is thought to be a flaw in the human mind (Dunning-Kruger), so you may well be asking for an impossibility. Best you can hope for is that explaining clearly what you mean will offer a new perspective and get people thinking. Reason I keep coming back is that I've learned a lot of interesting stuff in the years of back-and-forths with folks here, and no doubt will continue to learn. And I'm especially thick-skulled...