Post by: SkinnyBenny on March 19, 2018, 11:15:37 PM
Post by: Spracne on March 19, 2018, 11:30:12 PM
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Post by: SkinnyBenny on March 19, 2018, 11:49:44 PM
Post by: 8manpick on March 20, 2018, 06:50:11 AM
Post by: wetwillie on March 20, 2018, 06:56:45 AM
Post by: SkinnyBenny on March 20, 2018, 05:35:16 PM
Post by: bucket on March 20, 2018, 07:42:35 PM
Post by: The Big Train on March 20, 2018, 07:50:24 PM
Post by: Phil Titola on March 20, 2018, 08:31:19 PM
Post by: LickNeckey on March 20, 2018, 08:35:59 PM
Post by: 8manpick on March 20, 2018, 10:23:01 PM
not terrorism says the white house.While this is certainly inducing "terror" or fear, isn't terrorism necessarily defined by an ideological motivation? If we don't know a motive, we can't call it terrorism.
Post by: GregKSU1027 on March 21, 2018, 06:22:23 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: renocat on March 21, 2018, 06:39:41 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 21, 2018, 01:08:38 PM
I think he died too easy. Hate nut.
he is a terrorist
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 21, 2018, 03:15:32 PM
not terrorism says the white house.While this is certainly inducing "terror" or fear, isn't terrorism necessarily defined by an ideological motivation? If we don't know a motive, we can't call it terrorism.
That is correct. But liberals have a propensity to label lots of things "terrorism" - especially if it involves a white guy - because it dilutes the true meaning of terrorism. The minute some white dude does something nutso, the first question the media asks is "oooohh, will the WH call this "terrorism?!" It's extremely juvenile.
This could very well be terrorism, but we don't know that until we know more about his motivations. And the reason any of this matters, and is not just a matter of semantics, is that we rightly employ different resources to combat terrorism and all terrorism should not simply be viewed as a law enforcement matter.
Now, while we're on the subject of making idiotic facebook-esque arguments: I think it's very clear that we need to immediately identify what the suspect used to make his bombs and immediately ban those materials, or at least raise the age to 21 to purchase them.
Post by: Phil Titola on March 21, 2018, 03:19:32 PM
Well didn't we jump to a lot of conclusions about a factual post.not terrorism says the white house.While this is certainly inducing "terror" or fear, isn't terrorism necessarily defined by an ideological motivation? If we don't know a motive, we can't call it terrorism.
That is correct. But liberals have a propensity to label lots of things "terrorism" - especially if it involves a white guy - because it dilutes the true meaning of terrorism. The minute some white dude does something nutso, the first question the media asks is "oooohh, will the WH call this "terrorism?!" It's extremely juvenile.
This could very well be terrorism, but we don't know that until we know more about his motivations. And the reason any of this matters, and is not just a matter of semantics, is that we rightly employ different resources to combat terrorism and all terrorism should not simply be viewed as a law enforcement matter.
Post by: hjfklmor on March 21, 2018, 03:22:46 PM
true meaning of terrorism
New pitch for the Hallmark Channel
Post by: The Big Train on March 21, 2018, 03:34:10 PM
Well didn't we jump to a lot of conclusions about a factual post.not terrorism says the white house.While this is certainly inducing "terror" or fear, isn't terrorism necessarily defined by an ideological motivation? If we don't know a motive, we can't call it terrorism.
That is correct. But liberals have a propensity to label lots of things "terrorism" - especially if it involves a white guy - because it dilutes the true meaning of terrorism. The minute some white dude does something nutso, the first question the media asks is "oooohh, will the WH call this "terrorism?!" It's extremely juvenile.
This could very well be terrorism, but we don't know that until we know more about his motivations. And the reason any of this matters, and is not just a matter of semantics, is that we rightly employ different resources to combat terrorism and all terrorism should not simply be viewed as a law enforcement matter.
It’s the propaganda machine talking.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 21, 2018, 03:51:09 PM
Well didn't we jump to a lot of conclusions about a factual post.not terrorism says the white house.While this is certainly inducing "terror" or fear, isn't terrorism necessarily defined by an ideological motivation? If we don't know a motive, we can't call it terrorism.
That is correct. But liberals have a propensity to label lots of things "terrorism" - especially if it involves a white guy - because it dilutes the true meaning of terrorism. The minute some white dude does something nutso, the first question the media asks is "oooohh, will the WH call this "terrorism?!" It's extremely juvenile.
This could very well be terrorism, but we don't know that until we know more about his motivations. And the reason any of this matters, and is not just a matter of semantics, is that we rightly employ different resources to combat terrorism and all terrorism should not simply be viewed as a law enforcement matter.
Uh huh. We both know what you were doing.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 21, 2018, 03:51:32 PM
true meaning of terrorism
New pitch for the Hallmark Channel
:lol: nice.
Post by: star seed 7 on March 21, 2018, 03:54:21 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on March 21, 2018, 03:58:12 PM
Post by: Gooch on March 21, 2018, 04:10:10 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on March 21, 2018, 04:11:36 PM
Post by: The Big Train on March 21, 2018, 04:19:56 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on March 21, 2018, 04:20:41 PM
Post by: bucket on March 21, 2018, 04:25:25 PM
Truth hurts. Sorry you're feeling down, TBT.
Truth?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on March 21, 2018, 04:26:10 PM
Post by: bucket on March 21, 2018, 04:27:30 PM
About the lack of traffic on this blog, dipshit.
Oh, right. My calling Trump an idiot chased everyone off. They sound like a bunch of snowflakes.
Post by: The Big Train on March 21, 2018, 04:27:36 PM
Post by: Phil Titola on March 21, 2018, 04:47:29 PM
Good luck. Soon it will just be you (gun nut Gooch), Trim, TBT, Lib, Phil, and Mocat. Sounds like a blast!I'm impressed I made this list given I just started in the pit when you loonies made a Trump presidency an actual legit idea.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on March 21, 2018, 04:51:02 PM
Post by: Phil Titola on March 21, 2018, 04:56:19 PM
You've monopolized the KC thread for years. You've grown down here as well. Congrats!That's driving blog usage up for sure.
Post by: Gooch on March 21, 2018, 04:56:34 PM
You only made the rewrite.Good luck. Soon it will just be you (gun nut Gooch), Trim, TBT, Lib, Phil, and Mocat. Sounds like a blast!I'm impressed I made this list given I just started in the pit when you loonies made a Trump presidency an actual legit idea.
Post by: Phil Titola on March 21, 2018, 04:57:16 PM
The traffic on this blog really has me down in the dumps :frown:Wacky is very sensitive to ratings and usage stats....SNL, NFL, gE....real usage of media data wonk
Post by: Phil Titola on March 21, 2018, 04:57:48 PM
Can't let me have this. Typical gooch.You only made the rewrite.Good luck. Soon it will just be you (gun nut Gooch), Trim, TBT, Lib, Phil, and Mocat. Sounds like a blast!I'm impressed I made this list given I just started in the pit when you loonies made a Trump presidency an actual legit idea.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on March 21, 2018, 05:02:23 PM
Nobody wants to partake in a thread when it's just mocat and you bitching at other people's opinions 24/7/365. So much fun! KC elitist for sure!You've monopolized the KC thread for years. You've grown down here as well. Congrats!That's driving blog usage up for sure.
TBT legit echoes whatever the trend is and he's the "go get'em guys!" yapping lil guy in the background.
Gooch is a legit Trim puppet. Acts and posts identically to his every move. Sad.
And lib just follows around Dax barking at him with the same broken record comments over and over and then TBT follows suit.
We're in the sweet 16 and I bet the bball board has less than 50 posts today. Everyone has been scared off. That's fine and all, I just feel sad for the blog. It used to be really, really fun. That's all.The traffic on this blog really has me down in the dumps :frown:Wacky is very sensitive to ratings and usage stats....SNL, NFL, gE....real usage of media data wonk
Post by: Phil Titola on March 21, 2018, 05:08:03 PM
Very snowflaky wacks.Nobody wants to partake in a thread when it's just mocat and you bitching at other people's opinions 24/7/365. So much fun! KC elitist for sure!You've monopolized the KC thread for years. You've grown down here as well. Congrats!That's driving blog usage up for sure.
TBT legit echoes whatever the trend is and he's the "go get'em guys!" yapping lil guy in the background.
Gooch is a legit Trim puppet. Acts and posts identically to his every move. Sad.
And lib just follows around Dax barking at him with the same broken record comments over and over and then TBT follows suit.We're in the sweet 16 and I bet the bball board has less than 50 posts today. Everyone has been scared off. That's fine and all, I just feel sad for the blog. It used to be really, really fun. That's all.The traffic on this blog really has me down in the dumps :frown:Wacky is very sensitive to ratings and usage stats....SNL, NFL, gE....real usage of media data wonk
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on March 21, 2018, 05:09:39 PM
Post by: The Big Train on March 21, 2018, 05:25:36 PM
Post by: 8manpick on March 21, 2018, 05:35:11 PM
K-S-U is right, one side of the political spectrum is constantly pushing to include more marginal things under the umbrella of words we already have a definition for, which absolutely dilutes and changes the impact of the original words.true meaning of terrorism
New pitch for the Hallmark Channel
:lol: nice.
We can argue whether it is good or not, but we can't argue that it is happening.
Racism
Terrorism
Violence
Rape
Bigot
Etc.
I feel like I'm going to go to my grave yelling about this to a deaf crowd.
Post by: steve dave on March 21, 2018, 07:10:51 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180322/c54c0c9e439c7c0f56d9adaa91caac63.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Dr Rick Daris on March 21, 2018, 07:12:55 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on March 21, 2018, 07:22:45 PM
K-S-U is right, one side of the political spectrum is constantly pushing to include more marginal things under the umbrella of words we already have a definition for, which absolutely dilutes and changes the impact of the original words.true meaning of terrorism
New pitch for the Hallmark Channel
:lol: nice.
We can argue whether it is good or not, but we can't argue that it is happening.
Racism
Terrorism
Violence
Rape
Bigot
Etc.
I feel like I'm going to go to my grave yelling about this to a deaf crowd.
I definitely feel like you will get more mad about it the older you get.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on March 21, 2018, 07:46:44 PM
Good lord wacky just shut the eff up alreadylol, sure thing Daris.
Post by: CHONGS on March 21, 2018, 08:02:35 PM
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?board=17.0
Post by: chum1 on March 21, 2018, 08:18:02 PM
K-S-U is right, one side of the political spectrum is constantly pushing to include more marginal things under the umbrella of words we already have a definition for, which absolutely dilutes and changes the impact of the original words.true meaning of terrorism
New pitch for the Hallmark Channel
:lol: nice.
We can argue whether it is good or not, but we can't argue that it is happening.
Racism
Terrorism
Violence
Rape
Bigot
Etc.
I feel like I'm going to go to my grave yelling about this to a deaf crowd.
Has your definition of racism changed since you were ten years old? If it has, that's probably a good thing!
Post by: sys on March 21, 2018, 09:00:22 PM
I feel like I'm going to go to my grave yelling about this to a deaf crowd.
I definitely feel like you will get more mad about it the older you get.
i think i've mellowed on the subject with age. i just care about everything less as i get older.
Post by: michigancat on March 21, 2018, 09:27:24 PM
K-S-U is right, one side of the political spectrum is constantly pushing to include more marginal things under the umbrella of words we already have a definition for, which absolutely dilutes and changes the impact of the original words.true meaning of terrorism
New pitch for the Hallmark Channelnice.
We can argue whether it is good or not, but we can't argue that it is happening.
Racism
Terrorism
Violence
Rape
Bigot
Etc.
I feel like I'm going to go to my grave yelling about this to a deaf crowd.
Has your definition of racism changed since you were ten years old? If it has, that's probably a good thing!
It's definitely a good thing. And getting upset with this being called terrorism seems like a dumb hill to die on.
And the Austin police had a pretty ridiculous statement about him. (Thread is worth a read too):
https://twitter.com/Sifill_LDF/status/976614325258465280?s=19
Post by: 8manpick on March 21, 2018, 10:00:20 PM
The original post was before the bomber was blown up and anything was known about his motives.K-S-U is right, one side of the political spectrum is constantly pushing to include more marginal things under the umbrella of words we already have a definition for, which absolutely dilutes and changes the impact of the original words.true meaning of terrorism
New pitch for the Hallmark Channel
We can argue whether it is good or not, but we can't argue that it is happening.
Racism
Terrorism
Violence
Rape
Bigot
Etc.
I feel like I'm going to go to my grave yelling about this to a deaf crowd.
Has your definition of racism changed since you were ten years old? If it has, that's probably a good thing!
It's definitely a good thing. And getting upset with this being called terrorism seems like a dumb hill to die on.
And the Austin police had a pretty ridiculous statement about him. (Thread is worth a read too):
https://twitter.com/Sifill_LDF/status/976614325258465280?s=19
I believe in precision of language. When we lack precision of language, we lack meaning. That is a hill I'm happy to die on.
Post by: Kat Kid on March 21, 2018, 10:04:29 PM
The original post was before the bomber was blown up and anything was known about his motives.K-S-U is right, one side of the political spectrum is constantly pushing to include more marginal things under the umbrella of words we already have a definition for, which absolutely dilutes and changes the impact of the original words.true meaning of terrorism
New pitch for the Hallmark Channel
We can argue whether it is good or not, but we can't argue that it is happening.
Racism
Terrorism
Violence
Rape
Bigot
Etc.
I feel like I'm going to go to my grave yelling about this to a deaf crowd.
Has your definition of racism changed since you were ten years old? If it has, that's probably a good thing!
It's definitely a good thing. And getting upset with this being called terrorism seems like a dumb hill to die on.
And the Austin police had a pretty ridiculous statement about him. (Thread is worth a read too):
https://twitter.com/Sifill_LDF/status/976614325258465280?s=19
I believe in precision of language. When we lack precision of language, we lack meaning. That is a hill I'm happy to die on.
You think there are absolute definitions of concepts like terrorism and racism?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: michigancat on March 21, 2018, 10:10:51 PM
The original post was before the bomber was blown up and anything was known about his motives.K-S-U is right, one side of the political spectrum is constantly pushing to include more marginal things under the umbrella of words we already have a definition for, which absolutely dilutes and changes the impact of the original words.true meaning of terrorism
New pitch for the Hallmark Channel
We can argue whether it is good or not, but we can't argue that it is happening.
Racism
Terrorism
Violence
Rape
Bigot
Etc.
I feel like I'm going to go to my grave yelling about this to a deaf crowd.
Has your definition of racism changed since you were ten years old? If it has, that's probably a good thing!
It's definitely a good thing. And getting upset with this being called terrorism seems like a dumb hill to die on.
And the Austin police had a pretty ridiculous statement about him. (Thread is worth a read too):
https://twitter.com/Sifill_LDF/status/976614325258465280?s=19
I believe in precision of language. When we lack precision of language, we lack meaning. That is a hill I'm happy to die on.
When you made that post you knew the guy was mailing bombs that seemed to target minorities.
And KK is correct, things like "racism" or "terrorism" are not binary. Language is imprecise and fluid and always has been.
Post by: SkinnyBenny on March 21, 2018, 10:11:25 PM
not terrorism says the white house.While this is certainly inducing "terror" or fear, isn't terrorism necessarily defined by an ideological motivation? If we don't know a motive, we can't call it terrorism.
That is correct. But liberals have a propensity to label lots of things "terrorism" - especially if it involves a white guy - because it dilutes the true meaning of terrorism. The minute some white dude does something nutso, the first question the media asks is "oooohh, will the WH call this "terrorism?!" It's extremely juvenile.
This could very well be terrorism, but we don't know that until we know more about his motivations. And the reason any of this matters, and is not just a matter of semantics, is that we rightly employ different resources to combat terrorism and all terrorism should not simply be viewed as a law enforcement matter.
Now, while we're on the subject of making idiotic facebook-esque arguments: I think it's very clear that we need to immediately identify what the suspect used to make his bombs and immediately ban those materials, or at least raise the age to 21 to purchase them.
In June of 2015, this guy stormed into an all-black church and started spraying bullets at random black people, killing 9, because he wanted to ignite a race war.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/97/Dylann_Roof_mugshot.jpg)
In November of 2015, this guy stormed a Planned Parenthood in Colorado and started spraying bullets at everyone who worked there, killing 3 and wounding 9 others, calling himself a "warrior for the babies."
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160511163106-mobile-t1-robert-lewis-dear-super-169.jpg)
Curious if these guys fit K-S-U-Dubz's definition of terrorist. :bartscottcan'twait:
Post by: sys on March 21, 2018, 10:16:45 PM
When you made that post you knew the guy was mailing bombs that seemed to target minorities.
And KK is correct, things like "racism" or "terrorism" are not binary. Language is imprecise and fluid and always has been.
pretty sure "seemed to target minorities" went out with bombs 4, 5 & 6 (or maybe it was 3, 4 & 5).
language is fluid but every widely agreed upon definition of terrorism includes a political, religious or ideological motive. if you want to argue for a broader definition it's incumbent upon you to actually make an argument.
Post by: DQ12 on March 21, 2018, 10:35:15 PM
I've had this argument before, and i've decided that the semantics aren't all that important to me. "Terrorism" has such a stigma because of how muslims were (unfairly) viewed post 9-11. Now, in response, SJWs want to call everyone who commits mass violence a terrorist.
Whatever. If people want to call this guy a terrorist, let them. He's not (assuming he had no motive), but it's definitely not my hill to die on. Maybe in the future we'll just start saying "political terrorist" to replace what "terrorist" used to mean. The world will keep spinning.
Anyway, in my view "senseless violence" as distinguished from "terrorism" is worse. I can at least conceptualize the idea behind terrorism. I cannot imagine how someone could just want to go out and commit violence for no real reason.
Post by: chum1 on March 21, 2018, 10:54:48 PM
Post by: chum1 on March 21, 2018, 11:00:32 PM
https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/976651010813906944
Post by: sys on March 21, 2018, 11:17:58 PM
Post by: chum1 on March 21, 2018, 11:22:16 PM
we already have words for non-political violence. those words are generally used in a fairly pejorative manner as well, so god rough ridin' knows what point you think you're driving home by insisting on applying a word that means something else.
Apparently, people feel that the existing words are inadequate in certain cases. (Or not! There doesn't NEED to be a reason.)
Post by: SkinnyBenny on March 21, 2018, 11:24:00 PM
we already have words for non-political violence. those words are generally used in a fairly pejorative manner as well, so god rough ridin' knows what point you think you're driving home by insisting on applying a word that means something else.
I guess the only thing that really matters about the label is to help level out the double standard that exists where tan mass murderers are automatically seen as terrorists and white mass murderers are automatically granted a pass until we "wait to jump to a conclusion until we've determined what their motive was." (And then they just get written off as mentally ill, which is a cop-out.) :dunno:
Post by: chum1 on March 21, 2018, 11:30:50 PM
Post by: michigancat on March 21, 2018, 11:31:11 PM
Is the worry that the next guy who terrorizes a city with package bombs will be unfairly labeled a terrorist? Why fight this fight?
Post by: sys on March 21, 2018, 11:32:20 PM
we already have words for non-political violence. those words are generally used in a fairly pejorative manner as well, so god rough ridin' knows what point you think you're driving home by insisting on applying a word that means something else.
I guess the only thing that really matters about the label is to help level out the double standard that exists where tan mass murderers are automatically seen as terrorists and white mass murderers are automatically granted a pass until we "wait to jump to a conclusion until we've determined what their motive was." (And then they just get written off as mentally ill, which is a cop-out.) :dunno:
the remedy to that problem is to insist on accuracy and precision in all cases.
Post by: SkinnyBenny on March 21, 2018, 11:34:27 PM
we already have words for non-political violence. those words are generally used in a fairly pejorative manner as well, so god rough ridin' knows what point you think you're driving home by insisting on applying a word that means something else.
I guess the only thing that really matters about the label is to help level out the double standard that exists where tan mass murderers are automatically seen as terrorists and white mass murderers are automatically granted a pass until we "wait to jump to a conclusion until we've determined what their motive was." (And then they just get written off as mentally ill, which is a cop-out.) :dunno:
the remedy to that problem is to insist on accuracy and precision in all cases.
I mean, that's what we're doing.
Post by: Spracne on March 21, 2018, 11:36:45 PM
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Post by: sys on March 21, 2018, 11:39:05 PM
I mean, that's what we're doing.
that's like, the opposite of what you're doing.
Post by: michigancat on March 21, 2018, 11:40:01 PM
Post by: SkinnyBenny on March 21, 2018, 11:54:02 PM
I mean, that's what we're doing.
that's like, the opposite of what you're doing.
interesting, if true.
Post by: CHONGS on March 22, 2018, 07:52:06 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 22, 2018, 08:15:06 AM
Of course those guys fit the definition of "terrorism," Ski-be.
I've had this argument before, and i've decided that the semantics aren't all that important to me. "Terrorism" has such a stigma because of how muslims were (unfairly) viewed post 9-11. Now, in response, SJWs want to call everyone who commits mass violence a terrorist.
Whatever. If people want to call this guy a terrorist, let them. He's not (assuming he had no motive), but it's definitely not my hill to die on. Maybe in the future we'll just start saying "political terrorist" to replace what "terrorist" used to mean. The world will keep spinning.
Anyway, in my view "senseless violence" as distinguished from "terrorism" is worse. I can at least conceptualize the idea behind terrorism. I cannot imagine how someone could just want to go out and commit violence for no real reason.
I am positive this guy had a motive. We will probably never know what it was, but there had to be something to motivate him to keep building bombs and dropping them off.
Post by: Phil Titola on March 22, 2018, 08:17:43 AM
Post by: michigancat on March 22, 2018, 08:55:54 AM
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ab2da83e4b0decad04689fc
Post by: mocat on March 22, 2018, 09:03:17 AM
Ahh, the intolerable wrestle with words and their meaning. Post 9/11, the narrower concept of radical Islamic terrorism has subsumed the broader concept of terrorism in the popular American consciousness. Who gives a chit, really?The term "terrorism" is the only thing radical islamic terrorism has hijacked since 911
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Post by: Cire on March 22, 2018, 09:24:38 AM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 22, 2018, 09:48:40 AM
Post by: bucket on March 29, 2018, 10:19:58 AM
Post by: Kat Kid on March 29, 2018, 12:36:06 PM
Post by: DQ12 on March 29, 2018, 12:39:11 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on March 29, 2018, 12:42:05 PM
We're never getting the privacy rights back.
Depends on how outraged people get about Facebook et al. But you are probably right.
Post by: DQ12 on March 29, 2018, 12:43:08 PM
Yeah facebook is one thing. There may be some regs to stop that stuff from the private sector, but the NSA is here to stay (good slogan for the NSA btw)We're never getting the privacy rights back.
Depends on how outraged people get about Facebook et al. But you are probably right.
Post by: Kat Kid on March 29, 2018, 12:48:50 PM
Yeah facebook is one thing. There may be some regs to stop that stuff from the private sector, but the NSA is here to stay (good slogan for the NSA btw)We're never getting the privacy rights back.
Depends on how outraged people get about Facebook et al. But you are probably right.
Possible that Trump creates 25% of the population that hates it for dumb reasons to go with 25% that care about privacy and 4th amendment. Would take.
Post by: DQ12 on March 29, 2018, 12:54:51 PM
I think a good chunk (most?) of the population already doesn't like the NSA privacy overreaches. I don't think they care enough to make a big enough issue of it to play on any kind of federal campaign trail though. Representative democracy can be a huge pain in the ass sometimes.Yeah facebook is one thing. There may be some regs to stop that stuff from the private sector, but the NSA is here to stay (good slogan for the NSA btw)We're never getting the privacy rights back.
Depends on how outraged people get about Facebook et al. But you are probably right.
Possible that Trump creates 25% of the population that hates it for dumb reasons to go with 25% that care about privacy and 4th amendment. Would take.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 29, 2018, 01:05:32 PM
Yeah facebook is one thing. There may be some regs to stop that stuff from the private sector, but the NSA is here to stay (good slogan for the NSA btw)We're never getting the privacy rights back.
Depends on how outraged people get about Facebook et al. But you are probably right.
Possible that Trump creates 25% of the population that hates it for dumb reasons to go with 25% that care about privacy and 4th amendment. Would take.
Those are largely the same people. Need to convert the neocons (I think these are called RINOs now) and the big govt libtards (I think these are just regular democrats) and the neo-fascist democrats.
Post by: Kat Kid on March 29, 2018, 01:35:31 PM
Yeah facebook is one thing. There may be some regs to stop that stuff from the private sector, but the NSA is here to stay (good slogan for the NSA btw)We're never getting the privacy rights back.
Depends on how outraged people get about Facebook et al. But you are probably right.
Possible that Trump creates 25% of the population that hates it for dumb reasons to go with 25% that care about privacy and 4th amendment. Would take.
Those are largely the same people. Need to convert the neocons (I think these are called RINOs now) and the big govt libtards (I think these are just regular democrats) and the neo-fascist democrats.
Wyden and Paul are not the same ideologically, but they share a concern. Someone like Dana Rohrbacher or Devin Nunes might get swept up in the deep state rhetoric though.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 30, 2018, 09:06:55 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 30, 2018, 09:08:34 AM
Yeah facebook is one thing. There may be some regs to stop that stuff from the private sector, but the NSA is here to stay (good slogan for the NSA btw)We're never getting the privacy rights back.
Depends on how outraged people get about Facebook et al. But you are probably right.
Possible that Trump creates 25% of the population that hates it for dumb reasons to go with 25% that care about privacy and 4th amendment. Would take.
Those are largely the same people. Need to convert the neocons (I think these are called RINOs now) and the big govt libtards (I think these are just regular democrats) and the neo-fascist democrats.
Wyden and Paul are not the same ideologically, but they share a concern. Someone like Dana Rohrbacher or Devin Nunes might get swept up in the deep state rhetoric though.
Nunes has to be the biggest fucktard politician in congress right now. That guy is a total clown. The Lew (Liu?) guy is probably worse.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 30, 2018, 09:16:12 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 30, 2018, 12:34:26 PM
Who actually thought they had privacy on FB?
I would assume the type of person that uses FB :dunno:
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 30, 2018, 12:36:15 PM
Who actually thought they had privacy on FB?
I would assume the type of person that uses FB :dunno:
I know plenty of bozos who are on FB that don't think they have privacy on there.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 30, 2018, 02:14:14 PM
Who actually thought they had privacy on FB?
I would assume the type of person that uses FB :dunno:
I know plenty of bozos who are on FB that don't think they have privacy on there.
Your typical simple-minded FB'er almost certainly thinks everything they designate as "private" is private. FB just so happens to have its own a unique definition of the word.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 30, 2018, 02:34:34 PM
Who actually thought they had privacy on FB?
I would assume the type of person that uses FB :dunno:
I know plenty of bozos who are on FB that don't think they have privacy on there.
Your typical simple-minded FB'er almost certainly thinks everything they designate as "private" is private. FB just so happens to have its own a unique definition of the word.
Private from creepy weirdos who cruise FB looking for pics of girls sure, I assume everyone knows that FB itself sees everything and does whatever they want with it.
Post by: bucket on March 30, 2018, 07:05:03 PM
Who actually thought they had privacy on FB?
I would assume the type of person that uses FB :dunno:
I know plenty of bozos who are on FB that don't think they have privacy on there.
Your typical simple-minded FB'er almost certainly thinks everything they designate as "private" is private. FB just so happens to have its own a unique definition of the word.
Private from creepy weirdos who cruise FB looking for pics of girls sure, I assume everyone knows that FB itself sees everything and does whatever they want with it.
The Cambridge Analytica news is a source of revenue for Facebook I had no idea of. I thought they manipulated what they knew about their users to promote advertisers not to give to advertisers to use on their platform.
Post by: sys on April 26, 2018, 05:35:51 PM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/the-difference-between-killer-and-terrorist/558998/
Post by: Institutional Control on April 26, 2018, 06:26:53 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk