(untitled)

We live in a world which is more or less cyberpunk, but without the aesthetics. Our communication is monitored, corporations control our governments, and the governments watch us through our computers. I live in the US, but apparently it's much worse in the U.K. In addition, most other countries (think "third world") are becoming more like large trash bins for the "big boys in town" (U.S.) what can be done? Is there truly no hope for humanity?

>>6339 The world has reached over 8 billion in population, where more than 80% live in poverty. If I were you I wouldn't worry about government watching me or co-operates trying to rob me because these are the things only high standard people can afford to complain. Meanwhile, we(poor class, mind you there's no middle class now in U.S.) who have to work 9-5 just to afford shelter and monthly needs have no such luxury to complain about these mundane issues.

It can't be stopped, that's for sure, and we can't escape it either since there's nowhere to escape to anymore. As for hope, life will continue to be crappy for millions of people but I guess the cyberpunk thing to do is somehow make what we can out of all this mess; use the technology for our benefit without succumbing to utopian nonsense ideas that say life in general is actually improving.

>>6339 >what can be done? Is there truly no hope for humanity? Humanity fuarrrked itself over and i want to fuarrrk back. The only thing we can do is accelerate this in an attempt to eradicate humanity.

>>6342 Or Sit, relax and watch the slow death of world, like a true lunatic.

>>6342 Like voting for the worst candidates, doing every illegal drug available and throwing litter wherever we please? Public group masturbation sessions in front of federal buildings? Or should we just set fire to all the oil fields and hit every satellite in orbit with a missile to kessler the fcuk out of this planet and make sure this contagion called humanity never infects the galaxy?

>>6344 >>6343 >>6342 Jesus guys don't be so negative! My solution for humanity is: Drop Atomic Bombs in 2/4th part of India, 2/4th part of China, 3/4th part of all Muslim majority countries, New York, California, and finally 3/4th part of Israel..., and we're done.

>>6345 Go away.

Every generation feels like it's experiencing an unreasonably bad situation. The truth is, things have improved if you take the long view. Violence appears relatively common, but compared to the earlier eras (early 1900s, or 1800s, say) we're living in a relatively peaceful era. Yes, there are issues with ongoing wars, but you can still walk down the street in most places and have a reasonable expectation of not being attacked, robbed, etc. As for the cyberpunk mega-corp business-states, it's worth noting that Facebook is taking a major hit right now. Maybe it means a change, maybe it doesn't, but people are finally waking up to the damage that social media companies (and tech companies in general) can do. This period we're living through, with all the surveillance tech, could well be temporary as the general population becomes gradually more clued-in to the potential of abuse. Anyway, the point is there's always some sliver of hope. We just have to see how things are going.

>>6348 >Anyway, the point is there's always some sliver of hope. We just have to see how things are going. All statistics need to be taken in context, identity theft and white collar crime is up. Even though there is an appearance of normality and overall peace, there are powerful undercurrents that risk tearing most communities apart. the use of social media to make people willingly do things that propaganda 70 years never could is an amazing example of how complacent people can become. I remember when Facebook demonstrated the ability to manipulate decision making via selective post presentation and people left because "OMG THEIR TOYING WITH OUR EMOTIONS" but then suddenly people continued to use it. As for the raindrop that breaks the dam, the cause of the next major crisis will be resources. Most people have not been paying attention for the last 20 years, but in the next 10, living conditions are going to be so much worse. there are many examples of things to come if you know where to look. the end for many people is no longer wild speculation, without sudden changes to current systems, it is a mathematical inevitability

>>6340 Hey, a ridiculous poverty line is part of cyberpunk as well.

>>6349 Yeah, that's what I meant. I guess you probably know more about it than me. Besides, humanity needs some struggle to evolve. White-collar crime is the opposite of that.

>>6345 That wont be enough, we need to nuke all of it. >>6344 Kiddie crap, its not the same as actively partaking in the fall of man. >>6343 A real lunatic like me doesnt sit back and watch, he dances in the fire.

>>6352 >>6348 >The truth is, things have improved if you take the long view. Not him. You're absolutely right, 'humanity needs some struggle to evolve'. But one person(self) knows if thyself is heading in right direction or not. IMO, we're heading for absolute disaster if we continue to follow this path. As mentioned above we and our coming generations will definitely feel the heat of our doings. Global warming, lack of essential resources, absurd amount of competition for basic necessities, etc. are just a few problems our coming generations have to suffer. Again, if you check the current stats we're not improving from our older generations: Poverty is all time high, property prices have already touched sky, people over the age of 50 are still working 9-5 jobs just to reach their monthly ends. >the point is there's always some sliver of hope. We just have to see how things are going. Our current world is not going to become better itself and we all know it's going to get much worse before anything good can burgeon in this god forsaken world.

>>6355 As I walked home last night I saw a lone whore dancing In the cold moonlight. I stood and watched. Then Took the low road, knowing The night was her by right. -a real lunatic

>>6352 >White-collar crime is the opposite of that. Isn't that like some kind of intellectual accelerionism? There would be no security analysts and white hat hackers without any primary influx of bad peepz

Believe in Lain. She can save us.

>>6355 I think torching the oil fields and shrouding low earth orbit in a storm of shrapnel would probably be a good enough start. No transport, no communication. The other dominos would fall after that.

>>6355

>>6358 >Let me try some... When my anxiety starts to kick-in I hold my gun tight As I know this is my only right.

>>6369 > my gun In the Full Metal Jacket sense? (rifle =/= gun if you follow me)

>>6370 In the Full Metal Jacket sense, rifle = wife & wife = rifle. So, rifle = rifle...wtf!

>apparently it's much worse in the U.K Yeah, you pretty much can't go outside the house in a city without being on film. A lot of that is private. Shop owners with CCTV etc, but most of those aren't so "closed circuit" these days. I think the big problem with being watched constantly is trying to find a nice balance. If you go and post about your crimes on facebook you maybe deserve to get caught. If you cower under your bed so they can't see you then you're not getting far either. Don't let the fear of being watched stop you from doing what you need to. >what can be done? Is there truly no hope for humanity? There's always hope. Nobody can predict the future. I can't promise you what will come to pass but here are some pleasant scenarios: The internet saves us. As more and more of our lives are conducted online it increases how connected we are, regardless of nation or class. Eventually this connection overwhelms the cultural mechanisms that allow the rich to be so callous. They willing begin expending their wealth and the world actually gets together and sorts our soykaf out. Not that we couldn't do that without them, we're just too busy waiting for someone to pay us. AI saves us. Pretty straight up. Someone makes a general purpose AI and it takes matters into its own hands in a benevolent way. VR saves us. Who needs resources to be comfortable when you can just live in the matrix? But who knows? Honestly, I think we're probably going to be ok. The only real things to worry about are nukes or rogue AI or meteors actually wiping us off the planet. If you look at the quality of life for a modern wage slave and compare it to the quality for a slave on a plantation or a Helot (Spartan slave) it's gotten way, way better. There's still a long, long way to go and the only reason we've made it this far is because we fought every step of the way but, I think, our grandkids, grandkids, grandkids might just get there. >>6349 This is true. Things will almost certainly get worse before they get better but all towers fall and time will grind even this vast global empire to dust. We just need to make sure we're still here in the morning.

>>6372 > If you look at the quality of life for a modern wage slave and compare it to the quality for a slave on a plantation or a Helot (Spartan slave) it's gotten way, way better. Maybe in the countries you, myself and Lain live in but I don't think things are so rosy in the rest of the world. Sharing a 40 square foot room with another person in between 12 hour factory shifts may not be as bad as slavery, but no one lives like that because they have a choice in the matter. Second, just because things have improved is no guarantee that they will continue to, or that the trend won't reverse. I don't have faith that progress and improvement in quallity of life will just continue like some infinite spire simply because technology advances. Things may continue to improve; they might not too.

>>6357 I was agreeing with the guy I replied to...

>>6363 fuarrrk it, I'm down

>>6370 *holds rifle* this is my rifle, and *holds dick* this is my gun. This one's for shooting, and this one's for fun

>>6376 Yes, I didn't feel like it needed to be spelled out like that but apparently I was wrong.

>>6373 First of all, you are absolutely right that life is dismal in a lot of countries. I think in some countries slavery is going strong and in the rest there is basically indentured servitude in its most brutal forms. That said, life doesn't improve just because of technological advances. It improves because a variety of circumstances come together to enable some "thing" that provides the basis. Our habit as a species to record history gives us the ability to remember and analyze which allows us to adjust over time. Isaac Newton and Thomas Jefferson were wealthy and therefore could afford an education that gave them the intellectual skills they needed for invention. They could also arrange for a workforce to take care of their needs and free up their time for such invention. Today, that's not quite as necessary. Education is free in many, if not most, countries and the Internet provides a great deal of ability to coordinate on ideas, sharing the workload. It is true that in certain countries and circumstances this isn't possible. It's unfortunate because the potential of those affected are lost to us as a result. Still, the habit of humans to invent and the tendency of society to record history means that we have an ever-growing body of knowledge to build off of. That, I think, is what drives humanity to a better reality. As long as we have records of past accomplishments and realizations (you know, assuming there are not purges like the burning of Alexandria) humanity can continuously move forward (albeit, in fits and spurts)

>>6363 I have a feeling you would enjoy this anime character

>>6384 > implying I am from your species

>>6386 so >malevolent AI >space ayyy

This thread kinda devolved into soykaf posting and one optimistic guy.

Maybe two optimists. One post wasn't mine.

>>6388 that's the point lain, there is no saving the world unless we all work together in order to save mankind. think of the world as one big house, now if mommy refuses to cook, and daddy refuses to grow food, the children will starve. even if daddy wanted to farm but he has no seeds, they will not magically appear. the three things that are needed to ensure BASIC survival of the human race are >sufficient systems to incorporate human migration caused by overpopulation and climate change >technological advancement that allows the carrying capacity of earth to be maintained or raised (food and water mainly) >hope that space ays or a super virus do not affect a good portion of the population or its resources and that is just to make sure we don't have a mass extinction event

>>6391 >technological advancement that allows the carrying capacity of earth to be maintained or raised (food and water mainly) I heard something once about the amount of phosphorus on Earth being the ultimate limiting factor. It's an element and therefore can't be created so if it's all in use or disposed of somewhere, it means life as a whole can't continue to expand. Unless there is an extra-terrestrial source remember kaiju pooh from the Pacific Rimjob being sold as fertilizer for this reason

>>6391 There are a few concrete problems that might be something we can deal with today if people and countries got their collective acts together fast enough. Scientific American ran an article on proposals to slow the warming of the poles by creating various cooling stations to preserve water temperature. The estimation was that it would buy the planet another 100 years or so, which would be sorely needed. Currently, climate change is damaging otherwise fertile land, forcing existing peoples to move to find someplace where they can grow or otherwise earn food. The wealthier nations can use these instances as test cases for restoring damaged living environments. The wealthier countries have the brains and resources to pull this off and it can only help them in the long run as climate change alters local farmlands over time. The CDC in America has been clamoring for a while now on new strains of bacteria that are developing that are resistant to antibiotics. One strain is able to pass on its resistance to unrelated strains of bacteria and another was so resistant a man's leg was cut off to save his life. No new antibiotics have been made for quite some time (as far as I know) because of the cost of R&D. Wealthier nations should assemble teams to work with the WHO. Since it's imperative to avoid a new era where amputations are a reasonable option, and since private industry isn't interested, it makes sense for a multi-country, government-sponsored effort to make sure the proper drugs are created to address these needs. Of course there is also the issue of making sure technology like social media pulls everyone together rather than pushing people apart. There's also the issue of the general fragility of the international economic system. I could be wrong, but I think we're still vulnerable to a 2008-style meltdown. Finally, the return of extreme nationalism to the public sphere. None of these are insurmountable. It's just that they're all coming to a head at roughly the same time and people need to get focused to fix it. Will that happen? I don't know, but the potential is there. (I think/I hope)

>>6339 >Scientific American ran an article on proposals to slow the warming of the poles by creating various cooling stations to preserve water temperature. The estimation was that it would buy the planet another 100 years or so, which would be sorely needed. The only thing this will do is delay a methane clathrate gun scenario, and only just. I doubt their 100-year figure considering how warming has rapidly outpaced all predictions. >Finally, the return of extreme nationalism to the public sphere. Nationalism can be good or bad. It's desirable in countries that aren't full of permanently offended retards who constantly allege that everything they don't like is damaging to society and want to manage everyone's lives to get rid of these imaginary ills, and undesirable in countries that are (America and its closest buttbuddies).

>>6396 Meant for >>6393. Damn typos.

>>6374 When did I say you aren't...just clearing some of your points, no hard feelings.

>>6396 >permanently offended retards who constantly allege that everything they don't like is damaging to society and want to manage everyone's lives to get rid of these imaginary ills These people are called liberals...fixed that for you.

People in this thread are saying how "life has improved", and it may look like that from some angles, but let's see the truth. Look around you. Everyone is depressed. Depression has now been labeled the biggest public health concern by the WHO. It's the second biggest killer in the west. Just think about how absurd that is. It's literally to the point where depression is so common that it's a running joke with young people, because it's just expected that most people have it. And their treatment is not to fix the conditions that cause this, but to feed us pills as if we're the problem. In the past sure depression has been around, but never in the same way as now. If life is so much better now, why are we killing ourselves in record numbers? Often places like japan and korea are pointed to as examples of how a modern society should work. "look at them, they have advanced technology, great economy, low unemployment, near racial homogeneity, strong borders, a sense of national pride, we should be like them!". Yet look at the suicide rates in those countries! How can we set this as our goal for the future? At some point something went very wrong. Now am I advocating for a regression back to hunter gatherer societies? No. I think there's plenty of great things technology has brought us, to go back to domination by nature seems absurd and frankly unsustainable. The progress of technology is inevitable. Perhaps transhumanism? I doubt it's the solution. When there finally comes a technology capable of uploading our consciousness, you can bet it'll be owned by google or the equivalent megacorp, and will be available only to those who can pay. I don't think there is an answer. I think it's useless to try to solve these problems because as far as I can see there is no solution. All political/economic systems are trade offs, with the net gain being minimal. Perhaps the best route is to simply act for yourself within this modern scaffold. Figure out what it is you want from life, and then take it and give nothing back. This may seem like a recipe for disaster, but I think not. If you look deep down what most people want is to minimize their own suffering. The eastern philosophers already figured out that the answer to this isn't to chase material wealth but the opposite. It's impossible to fix society, but you can at least make it work for you. Open The Next. </larp>

>>6401 ...and in the 1950s it was conservatives in the same role, dictating moral hygiene and claiming there was a communist lurking around every corner. It all depends on which side has more access to the public mind in each era.

>>6401 You didn't read that post very carefully. Lain was talking about xenophobic right wing nationalists who see everything different as a threat.

>>6402 I get that I'm coming off as hopelessly naive, but I think humanity can last long enough an answer to a given problem will be found. It's possible that depression isn't actually increasing, but rather becoming more noticeable as society becomes more aware of the symptoms. I've heard similar discussions around autism. As bad as it sounds, this can be a good thing since there are people actively researching the subject in order to find either a cure or a way of productively living with the mental state. There's been some discussion that depression is just the extreme end of a necessary coping mechanism within the brain. My point is that when the problem seems intractable, the solution is often more time and research. Eventually a way will be found. Side note: I remember a discussion I had with someone who did product research. This was years ago. One thing he noted is that society doesn't improve in a linear manner. Rather, there is an invention, or discover, or some "thing" that will dramatically shoot up the quality of life for everyone (like the invention of antibiotics, etc). Then things level off and even begin to dip down a bit as ways to exploit this new standard of living are found. Then another event occurs that shoots up the quality of life again. So... maybe we're all just experiencing that dip before the eventual upswing?

>>6412 The depression thing (ditto for anxiety by the way) is a sign that people are paying attention. I bet there was more depression 100 years ago, it's just not something that was recognized unless you were so bad off that you couldn't work or take care of yourself and even then, they probably just called you lazy unless it was extreme enough to put you away somewhere. Mild to moderate depression didn't get taken seriously; bipolar 2 just meant you were "moody" or something; anxiety disorders just meant you were a pussy. As a parallel example, PTSD was not invented by the Vietnam conflict but the process of medical science identifying it and giving it a name and finally looking for ways to treat it did happen because of that time. It certainly existed before. Now it's also applied to people after car accidents, armed home invasion, rape, all kinds of things. This is how medicine progresses I guess.

>>6412 >It's possible that depression isn't actually increasing, but rather becoming more noticeable as society becomes more aware of the symptoms. I've heard similar discussions around autism. bot h of these issues were recategorized in the last few revisions of the DSM, which basically changes what criteria are used to assign a diagnosis. (they got far more encompassing) and several psychological studies have demonstrated people with diagnosis tend to act and are treated as if their diagnosis define them. it is more common, becasue the rules used to diagnose t encompass more of society, not that more people suddenly show symptoms. >As bad as it sounds, this can be a good thing since there are people actively researching the subject in order to find either a cure or a way of productively living with the mental state. There's been some discussion that depression is just the extreme end of a necessary coping mechanism within the brain. you cannot "cure" emotion. you can suppress neurotransmitters, and bolster peoples fantasies and induce good feelings with more and more escapist technologies (vidya and digital distractions) but in the end, the only way to solve the underlying problem is to restructure society, and to stop suffering caused by over consumption. >So... maybe we're all just experiencing that dip before the eventual upswing? there has been little innovation since the internet, which in reality was more or less just a more intricate form of radio and telecomm lines being used to display informtion on a tv screen. Cell phones could qualify i guess. Innovation happens whne people aspire to create bigger and better things. I remember when I was a child, everyone wanted to be something great: doctors, lawyers, musicians, astronauts, scientists. Unfortunately children today aspire to be video game live streamers, youtube stars, ecelebs, and rappers/djs who will inevitably end up being low talent tryhards (even if they do make money) if space travel is made better, solutions to resource depletion or major world sicknesses are cured, one could consider those to be achievements. but I don't see that happening until 2025-2050 when most of the world will be at war again (at least based on mathematical models and sociological trends) >>6415 >As a parallel example, PTSD was not invented by the Vietnam conflict but the process of medical science identifying it and giving it a name and finally looking for ways to treat it did happen because of that time. It certainly existed before. Now it's also applied to people after car accidents, armed home invasion, rape, all kinds of things. This is how medicine progresses I guess. PTSD is a completely different disorder, where the individual is unable to psychologically re-adapt to normal living. there are studies to suggest that reintegration and welcoming people into society, in addition to sharing a common bod with people can reduce the stress that induce PTSD. I have dealt with numerous people who have PTSD (military linked and otherwise) and the common trend is the people who can find commonality with society can reintegrate, but for many there is such a disparity between the individual and society that reintegration becomes more and more difficult, which feeds into a cycle of isolation. countries with conscript militaries have far fewer PTSD cases than volunteer militaries, and I have seen more PTSD cases in people directly involved in combat than those who were. much like a phobia, it is a psychological phenomenon based on irrational stress feelings being conditioned into the mindset of the individual

>>6416 meant to say >and I have seen more PTSD cases in people NOT directly involved in combat than those who were.

>>6417 A friend who knows more than I do and could probably provide citations told me they are finding the exact same symptoms in kids living in shttty violent neighborhoods in the US as in combat traumatized soldiers; same for adults who were repeatedly sexually abused as children.

>>6418 I think I have heard that somewhere too. And it makes perfect sense, because developing a high stress condition tolerance and then ramping down the stress ,means the mind is still trying to cope, which manifests itself as irrational behaviors bordering on paranoia and extreme mood changes. the problem with connected society is that people don't have a physical support system. I know people who were in the military 30 years ago and said back then, after work everybody would hang out together, play cards, talk about life, or watch movies together, their bonding kept the group strong and allowed people to vent with a positive support structure. but in the last decade, as soon as the work day ends, everybody disappears to go hang out in a corner with a laptop or cell phone. on the lager scale, it shows when people are not talking in person. There was one sociologist who talked about how social media could essentially mimic the behaviors of online chatting, where things like facebook posts could be synthesized to auto generate responses (basically the one liners people use to agree could be just as easily generated by a bot than a person). the problem with that is it is about as absolutely removed form the human interaction that people need to go about their lives as you can possibly make it. I am not going to go into the history of PTSD (definitely worth a read, because it talks about how the disorder was used to deny pensions and medical compensation) but the main takeaway is the only way to fix it is to get people to cope with their stress in a productive manner. society is too removed for people to be able to adequately cope, which means natural behaviors manifest themselves as "disorders." and I have a personal gripe against western medicine, specifically because of big pharma deceptively marketing drugs as "happy pills that make all your problems disappear"

>>6407 Actually I was talking about both liberals and right-wing xenophobes. Liberals are by no means innocent of this and are in fact spectacularly bigoted in some ways.

>>6402 R U ME?

>>6419 >and I have a personal gripe against western medicine, specifically because of big pharma deceptively marketing drugs as "happy pills that make all your problems disappear" Big pharma is cancer, but let's not forget that the American psychology community is guilty of numerous political abuses. The vast majority of the stuff they claim is indicative of a mental disorder or psychologically damaging is actually completely harmless, and their claims exist solely to provide a justification for ideologues' repressive policies.

>>6419 I'm curious what you would think of the movie "Highrise" starring Tom Hiddleston. It was based off the book of the same name. The film centers around the people living in a new ultra-modern high rise building. The thematic premise of the book and the film is that modern society has replaced so many of the social obligations and traditions of human interaction that the veneer of humanity just drops off and society just completely breaks down into chaos. It was interesting in that the film starts off with what appears to be a story of class inequality and prejudice before veering off into total chaos as all the residents gradually lose their minds completely. In the end no one is willing to leave the building (because of the comfort it provides) even though there's no way to sustain themselves. They just sort of commit, whether they know it or not, to slowly dying rather than go out into the world. If you have the chance to watch it, come back to this thread and let us know if it matches the discussion we've been having.

>>6416 >you cannot "cure" emotion It depends, if you can pinpoint the source of emotion. Emotion are not arbitrary and definitely follows pattern based on certain condition and situations. You're absolutely right though, you can't cure emotion with medicine. But one can control certain aspects and can even restrain symptoms through medicine up to some degree. Personally I don't support the use of meds without proper guidance and the way these big pharma. co-operates advertise their adulterated products like it's elixir.

>>6427 I remember that movie ( i watched it when it was released, but it has been some time.) I think that it fits this thread, because as OP posted, the gritty cyberpunk world we are living in/ turning into is nothing but a facade to begin with. The aesthetics so to speak are more or less just interpretations of the situation or variable paradigms that people create (people from the 70/80s usually greet the new IPHONE like it is some sort of wizardry that they never could have comprehended.) People are incredibly adaptable, to the extent of creating coping mechanisms for all kinds of awful things jsut to stay alive. Its the reason children can be made into wage slaves making shoes 20 hours a day. > In the end no one is willing to leave the building (because of the comfort it provides) even though there's no way to sustain themselves. They just sort of commit, whether they know it or not, to slowly dying rather than go out into the world. IIRC there was an aspect to plato's allegory of the cave that hinted that people would be too afraid to leave the comfort of familiarity, no matter how bad, because they were just so afraid of that which is foreign. The short story "the machine stops" deals with a similar idea, and if you like high rise, you would probably enjoy the short (but heavy 25 pages) read about the downfall of mankind because of complacency and comfort. Part of the story also deals with the idea of technology being blackboxed rendering mankind unable to sustain itself, but they keep hoping things will get better. I just found out that it looks like a movie was made in 2009 that I am going to watch now

>>6432 Thanks for the PDF. I'll check it out!

Japan is the only good place in the world. No Muslims, no minorities, just nature, beatiful, clean citys with beautiful arcitecture and sweet sweet consumerism -u-

>>6391 See, that's the thing. Humanity in that state will become mindless, slaves to their human overlords.

But see? This is what I'm talking about. Every single answer in this thread has been "how can we form a perfect union" and "how can we move humanity closer together" but that's what's killing us. We need to stop the end on history, stop the last man from ever existing. Humanity needs struggle to survive. If placed in those conditions, nothing will ever come of us. We will become mindless robots.

>>6473 >We need to stop the end on history, stop the last man from ever existing. Humanity needs struggle to survive. If placed in those conditions, nothing will ever come of us. We will become mindless robots. i think that it is interssting that great minds are already preparign for mankind to end. In a way its a little comfy, wondering about if mankind ends some future species may encounter our technology and wonder about what kind of species mankind was. pic related-a storm is blowing from paradise >A contrast between monument and terrain signifies a tension between geological resources and human affliction. This monument symbolizes a parasitic operation that reaches deep into the darkest side of humanity. It is a memorial for the exploitation of Mother Earth, the Native American mining communities, the genius of scientists, 130,000 individual lives, and the endless generations to come that are affected by these operations. Volcanic basalt stone wraps the perimeter of the 16 mile site. Within this, large boulders fill the interior. These boulders would erode and slip out of the open corners of the monument, eventually to become cemented into the geological strata; a physical recording of anthropocentric presence and perhaps, absence. it reminded me of the scene in Shoujo Shuumatsu Ryokou where the protagonists encounter a mass tomb/memorial to mankind and muse about the people who were once alive on an edgier note: http://www.archoutloud.com/a-crystalline-funeral.html >How can an isolated landmark reveal itself as a coffin to seal the radioactive nuclear wastes, and how can the crystalline funeral, reveal and warn the considerable influence of human power to the future generation throughout the 10,000 duration of decay of nuclear substance, and probably, the human being as well? ​>Salt crystal, which constantly seals the nuclear substance underground, will be regarded as a metaphoric connection between the funerals on the ground and the ones under it. Extra salt crystals in or around the site will be collected to build series of crystalline coffins, to seal the extinct species, one for each year, an ongoing funeral which lasts for 10,000 years, when the central church seals the last human being…

>>6471 Japan has a lot of things going for it, but it's adopted too much American bullsoykaf. They need to rebuild their military (which is already happening to some extent), stop working themselves to death, smoke some weed, kick America out (as does every other country), re-legalize filming naked hebe/ephebe cuties fuarrrking their brains out and flip the bird to hypersensitive feminist retards who'd whine about all of the above. That would make Japan great again.

>>6484 Alternatively, Japan should annex California and Hawaii and integrate them into the Empire of Japan. Much better to be ruled by animeland than by jews.

>>6471 >homogeneous society based on strict cultural guidelines and norms resulting in a shame society that encourages suicide for failing to comply with societies expectations, furthered by low context language that is intentionally vague to not offend anybody lest you bring shame upon yourself or your family up to and including confessing to crimes you did not commit to not incur shame for questioning authority at least its better than SJW cancer

>>6485 >not doing both >>6489 >America >A country of individualism Top fuarrrking kek. America is a hivemind where nobody can express a different opinion about anything or they get ripped apart by the lynch mob.

>I live in the US, but apparently it's much worse in the U.K. It's hard to say qualitatively that it's "worse". It's bad in different ways. >In addition, most other countries (think "third world") are becoming more like large trash bins for the "big boys in town" (U.S.) What do you mean "becoming". It's kind of always been like that since the early days of colonialism. >what can be done? Wow that's kind of a broad question. First we need clear goals not some lofty idea of "save the world" or whatever. There will be no progress until we've decided what progress actually is. Right now it's just a soykaf flinging contest between SJWs and SQWs with no end in sight. >Is there truly no hope for humanity? There is certainly no hope for the west. The British empire fell, the American empire is falling. It's nothing new this is just what happens, societies fall, new ones rise. It seems like the end of the world to us because we're in these countries. It's naive to think of all the civilizations in history our one would be the only one that somehow lasts forever. The other thing that makes everything seem terrible is that capitalism is starting to collapse in on itself. A lot of people misunderstand Marx, they think he said that "socialism/communism is inevitable." Really what he said was just that capitalism is unstable. This is just a fact. I'm not claiming that communism is the answer don't get me wrong. Looking for one answer is stupid because there's no question. As if there's just going to be some magical solution that will save everyone and make the world an amazing place to live forever where everyone is always happy and if only people would just see that my answer is the real answer! We just need to go back to traditional values in an ethnostate/ the workers just need to take control of the means of production/ we just need to get rid of the government/ we just need to blah blah blah you're all fuarrrking stupid. This isn't a fuarrrking fairy tale there's no magical cure all for societies ills. Life is soykaf, it's always been soykaf and it always will be soykaf. The problem is us. There are no human solutions for human problems. Either kill yourself or get on with it. You want hope? You're delusional. Hope is rationalized delusion.

>>6471 Suicide rate is all time high in Japan

>>6490 >America >A country of individualism >Top fuarrrking kek. America is a hivemind where nobody can express a different opinion about anything or they get ripped apart by the lynch mob. >>6489 >America's a country of individualism where everyone only things about themselves and don't have the spirit of selflessness! >They might have a log of weapons but they're weak soldiers who give up easily when the going gets tough! Does it feel good taking quotes out of context, turning them into strawmen and then beating them up? Maybe the reason your opinions get ripped apart is because your low intelligence produces soykaf opinions, not because of a nation wide conspiracy against you.

>>6505 >Maybe the reason your opinions get ripped apart is because your low intelligence produces soykaf opinions, not because of a nation wide conspiracy against you. If that were the case, the nation wouldn't need to censor my opinions because they'd have factual arguments against those opinions. Since they're censoring my opinions, they obviously don't. Also, I'm not taking the quote out of context, I'm pointing out that the context relies on false assumptions. Someone with high intelligence would know that. You're just another Dunning-Kruger liberal fuarrrkwit with delusions of intellectual adequacy.

>>6511 >Also, I'm not taking the quote out of context, I'm pointing out that the context relies on false assumptions. The quote is about western soldiers being selfish and not willing to sacrifice themselves for a higher cause. Your post is about thoughtcrime and groupthink. The only connection is the word "individualism" has more than one meaning. Clearly you have an ax to grind but try not to morph everything you see into a strawman you can hit. That's not fun for anyone. >If that were the case, the nation wouldn't need to censor my opinions because they'd have factual arguments against those opinions. I suspect you are the kind of person who won't listen to the opposing side and will continue arguing long past the point where people have given up and told you to just fuarrrk off. That's not the same thing as censorship.

>>6490 >>6489 >>6505 >this debacle over individualism 50 minute historical video on individualism, some might be interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyuHncK0_90

Y'all don't know soykaf about individualism.

>>6527 That comic is such bollocks. Being ignored and having people dismiss your ideas (part of any discussion), is not the same as being censored and even taken to court for wrongthink. It pains me that the fight to uphold freedom of speech has fallen to a mainly right-wing nationalist crowd, because this is about so much more than some people being able to talk about race and immigration and whatnot.

>>6530 >leftypol wrote a book wew

>>6527

>>6527 >unironically using the "showing you the door" excuse Jesus Christ, go the fuarrrk back to Reddit. What if every single media outlet was homophobic and they didn't let anyone who wasn't homophobic have a platform? What would you liberals do then? Censorship by corporations or other private entities is still censorship and the author of xkcd is a fuarrrking retard, as is anyone who believes him. >I suspect you are the kind of person who won't listen to the opposing side Pot, meet kettle. >>6552 I don't know where you got that edit, but it's fuarrrking amazing. I'm not a right-winger by any means, by the way.

>>6552 That xkcd only applies to bad things, like racists, neo-gnatzees, and (You).

>>6559 Surely it would also apply to subverters of the species such as jews, unproductive nanny cultures, and useful idiots like (you)

>>6553 >What if every single media outlet was homophobic and they didn't let anyone who wasn't homophobic have a platform? Very simple. They would make their own media outlet.

>>6575 >What if every single media outlet was homophobic and they prevented everybody who wasn't homophobic from having a platform by influencing military/police action against those who do? you are not a realist when it comes to capitalism in the current world situation i take it?

>>6576 Fukkin this. Oh, and btw, free speech is more than just protection from the government. If you can't say something without losing your job or being shunned by friends and family it is not freedom.

>>6585 > shunned by friends those are called social consequences, it has nothing to do with "freedom" of speech. > losing job you shouldn't lose your job for what you say *outside* work.

>>6586 >those are called social consequences, it has nothing to do with "freedom" of speech. You're thinking too simplistic. >you shouldn't lose your job for what you say *outside* work. I agree but people here in germany still lose their job when they critizise merkel or mass immigration on facebook.

>>6585 >being shunned by friends and family Regardless of everything else, I'm very curious about how you propose to solve the issue of friends or families splitting apart because of ideological differences. Are you going to make it illegal to stop being friend with someone because you think they're an arsehole ? I think you'd be infringing on some other liberties on your way to protect freedom of speech.

>>6553 >What if every single media outlet was homophobic Then you start your own. >and they didn't let anyone who wasn't homophobic have a platform? You mean the government would stop you? That would be actual censorship. >Pot, meet kettle. >>I suspect you are the kind of person who won't listen to the opposing side >>I suspect It was just a guess given there are no details. Prove me wrong by elaborating.

>>6552 Must feel good to use Liberals own logic against them. Shame it's wrong. >right to be a nigger A person can't help having black skin. A person can control what they say. >rent to you or let you in Refusing to listen to or host ideas you don't agree with is not the same thing as refusing to give someone a place to live. You can't legally reject a tenant because of something he says or believes. You can't legally reject a tenant because of skin color. What a hairy turd of a strawman. >It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole The text here is a direct judgment based on what was said. Since you changed the subject from something someone decided to say to something someone was born to be, this panel doesn't work at all. >>6553 >I don't know where you got that edit, but it's fuarrrking amazing. Don't let politics lower your IQ.

>>6591 I'm specifically referring to a situation where all private media is owned by homophobes refusing to give gays a platform. Attempts by gays to start a rival platform would be shut down through trumped-up legal charges in a heavily homophobic society, and we can already see examples of this happening to groups the mainstream political consensus is against. >>6592 >Shame it's wrong. It's quite correct, actually. Calling it incorrect is committing a special pleading fallacy, which liberals absolutely fuarrrking adore and routinely engage in every time a politically inconvenient group that deserves to be heard wants the support of the progressive movement. >A person can't help having black skin. A person can control what they say. This is an incredibly disingenuous statement. The point isn't what you can control, it's being censored by private entities for any reason. If we allow the "showing you the door" argument, it becomes acceptable for corporations to refuse to hire people on the grounds of race, gender or sexual orientation.

>>6594 >It's quite correct, actually. Calling it incorrect is committing a special pleading fallacy...blah blah balh I called it incorrect and *then I explained to you exactly why*. Please extend me the same courtesy. >This is an incredibly disingenuous statement. What's disingenuous is you continuing to draw parallels between concepts that are not comparable even after I've explained to you why they are not comparable. >If we allow the "showing you the door" argument, it becomes acceptable for corporations to refuse to hire people on the grounds of race, gender or sexual orientation. No it doesn't. There are specific laws governing the reasons an employer can or can't reject a candidate. This has nothing to do with free speech. >I'm specifically referring to a situation where all private media is owned by homophobes refusing to give gays a platform. Why should they? You send Twitter a Tweet and Twitter redistributes it to everyone who visits Twitter. If Twitter doesn't like your Tweet, they don't have to redistribute it. That is not a free speech issue. >Attempts by gays to start a rival platform would be shut down through trumped-up legal charges in a heavily homophobic society, and we can already see examples of this happening to groups the mainstream political consensus is against. The government cannot prosecute you for what you say, that's what the 1st amendment is. Private entities can't sue you for no reason (unless they enjoy paying for all your legal fees). And someone applying force to your independent platform (e.g. ddos) to censor you is always criminal, especially if it's a business competition like a media platform. This *is* a free speech issue and is protected by the law.

>>6620 >I called it incorrect and *then I explained to you exactly why*. Too bad your explanation was crap. >What's disingenuous is you continuing to draw parallels between concepts that are not comparable Special pleading. They're quite comparable. You just don't want to admit it because it's inconvenient for liberals' pro-censorship agenda. >There are specific laws governing the reasons an employer can or can't reject a candidate. This has nothing to do with free speech. The laws aren't anywhere near inclusive enough. > You send Twitter a Tweet and Twitter redistributes it to everyone who visits Twitter. If Twitter doesn't like your Tweet, they don't have to redistribute it. That is not a free speech issue. It's a free speech issue if every private organization is economically bullied out of allowing you to speak. That has the same effect as the government doing it, and that's why corporate censorship should also be outlawed. >The government cannot prosecute you for what you say, that's what the 1st amendment is. They can make up some bullsoykaf charges against you because you said something they didn't like, and they do this constantly.

>>6625 Argue in good faith or go away.

>>6625 >Too bad your explanation was crap. Elaborate. >Special pleading. They're quite comparable. You just don't want to admit it Elaborate. >The laws aren't anywhere near inclusive enough. Elaborate. >It's a free speech issue if every private organization is economically bullied out of allowing you to speak. I already explained to you how that can't happen. Maybe cite a real world example. >They can make up some bullsoykaf charges against you because you said something they didn't like, and they do this constantly. Again, has this actually ever happened or are you just making soykaf up? You can do better than this.

>>6626 Take your own advice. >>6627 >I already explained to you how that can't happen. Maybe cite a real world example. In answer to all of the above points, here's a far-from-exhaustive list of ideas no mainstream US news organization will allow you to advocate for on one of their platforms: >Anti-capitalist sentiment >Anti-Islamic sentiment >Genetics playing a role in intelligence >Lowering the age of consent >Allowing civilians to own fully-armed tanks, military aircraft and full-auto firearms >Arresting and trying high-ranking government officials for crimes they've committed I don't agree with all of those, but the fact remains that if you believe in one of the above, you don't get a voice in America. In the unlikely event of these beliefs being allowed, you can be sure the media will find the biggest dumbass they possibly can to represent any of them to make sure the public never believes anything they say. Remember Ketchup and Occupy Wall Street? Anything that would reduce the power of the elites will get the same treatment. Most of the above beliefs are derezzed on all major social media sites as well. >Again, has this actually ever happened or are you just making soykaf up? You should ask Julian Assange about that.

>>6637 >In answer to all of the above points, here's a far-from-exhaustive list of ideas no mainstream US news organization will allow you to advocate for on one of their platforms: Stop. This is not what I asked you. You have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to compel others to repeat it for you. Not getting a spot on mainstream news is not censorship, it just means people think you're being an asshole and showing you the door. You are still free to advocate these ideas on your own platform. If nobody wants to listen to your opinions that's because your opinions are soykaf, not because censorship. >every private organization is economically bullied out of allowing you to speak. >They can make up some bullsoykaf charges against you because you said something they didn't like, and they do this constantly. These are the points I asked you to show evidence on. You cannot find a real case of this happening. >You should ask Julian Assange about that. Assange is a Russian puppet spreading US government secrets. He is a testament to how fuarrrking tolerant the US is as a nation. If someone did that to Russia or China they would be eating plutonium before nightfall. In any case, https://wikileaks.org/ still exists. What was your point again?

>>6639 >Not getting a spot on mainstream news is not censorship Yes it is. If you have no effective way to get your message out, the result is the same as if the government officially derezzed you from speaking. That makes it censorship. >it just means people think you're being an asshole and showing you the door. People are wrong, and anyone who repeats xkcd memes is too stupid to live. >If nobody wants to listen to your opinions that's because your opinions are soykaf, not because censorship. Or it's because they're retards indoctrinated by the media, which is censoring us. >Assange is a Russian puppet Hillary Clinton, is that you? >He is a testament to how fuarrrking tolerant the US is as a nation. You should ask Guantanamo inmates about that.

>>6653 >Yes it is. If you have no effective way to get your message out, the result is the same as if the government officially derezzed you from speaking. That makes it censorship. Wow. That is the most entitled bullsoykaf I have ever heard. The world doesn't owe you soykaf son.

>>6653 You said what if big media platforms reject your opinions I said you setup your own media platform You said what if they stop you I said the law protects you from that You said it doesn't I asked for an example You couldn't give an example and went back to square 1, big media platforms reject your opinions. We're just going round in circles. >>6527 >I suspect you are the kind of person who won't listen to the opposing side and will continue arguing long past the point where people have given up and told you to just fuarrrk off. That's not the same thing as censorship. Given the way this discussion has gone, I think my initial theory was correct.

>>6658 >This law makes it illegal for me to shoot you, so I'll build private property all around you and forbid you to leave to get food until you die of starvation! This is totally different! >>6663 I gave you the example of Julian Assange and you started spewing talking points straight from the Democratic National Committee. Want me to start listing other fake rape charges filed against peaceful political activists? How about police violence against people peacefully protesting oil pipelines they don't want installed in their territory? And of course there's always the cops dressing up as a protester and doing something illegal to justify cracking down on the protest. This soykaf happens all the time.

>>6675 >This law makes it illegal for me to shoot you, so I'll build private property all around you and forbid you to leave to get food until you die of starvation! This is totally different! Both these things are illegal and are not at all comparable to the original analogy. You send a private company a piece of electronic information and that private company redistributes it to visitors of their website. They are doing you a favor. If they don't like your message they can just delete it. You have no legal or moral right to say "you MUST redistribute my message for me". That's just childish entitlement. >I gave you the example of Julian Assange I already explained to you why this doesn't count. Assange was not voicing an opinion we was distributing government secrets and endangering the lives of US military and intelligence officers. That's not a free speech issue. Any non-liberal-democracy would have killed him for that. >Want me to start listing other fake rape charges filed against peaceful political activists? That would be a better way to prove your point. >How about police violence against people peacefully protesting oil pipelines they don't want installed in their territory? And of course there's always the cops dressing up as a protester and doing something illegal to justify cracking down on the protest. You've swerved completely off the logical path again. People rioting on the street is not a free speech issue.

>>6699 >You have no legal or moral right to say "you MUST redistribute my message for me". That's just childish entitlement. Whoa. No. I'm the guy who called him entitled because he thought he deserved a spot on mainstream news. The internet has already become the de facto forum of public discourse. That, de jure, it sits in private hands does not affect the morality of it. Everyone should have a right to speak. Not to be specially boosted above most others such as with mainstream news, but to speak on an even playing field. That's not childish entitlement at all.

>>6703 >The internet has already become the de facto forum of public discourse. Nothing changes. You have the right to host your own website. You don't have the right to force someone else's website to redistribute your text. The popularity of the website doesn't matter.

>>6705 >You have the right to host your own website. Why? Why do I have this right but not another? Surely all hosting a website means is that I'm "forcing" an ISP to distribute my messages. >You don't have the right to force someone else's website to redistribute your text. That remains to be seen. Rights are what we decide they are. >The popularity of the website doesn't matter. It matters supremely. Being unable to enter normal discourse by dint of your views isn't ok. This is why we have free speech rights in the first place. I'm not at all comfortable with the fact that a few companies control massive swathes of discussion and extending our rights to cover this offers a solution.

>>6708 >Why? Why do I have this right but not another? Because the second one infringes on the rights of others. You cannot force someone to repeat a message they don't agree with. >Surely all hosting a website means is that I'm "forcing" an ISP to distribute my messages. This is different because ISPs are only carriers. Their job is to route packets from point A to point B and that's it. The contents is none of their business and you can guarantee that by using encryption. >It matters supremely. This is why we have free speech rights in the first place. Here comes the childish entitlement. You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to hijack someone else's audience. You are free to host your own website to spread your anticapitalist-antisemetic-racist-pedo-liberterian-politicalwitchhunt opinions ( >>6637), but if someone removes those opinions from their own website then that's not censorship, It's just proof that your opinions are soykaf.

>>6710 >You cannot force someone to repeat a message they don't agree with. Unless they're just a carrier. Right? Why is an ISP just a carrier and say twitter not? They both just repeat other peoples' messages. Twitter sorts them in some fashion, but then so do ISPs. This line you've drawn is an entirely arbitrary one. >The contents is none of their business But it is twitters business? Why? What's the difference? >you can guarantee that by using encryption. No you can't. They can just refuse to route anything they can't decrypt. >You don't have a right to hijack someone else's audience. Twitter doesn't have an audience any more than my ISP does. They both just sort and route messages written by somebody else so that they reach me. >if someone removes those opinions from their own website then that's not censorship But if an ISP does the same thing with their routers then that is? Censorship is a pointless word here. >It's just proof that your opinions are soykaf. Not at all. Reddit recently went on a tirade of banning all the darknet market stuff. Did they have soykaf opinions? That a relatively tiny amount of people sat in a board room are dictating the policy which sets the bounds for a massive proportion of discourse isn't ok. I won't ignore that because of some imagined moral imperative that's ultimately just build on arbitrary lines.

my plan is to carve out my niche and ride it out. Not like anything temporary matters. >>6711 >This line you've drawn is an entirely arbitrary one. all lines are arbitrary my friend. >But it is twitters business? on twitter there is no expectation of privacy. >They can just refuse to route anything they can't decrypt. there goes uh all of their business when nobody can use any HTTPS page at all. >They both just sort and route messages written by somebody else so that they reach me. an ISP provides expensive physical infrastructure, twitter does not. An ISP can hold what's called a "natural monopoly", where they're the only competitors in a region because they're the only company that decided to expand there. Twitter can not.

>>6699 >People rioting on the street is not a free speech issue. If you're actually so disingenuous that you're going to equate all protests with riots, there's no point in talking to you. You're so far from rational thought that nothing will ever convince you of the truth. Only such a person could unironically repeat xkcd memes. >>6710 >politicalwitchhunt It's rather telling that you think prosecuting government officials for wrongdoing is a witch hunt, but going after consensual sexual relationships between adults and fully psychologically and biologically mature teenagers isn't. Your opinions aren't merely wrong, they're the exact opposite of reality. You fulfill pretty much every single liberal stereotype and I have no idea how you even found this place, because your opinions would be much more at home on Reddit, which is where you should go back to. >if someone removes those opinions from their own website then that's not censorship, It's just proof that your opinions are soykaf. So what if someone decides to ban your opinions?

>>6716 >on twitter there is no expectation of privacy. What does that have to do with anything? Remember twitter is just the example, the arguments could apply equally to facebook et al. >when nobody can use any HTTPS page at all. That's not how that would go down. As we've seen from captive portal environments people will happily abandon SSL for something that works because they don't really understand why it's important. Still, I feel this point is a mile off topic. >an ISP provides expensive physical infrastructure, twitter does not Sure they do. Their servers are expensive physical infrastructure. >An ISP can hold what's called a "natural monopoly" Not in my country. The whole network is owned by a single company that is then legally forced for lease it to ISPs (well, it's a little more complex than that. Still, so much better than the American model btw), and yet still we have these laws and rights despite there being no need for them from a monopoly point of view. You're trying to pull out these differences but either they're just different names for the same basic thing (routers vs server) or they're just irrelevant as evidenced by the places where they don't apply. This position of "ISPs are fundamentally different to websites" isn't a tenable one. >>6718 >You fulfill pretty much every single liberal stereotype and I have no idea how you even found this place, because your opinions would be much more at home on Reddit, which is where you should go back to. Let me rephrase that for you "You're an asshole, there's the door." The hypocrisy is palpable. More than that, liberal opinions are fine here along with anyone else's. I don't know if you're new or just oblivious but we see a wide range of politics represented here. If anything, the site as a whole leans slightly to the left, but that's only because you have to aggregate large numbers of very disparate people in order to get a single one word view like that. It's never going to be particularly meaningful.

>>6711 >Why is an ISP just a carrier and say twitter not? An ISP pushes packets from one ip address to another ip address. The content has nothing to do with the ISP. You can encrypt the contents if you want. Twitter is a website. You POST a short message to Twitter and then Twitter may or may not include this message (along with ads) in HTML pages it servers to visitors. That's why I say Twitter is not obliged to repeat your message, because that's what they do. Repeat the message to an undetermined number of people, an undetermined number of times for an undetermined amount of time. ISPs don't repeat anything, they only deliver messages from point A to point B a single time. That's it. I realize that this is not a technical board. If you don't understand how the internet works then it might seem like there is no difference but there is.

>>6718 > If you're actually so disingenuous that you're going to equate all protests with riots, there's no point in talking to you > You fulfill pretty much every single liberal stereotype How do you simultaneously hold these two opinions about the same person? How is it even possible?

>>6741 he has a point though, criminal destruction of property is not the same as politely voicing your opinion in an organized fashion, hence the difference ins RIOT and PROTEST

>>6731 >Sure they do. Their servers are expensive physical infrastructure. they're not provided to the user. You're not doing anything but sending data to their servers. You're not "using" them any more than you're using someone's mailbox when you send them mail. I think it's a very, very fundamental difference, you can't just handwave it away as "ehh same thing".

>>6741 >How do you simultaneously hold these two opinions about the same person? How is it even possible? Intoxication and/or very low IQ. Either way not worth responding to.

>>6736 Right ok. So it's that there's a delay on when the message is repeated or that the message is repeated to lots of people? What about long queues and broadcast messages? They both meet this criteria. Bit of a stretch there though. Don't get me wrong I'm sure there are some meaningful differences (which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, it's a fool actually can't tell an ISP from a website) but that we went through three lines of logic (privacy, infrastructure, monopoly) that didn't hold up at all before we got here serves my original point. Your idea of what is a right and what is childish entitlement stems not from any well thought out moral distinction but simply from a desire to maintain the status quo. This deontological ethical reasoning of "but it's their right!" serves only to attempt to end the discussion, which was from the start a prescriptive discussion on what should be, before it begins. Again, rights are what we decide they are. We force people to play by rules that are good for everyone all the time and, while I've no problem with the idea that a site like this might want to filter content as it pleased, big sites are in a much more important social position. Blocking anyone out of general discourse is playing with fire. They don't stop existing and now the bulk of their social interactions come from others who aren't allowed in the general forum, probably for the same reason. In a very muted way it's like a cult. Doing this for the total fringes isn't so bad. They can still be a problem as they're often the most driven and violent of people but not a bad one. They're small and have trouble attracting new people. Doing it to a large swathe, like they are, is going to end badly for everyone. They aren't going to have trouble attracting new people, especially the young, because teens like to be edgy. >>6750 Honestly it's kinda moot. If there's a difference or not wasn't the point, I just wanted to look at the reasoning behind this assertion of rights. That said, technologically the difference really is very marginal. You're not provided with the routers between you and twitter any more than you're provided with the server at the other end. You're not doing anything other than sending data to their routers or you can go the other way and say the routers are supposed to pass the message on to someone else, but then so is twitter's server. Unless you start looking in detail at the tech (how things are encoded etc) or take a different approach entirely and look at how they're used, they both just look like message passing services who don't do any real processing of their own. >You're not "using" them any more than you're using someone's mailbox when you send them mail. It's a mistake to think that you're sending messages to twitter. Nobody at twitter HQ reads your tweets. >I think it's a very, very fundamental difference It's really not. It just comes from this habit of thinking of twitter as a distinct entity (which they are socially and legally) rather than simply another seamless part of network infrastructure (which they are physically and technologically) You give twitter messages to give to other people. You give your ISP messages to give to other people. That there's a difference socially and legally goes back to my point. If we're willing to treat ISPs differently because of the manner in which they're used by society why is doing the same for large social media sites suddenly a breach of rights and childish entitlement?

>>6763 >So it's that there's a delay on when the message is repeated or that the message is repeated to lots of people? Think of it like mail vs newspaper. ISP is like the mail. Write your letter put it in an envelope, write the address on and send it. Mail carriers don't care what's inside, they take your money and deliver it end of story. Twitter is like a newspaper. Write your letter, send it to the newspaper. Newspaper reads it, maybe prints it, maybe not. It's their decision what content they give to *their* readers. You have no legal or moral right to have your opinions included in someone else's newspaper. You have no moral or legal right to have you opinions included on somone else's website. You DO have a legal right to have your ip packets/letters delivered to address of your choosing because that's what you're paying the ISP/postoffice to do. >we went through three lines of logic (privacy, infrastructure, monopoly) That was someone else. >simply from a desire to maintain the status quo. It's the racist-pedo-nazi who wants to force his unpopular opinions onto mainstream media and doesn't understand the difference between censorship and being outvoted by peers. >It's a mistake to think that you're sending messages to twitter. Nobody at twitter HQ reads your tweets. Not a human but computers read it and make a decision on whether to serve it and to which visitors. Just like the newspaper analogy. >If we're willing to treat ISPs differently because of the manner in which they're used by society Strawman. ISPs do a specific, well defined job that we pay them to do. >why is doing the same for large social media sites suddenly a breach of rights and childish entitlement? We don't pay social media to do anything. We give them our data and they give us ads. Once you give the data they can do what they want with it including nothing. Normally they include your messages on their website because they want you to keep giving them valuable data. That doesn't make you entitled, it just makes you a sucker.

>>6731 >Let me rephrase that for you "You're an asshole, there's the door." The hypocrisy is palpable. I'm not banning him though, am I? >More than that, liberal opinions are fine here along with anyone else's. I don't know if you're new or just oblivious but we see a wide range of politics represented here. If anything, the site as a whole leans slightly to the left, but that's only because you have to aggregate large numbers of very disparate people in order to get a single one word view like that. It's never going to be particularly meaningful. Liberalism and the left are two different things. Any opinion is meant to be allowed here, and liberals shouldn't be derezzed from Lainchan, but it's not hypocritical for me to state that liberals should leave Lainchan because their opinions are overwhelmingly authoritarian and fly in the face of individual rights, which is supposed to be the entire point of cyberpunk. >>6741 >>6762 Liberals were fully on board with forcibly suppressing peaceful Occupy Wall Street protests by lying that they were violent, so this type of behavior is nothing new for them. Thus holding both of those opinions simultaneously is not only not unusual, it's the right and proper thing to do. I'd tell you to learn some history, but this is history that you were alive for, so that's not even the issue here. You liberals actually have the gall to call people stupid for remembering something that happened only one presidential term ago. You're basically gaslighting everyone.

>>6770 Who the hell said I was a liberal?

>>6771 You seem to be making a lot of effort to defend them.

>>6772 Just pointing out your cognitive dissonances.

>It's the racist-pedo-nazi who wants to force his unpopular opinions onto mainstream media and doesn't understand the difference between censorship and being outvoted by peers. I'm not racist, a pedophile or a Nazi. Only feminist retards jealous that teen girls are the most attractive believe adults pursuing them is in any way pedophilic. Unfortunately, feminists have control of the media, so their beliefs are the only ones people get to hear. That's an example of censorship, and they do it because they can't refute challenges to their beliefs. And even if your "peers" do outvote you on some issue, they're almost always still wrong, because they're prone to hysteria, groupthink and virtue signaling and have no real interest in knowing anything important. Their only interest is in having politically correct opinions so they can fit in. Democracy isn't a reliable method of gauging the truth. >>6775 It was just explained to you why there is no cognitive dissonance there. You're just throwing around buzzwords to try to sound smart, which is something liberals do more than anyone else.

>>6777 >Only feminist retards jealous that teen girls are the most attractive believe adults pursuing them is in any way pedophilic. What on gods green earth are you talking about As an adult I am attracted to other adults, like the sheer and vast majority of other adults I've interacted with Perhaps people have a problem with your pedophilia because it's morally repugnant and not because they're brainwashed

>>6777 >All people who don't share my racist-nazi-pedo opinions are wrong and being manipulated by $feminist_jewish_liberal_lizardmen but only me alone know the truth that 7 billions other people are too stupid to see. Just keep nodding and smiling. Nodding and smiling like Colonel Gaddafi's psychoanalyst.

>>6781 >the sheer and vast majority of other adults I've interacted with Lol. People aren't allowed to publicly tell the truth in murrika, but most guys would much rather get with a 15/16 year old girl than a roastie. >Perhaps people have a problem with your pedophilia because it's morally repugnant and not because they're brainwashed Or perhaps people have a problem with you thinking you have some grand moral authority to regulate everyone's personal lives when you have no evidence to back up your views on morality. You people do this constantly on every imaginable issue and a lot of folks are fed up with it, and they're especially fed up with you censoring any alternative views.

>>6782 >7 billion other people Stop this astroturfing soykaf. Most of the world has substantially laxer sex laws than the US, and consider people like you retarded cunts with an extra dose of uniquely American pretension and self-righteousness as the cherry on top of the soykaf cake. No other countries' citizens have any of these mental problems you're claiming will result if we relax the laws. It's almost as if it doesn't actually take very much effort to understand sex well enough to consent to it and you're just looking for things to take offense at like liberals always do, and robbing people of choice, also like liberals always do. But if you want to discuss this further, there's a thread for it: >>>/r/5694 Not that anything you can do remotely qualifies as "discussion", as opposed to "screeching like an ape and throwing feces at the wall." Still, half the point of this thread is that censorship has been on the rise as part of the corporate government's ongoing power grab, and most people on Lainchan don't like censorship, so I don't know why you'd come here expecting a warm reception when you make these xkcd excuses to shut anyone who offends you out of public discourse. Also, I didn't say anything about any of this "da joos rool teh wrold!!1!" nonsense. You're strawmanning because you can't refute what's actually being said to you.

>>6786 >People aren't allowed to publicly tell the truth in murrika, but most guys would much rather get with a 15/16 year old girl than a roastie. Ah, the classic "silent pedophile majority" Dude I seriously and absolutely do not want to do that in the slightest and I have no doubt my peers or friends, and because I know I can trust my friends, I know they tell me the truth So, no, dude. It's just you and it's sad. Nobody likes hearing about your soykafty pedo desires, nobody is enjoying your presence. Go bother other people.

>>6787 >Most of the world has substantially laxer sex laws than the US There's more to it than that. Under 18s are only allowed to fuarrrk each other and/or with parental consent for example. Europe is not the free for all pedo utopia you're imagining. >Not that anything you can do remotely qualifies as "discussion" That's because no pedos with an IQ over 75 participated on your side of the thread. >Also, I didn't say anything about any of this "da joos rool teh wrold!!1!" nonsense. >>6637 >censorship has been on the rise as part of the corporate government's ongoing power grab You are angry because nobody agrees with your soykaf opinions. You have plenty of opportunity for unencumbered speech (in that /r/ thread for example) but you still can't make a coherent logical case for raping children. Censorship is not the problem. >xkcd excuses to shut anyone who offends you out of public discourse. It's not about being offended it's about reacting to people who are so far out of touch with reality and won't listen to anything but their own bullsoykaf. Removing such people frees up bandwidth for meaningful discussion within the community.

>>6786 the problem is, even if there was a silent majority of pedophiles they obviously dont care enough or identify with it to bother saying anything as you do. This means these thoughts arent something they heavily identify with, as you do, they dont think they matter. Its like how some people have violent thoughts now and then and they freak out about it and self obsess, while others just dont really pay attention to it knowing its just a thought they feel no strong urge to act on. This already means you have a problem even this silent majority doesnt. If they truly did feel the same as you they too would speak. It doesnt interfere with their lives enough to care, they are fine with women their age. Most people interact with people around their age in their day to day lives so they feel more attatched to them anyways, most people dont only value sexual attraction in relationships and a 15/16 year old speaking is enough to turn them off no matter how attractive. I agree with you most men do probably find 15/16 year olds attractive, I don't. What I said above is still true for these men. However beauty standards at the moment prioritize infantile looks facially and behaviour even. In my opinion, note my opinion you probably are just somebody who like most sees beauty in what society tells them too, but also are neurotic and clearly need some justification for thoughts most people let go. A word of advice, you arent a slave to your thoughts and neither is the rest of the world. Somebody popping a boner at a 15/16 year old is not the same as you, because they let the thought pass while you identify with it. Just as I dont identify or pay any mind to the thought to commit road rage in traffic so it doesnt happen in spite of it coming up. Thoughts are meaningless until you give them meaning, they pop into your head from nowhere discernable and leave just as quick. Which ones you choose to pay attention to is what speaks to your character.

>>6767 >Twitter is like a newspaper. No it's not. Physically and technically they have much more limited room. Printing everything is wildly impractical. Socially and legally they're very different. It would be more analogous to look at an individual twitter account as being a newspaper. Mostly it's the views of a single person/small group but occasionally they print/retweet something from someone else. In this analogy twitter would be the printing press. >You DO have a legal right to have your ip packets/letters delivered to address of your choosing because that's what you're paying the ISP/postoffice to do. So if, for instance, I lived in France where dial up is free, I would no longer have these rights because I'm not paying the ISP? Also, it's all just more of this unjustified deontological ethics. "You have this right" means nothing. Even providing analogies means nothing. The two situations are never perfectly the same and we decide rights based on whatever we like. You have to say why we should have these rights or the discussion can't go much further than "It's like this thing", "not really". I've given my reasons. I think it's bad for society to try to cut out swathes of it. >It's the racist-pedo-nazi who wants to force his unpopular opinions onto mainstream media This isn't about him at all. >Not a human but computers read it and make a decision on whether to serve it and to which visitors. Just like the newspaper analogy. That's far more like the ISP analogy don't you think? >We don't pay social media to do anything. Payment doesn't really mean anything here. We're discussing what job they should be doing and the legislation that should govern their industry. Who they get paid by isn't very important to that. The whole point of legislation like this, of which we have reams already, is to make it so that they have to take the course that's best for society as a whole rather than the one that makes the most money. >Once you give the data they can do what they want with it including nothing. fuarrrk that. I'm glad our legislators have more sense than that. >it just makes you a sucker. Yeah, when big businesses are playing 95%+ of the population for suckers you should think about regulating them.

>>6788 Do Americans really think being attracted to 16-year-olds makes you a pedophile? Would I get lynched for dating someone under the age of 18 in the US? That sounds a bit worrying...

>>6793 >Do Americans really think being attracted to 16-year-olds makes you a pedophile? Would I get lynched for dating someone under the age of 18 in the US? That sounds a bit worrying... He's just larping. It's a form of attention seeking. >Look at me I'm special, the government wants to imprison me and my neighbors want to murder me because I'm attracted to "healthy physically mature" teenagers just look at how unjust the world is to me. wah wah wah >Would I get lynched for dating someone under the age of 18 in the US? In reality it has more to do with the difference rather than the absolute age. The bigger the age gap the more power the adult has over the child and things trend towards being non-consensual. The law and society as a whole err on the side of protecting children at the expense of a minority of adults who actually want to date children and wouldn't abuse them. Boo hoo. If you're early 20s then no one cares except the cops and the girl's dad. If you're 40+ then the villagers come with pitchforks. Just like any other country really.

>>6793 No not at all. Ive had several friends in the past who had an age gap of even up to 10 years from 15-18. Only one time was it an issue. This is because the girls were very mature mentally as well, they didn't really get along with people their age to start with. The one time it was an issue was a 10 year age gap, the girl was very childish and also looked young and her boyfriend was this fat manchild. also none of the people where nobody had a problem were seeking out younger girls. They usually met and hit it off before even knowing their age. The other case was from online dating where the guy, at least in my opinion, was seeking out younger girls. OPs fixation makes it obvious to me he is somebody seeking out younger girls, not just somebody who would like to be able to date a 15/16 year old he has in mind who is very mature. As I said, it isnt an issue in situations like that except maybe to strangers and only if the age difference looks visible. Which if it does they obviously arent sexually mature 15/16 year olds which is very creepy.

>>6788 >Dude I seriously and absolutely do not want to do that in the slightest This is what we call "reaction formation." You don't want to face the fact that your own biology makes you want to do things that society told you are bad, so you pretend that anyone who acknowledges that biology is real is in a minority. You're no different than all those anti-gay pastors who turn out to be the most flaming homos around. You're either a hopeless virtue signaling feminist soyboy who could never attract a teenage girl and is jealous of that, or one of the feminist women said soyboys enable who's jealous of the fact that most guys would rather be with teens than you, so you try to pretend that the sexual orientation people have followed for all of human history is some kind of psychological problem. >>6789 >Under 18s are only allowed to fuarrrk each other and/or with parental consent for example. This is a blatant lie. I've read the laws in Euro countries and there is no such restriction. Even the UK, the most puritanical Euro country by far, still allows people above 18 to have sex with 16-year-olds. This isn't even true in US states where the age of consent is under 18, for Lain's sake. You're trying to make it appear as though your views have support from other countries, but they don't. Stop pretending to know the law. >You are angry because nobody agrees with your soykaf opinions. You mean except most of the world. >You have plenty of opportunity for unencumbered speech (in that /r/ thread for example) but you still can't make a coherent logical case for raping children. Rape doesn't mean "any relationship that offends me" and nobody in that thread was making a case for raping children. They were questioning your definitions of the words "rape" and "children" and doing so very successfully. Teenagers are not children and have all requisite knowledge to be able to give consent. If your side really believed otherwise, you'd be fine with allowing sex tests to empirically prove via the results that they're not ready, but you won't. Following the theme of this thread, you try to shut down such testing whenever it's suggested because you know it would prove the exact opposite and completely destroy your claims. If you read that thread on /r/, there are references to studies which do just that. Naturally, your side has done all it can to suppress them. Also, having plenty of opportunity for unencumbered speech would mean being allowed on major social media sites. By the way, show me which part of >>6637 refers to the Jews. >It's not about being offended it's about reacting to people who are so far out of touch with reality and won't listen to anything but their own bullsoykaf. Says the poster who's lying about the law to try to make it look like anyone else supports them. >Removing such people frees up bandwidth for meaningful discussion within the community. Meaningful discussion apparently includes lying about the law and stifling meaningful discussion through massive amounts of censorship. >>6790 >the problem is, even if there was a silent majority of pedophiles they obviously dont care enough or identify with it to bother saying anything as you do. That word...I do not think it means what you think it means. But you're missing the real point, which is that anyone with a different opinion on anything is being threatened into silence and barred from having a platform in the mainstream. >>6793 Many do, yes, even though it's legal in quite a few US states. These people have been subject to an intense wave of feminist propaganda that they can't or won't question. Their claims about teenagers only being able to consent if their partner is 17 years and 364 days old but magically becoming incapable if their partner is another 24 hours old have their roots in hysteria and nothing else. Anyone who proves them wrong is seen as heretical. These people are incapable of being reasoned with and wherever it is that you live, you need to take a good look at what they're doing here. They're trying to pretend that your country agrees with them, and they won't hesitate to utilize censorship to artificially create the appearance of support for their positions.

Technically an attraction to teenagers is called ephebophilia. It's an attraction to people in their mid-teens to almost-twenties (15-19) It's not considered quite as bad as being into pre-teen children, but there's a serious question about whether someone significantly older should be taking advantage of someone with much less life experience. I knew a guy who was 60 and was married to a 20 year-old. Maybe he cared about her. The way he was proud of it really spoke more to a confirmation of his virility than anything else. It's also worth noting they fought. A lot. He would be at trade shows yelling at his wife over the phone. Make of that what you will. Oddly, I overheard a conversation over two women discussing age differences. They mentioned some unwritten rule that the age boundary is the man's age divided by 2. I had never heard that before, so I'm not sure what to make of it. I don't know if they approved or disapproved, either.

>>6792 >That's far more like the ISP analogy don't you think? Because they're both electronic? Don't be a cunt. ISPs deliver packets from point A to point B. A website physically cannot do that. People need to visit to get content, just like people buying a newspaper. When they get the content, it's not just your message, it's other people's messages + ads. Just like a newspaper. Websites welcome your contribution but they have no obligation to publish it if they don't like it. Just like a newspaper. The priority is appealing to many people, not to give all ideas equal weight. Just like a newspaper. >So if, for instance, I lived in France where dial up is free, I would no longer have these rights because I'm not paying the ISP? I would argue you need to look at the raison d'etre. ISPs only exist to deliver packets from point A to point B. So you have a reasonable expectation that they will do their job even if someone else is paying them. >"You have this right" means nothing. The context of "right" in this discussion is the xkcd comic which explains why having Tweets deleted is not a violation of America's 1st amendment right. >You have to say why we should have these rights There's an argument to be made that the purpose behind the 1st amendment was to protect free speech from arbitrary abuse of power, which at the time was the government. But in modern times corporations like Google and Facebook are just as powerful if not more. >Yeah, when big businesses are playing 95%+ of the population for suckers you should think about regulating them. You're not wrong.

>>6794 >He's just larping. It's a form of attention seeking. Tell that to any of the people who were only a year or two apart from their partner who got convicted under statutory rape laws. There are tons of people in YouTube comments who are against even 2 or 3-year age gaps if one of the people is under 18, and nearly all of them are Americans. This is a massive problem and it's affecting many, many people. Your efforts to downplay it are making it worse for everyone. >In reality it has more to do with the difference rather than the absolute age. The bigger the age gap the more power the adult Prove a direct correlation between age and maturity or fuarrrk off with this. >pitchforks You do understand that people are going to defend themselves from this with lethal force, correct? This isn't a road you want to go down, because there are a lot of people in the US now approaching their late 20s and early 30s who were attracted to a girl only a few years younger as 20-year-olds and weren't allowed to pursue them because of overly strict laws. As in tens of millions of them. As in basically an entire generation of young men, who are very, very pissed off about this, so I wouldn't go around making these internet tough guy statements if I were you. You might be biting off more than you can chew. >>6795 I'm not the OP. But there's nothing wrong with seeking out younger girls. They're just hotter. That said: >somebody who would like to be able to date a 15/16 year old he has in mind who is very mature. If it makes you feel any different, I've been in this exact situation before. You know what happened? Retards like the ones who showed up in this thread defending censorship wouldn't budge their soykafty, overbearing laws because logic and facts just can't get through their thick fuarrrking skulls. At this point I want to date a younger girl just to spite them and tell these cancerous, pretentious, self-righteous liberal morons in no uncertain terms that they need to get the fuarrrk out of other people's lives. People let liberals regulate others' bodies under the pretext of preventing nonexistent harm, and now they're surprised when liberals also want to regulate what they can say. To tell you the truth, though, people probably deserve a cyberpunk dystopia because they didn't take active steps to prevent it. The cops start by arresting and convicting some 19-year-old for banging his 16-year-old girlfriend in a state where the age of consent is 17, and people don't do anything, so they move on to outlawing drugs, outlawing certain types of guns, outlawing pretty much anything they feel like, and you have idiots like >>6794 glibly dismissing the issue every single time. People who won't stand up for others' freedom don't deserve it for themselves. How many times have we seen people all across the spectrum of politics cheer when someone they don't like is prevented from speaking? Left, right, it doesn't make a difference. Americans as a whole created this situation. >>6797 >They mentioned some unwritten rule that the age boundary is the man's age divided by 2. xkcd claims it's "your age divided by 2 plus 7." Point is, it's completely arbitrary bullsoykaf that shouldn't be followed. Just do what you want.

Ah, back in the day. Back when you didn't have to worry about liberals dictating age of consent. All you had to fear was her older brothers' fists and her daddy's shotgun.

>>6796 >. You're either a hopeless virtue signaling feminist soyboy who could never attract a teenage girl and is jealous of that, or one of the feminist women said soyboys enable who's jealous of the fact that most guys would rather be with teens than you, so you try to pretend that the sexual orientation people have followed for all of human history is some kind of psychological problem. Or: I am not attracted to teenagers in the slightest. It's really incredible how you refuse to believe this is an option! What's it like being so closed-minded?

>>6798 >Because they're both electronic? Don't be a cunt. What? It's more like it because they're both just routing messages that are ultimately meant for other people. With a newspaper you write to the editor. With twitter you write to your subscribers. Nobody would dream of writing a letter to an editor including pictures of them and their friends in the pub. People do that on twitter all the time. Socially the way we use twitter is far closer to personal messages than open letters to editors and twitter is one of the more open letter of the social media platforms. Nobody in their right mind would refer to letters to the editor as social anything. We don't have to stick to twitter either. It was just the first popped into my head. What about facebook? There only my subscribers can read my messages. >ISPs deliver packets from point A to point B. A website physically cannot do that. Websites physically do literally that as much as any router does. It goes from your friends pc, through a bunch of other computers/cables, some of which belong to your ISP and some of which belong to twitter, none of which process the semantics, and then arrives at your pc. The ISP is just a middle man between you and twitter but then twitter is just a middleman between you and your friends. >People need to visit to get content, just like people buying a newspaper. Where "visiting" means requesting that twitter deliver a summary of the things your friends have decided to announce to their friends? That's not really like buying a newspaper at all. >When they get the content, it's not just your message, it's other people's messages + ads. Just like a newspaper. Well of course it's other people's messages, it's not a good communication service that only lets you talk to one person. They put ads in it is the only similarity here and I don't see how that's relevant. This idea that the social ties that govern what twitter/facebook messages you receive are the equivalent of an editors judgement on how to select the handful of letters that can possibly be printed is absurd. Calling me a cunt over it was just rude. >ISPs only exist to deliver packets from point A to point B. They exist to make money same as any business. Routing packets is just an intermediatory goal but then twitter exists to make money, via ads, via being a social media platform. They exist to deliver messages as much as any ISP. We're happy to regulate ISPs to play fair but not social media? Why? Just straight up. Not analogies. Not descriptive "It's the law" but prescriptive "These are the reasons that this is what's best and that asking for more is simply childish entitlement." >The context of "right" in this discussion is the xkcd comic which explains why having Tweets deleted is not a violation of America's 1st amendment right. I've been really clear. This is not a descriptive discussion of rights as they are but a prescriptive discussion of rights as they should be. This didn't really start as a result of the xkcd comic, that's the other argument with the pedo (as much as I don't really want to get involved in that. Protip: If you ever think to yourself that everyone else in the world is doing mental gymnastics, you're doing mental gymnastics). This started as a result of saying that wanting free speech rights on social media is "childish entitlement."

>>6800 >All you had to fear was her older brothers' fists and her daddy's shotgun. I'd much rather deal with this because I have no interest in mistreating a girl or using her and losing her. A stable, loving relationship is my ideal, and the current laws interfere with this by barring guys from going after the girls most capable of forming an emotional bond that would keep a relationship stable. >>6802 >Protip: If you ever think to yourself that everyone else in the world is doing mental gymnastics, you're doing mental gymnastics Most of the world is much closer to our view than theirs, meaning our opponents would be the ones claiming the rest of the world is doing mental gymnastics for not adhering to American taboos. >>6782 >Gaddafi Judging by how this current business with Assad's supposed chemical weapons attack is being handled, I'm unsure if Gaddafi actually did anything wrong. False flags to justify wars and tyranny have been happening for a long time.

the zucc might get cucced, normal people are now whining about the data collection of non users that have been talked about for years https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-tracking/facebook-fuels-broad-privacy-debate-by-tracking-non-users-idUSKBN1HM0DR

>>6372 I think you are living in a total fantasy world.

>>6341 >It can't be stopped We still have guns here in bongistan. We can revolt if need be.

>>6802 >It's more like it because they're both just routing messages that are ultimately meant for other people yeah, and tanks and cars are both used to drive places, so why can't I drive my tank on the highway? You're trying to be as general as possible, but I have a tip for you: in the real world, when two things are "basically the same" that doesn't mean they are the same, in fact they might be very different. >Websites physically do literally that as much as any router does. No, they don't. Again, you're trying to generalize but what's important here is the specifics. >none of which process the semantics twitter does. Through multiple layers. >Where "visiting" means requesting that twitter deliver a summary of the things your friends have decided to announce to their friends? That's not really like buying a newspaper at all. Actually it sounds exactly like buying a newspaper. Maybe a newspaper of community-submitted stories. >They exist to make money same as any business. again, you're generalizing when specifics matter. The ISP is in the business of routing packets, therefore they exist to route packets. Twitter doesn't route packets, at the very most you cold say they analogously route tweets. >Why? Just straight up. because you can use the internet without using social media, but you can't use the internet without an internet connection. >Protip: If you ever think to yourself that everyone else in the world is doing mental gymnastics, you're doing mental gymnastics). oh sweet, that means I should just accept that the earth is flat.

>>6937 I'm surprised this thread is still going. At least my analogies made sense to someone. >>6802 >Nobody would dream of writing a letter to an editor including pictures of them and their friends in the pub. People do that on twitter all the time. I don't really understand this logic. People misuse centralized websites and treat them like personal messaging services. Why does the way people treat a thing affect what that thing is? If I drive my car into the sea is it now a boat? >We're happy to regulate ISPs to play fair but not social media? Why? Just straight up. Not analogies. Because social media is just websites. The owner of any website has full control over what contents the website displays and is ultimately responsible for that content (e.g. in case it's illegal). It's not a free speech issue /censorship issue because A) the owner of the website has the right to not display content he doesn't agree with and B) there is nothing stopping you setting up your own website. Instead of comparing websites to ISPs you should compare websites to websites. Twitter is free to delete swastikas from their website for the same reason you are free to delete swastikas from your blog comments. >This started as a result of saying that wanting free speech rights on social media is "childish entitlement." What he wanted wasn't actually free speech. You can put whatever you want on your personal website and the government won't put you in jail. That's free speech. What he wanted was for his unpopular opinions to be given the same weight as popular opinions on *other people's* websites and media outlets. That's childish entitlement. If nobody visits your website because your opinions are soykaf then demanding that some popular website like Twitter MUST host your opinions because free speech is just pathetic and wrong.

>>6955 >You can put whatever you want on your personal website and the government won't put you in jail. Except when they decide it's obscene according to the Miller test. Or threatening to national security. Or basically whenever the fuarrrk they feel like. >If nobody visits your website because your opinions are soykaf Have you ever considered that maybe the majority's opinions can be soykaf because they're sometimes virtue signaling retards who care more about being accepted than about facts? Have you ever considered that sometimes people are afraid to even look for alternative views because they don't want to be arrested or put on a watch list?

>>6968 >Have you ever considered that sometimes people are afraid to even look for alternative views because they don't want to be arrested or put on a watch list? true, for a long time I avoided visiting crimethinc.com because I didn't have a VPN.

>>6937 >in the real world, when two things are "basically the same" that doesn't mean they are the same, in fact they might be very different. Yeah. We've covered this. Analogies won't get to the heart of it. I keep asking for actual reasons and instead I just get more analogies. Look through all these posts. This one, the ones before or >>6955. Nothing but analogies, despite me asking for flat reasons a bunch of times. The closest we got was "it's their right." With no explanation of why this should be the case. One last shot. Do you have actual reasons for your arguments? >Websites physically do literally that as much as any router does. >No, they don't. Yes they do. Literally physically that's exactly what they do. >Actually it sounds exactly like buying a newspaper. Maybe a newspaper of community-submitted stories. But it's not. Those "community submitted stories" aren't. They're your friend talking about what they had for dinner. It's social, not informative and it is billed and intended to be that way. >again, you're generalizing when specifics matter. No. This idea that the specifics matter when they favour your argument, but don't matter the rest of the time is exactly the problem with analogies. I've given my reasons straight up, please do the same. >Twitter doesn't route packets I get that you might not be that up with the tech on this but yeah they do. >at the very most you cold say they analogously route tweets. That's exactly what I've been saying for an age now. So what's the difference between a packet, let's say a packet containing an email, and a tweet? They're both just messages meant for other people. >because you can use the internet without using social media, but you can't use the internet without an internet connection. How is this relevant? This isn't a reason at all. >oh sweet, that means I should just accept that the earth is flat. Are you smoking crack? Seriously, I don't know how you'd come to the complete opposite conclusion of what that means like that. >>6955 >People misuse centralized websites and treat them like personal messaging services. It's not at all misuse. Twitter wasn't originally meant to be used like that but now it is intended and they make no efforts to stop people, quite the opposite. Not to mention, twitter is just the example, the argument is about social media in general. Facebook was from the start intended to be used like that. >Why does the way people treat a thing affect what that thing is? Because that's what matters. If you use a golf club to hit someone, it's a weapon. >If I drive my car into the sea is it now a boat? If it floats and you sail off then yes. In every sense yes. Legally certainly. >ultimately responsible for that content (e.g. in case it's illegal). No they aren't. They'd have been arrested for CP a million times over if they were actually responsible in the way the original poster is responsible. >A) the owner of the website has the right to not display content he doesn't agree with and "It's their right just because" >B) there is nothing stopping you setting up your own website. There's nothing stopping you making your own ISP or even internet either. >You can put whatever you want on your personal website and the government won't put you in jail. That's free speech. This is the free speech equivalent of "you can say what you like in your own home but if you start trying to talk to people outside we'll censor you." There are a million sites on the net. Why haven't we visited most of them? Because we didn't like their opinions? No, because we've never heard of them. How do sites overcome this problem? Advertising on social media. The social ramifications of this aren't great. Social media is in a way too powerful position to allow it to be controlled by private interests. They need to be regulated and it's important that free speech be part of that.

>>6970 >I get that you might not be that up with the tech on this but yeah they do. They're not the same on any technical level. >Twitter User1 sends tcp packets, packets arrive, are reassembled, POST content is parsed, put inside a database User2 sends tcp packets, packets arrive, are reassembled, GET path is parsed, algorithm picks some items from database, compiled into a html page, split into tcp packets and sent to User2 >ISP User1 sends tcp packets, User2 receives the exact same tcp packets. >"It's their right just because" I'm not letting you ignore my salient point. What's the difference between you removing posts you don't like from your website and Twitter removing posts they don't like from their website? It's their right because it's your right too. >This is the free speech equivalent of "you can say what you like in your own home but if you start trying to talk to people outside we'll censor you." No, it's the free speech equivalent of "you can say what you want in your own home but if you are inside someone else's home then they can tell you to shut up and get out for whatever reason they want because it's their home". >Social media is in a way too powerful position to allow it to be controlled by private interests ISPs are in a powerful position because you need government permits to dig up the street and put cables down or to transmit high power radiowaves on useful frequencies. That's part of why it's important that they are regulated. Social media is in a powerful position because they are popular? Once a website has over a certain number of visitors the owner loses their personal rights and needs to be regulated, is that what you want?

Can I ask internet censors free speech people why you think you wouldn't be censored. This seems like a pretty natural progression, when billions of people can talk at once if a certain ideaology is dominating those that dissent from it are going to be shut down as this group can easily outshout them. The fact is the government isn't censoring you, your fellow man is. I cant be fuarrrked to read all of the replies here but I'd be very surprised if any of you have a solution that doesnt involve infringing on other peoples freedoms, because I dont think one exists. Its kind of like how one cant have a complete anarchy because allowing people to do what they want means allowing them to form groups and make laws. This is the idealogical equivalent of that, with idealogical battles and turf wars instead of real ones.

>>6973 >User1 sends tcp packets, User2 receives the exact same tcp packets. Not at all. TCP headers are routinely modified during transit. The IP header is modified at every single hop. Even a simple nat router will modify TCP headers, let alone the bgp routers that ISPs use. You're drawing this weird line around TCP and HTTP get and post as if they're fundamentally different. They're both just metadata for the actual message. >What's the difference between you removing posts you don't like from your website and Twitter removing posts they don't like from their website? The massive levels of impact on society. >ISPs are in a powerful position because you need government permits to dig up the street You don't know much about ISPs do you? I can tell you that the ISP that serves the building I'm posting from has never dug up any streets. That's not why we regulate them. >Social media is in a powerful position because they are popular? They're the medium via which a massive proportion of modern social interaction is taking place. I ever find myself in that spot I'll happily agree that it's about more than just my profits. >is that what you want? It's almost like I haven't been arguing that for literally weeks now. Yes, they need regulating. Letting them continue as they are is bad for society as a whole. Ignoring this and pretending our hands are bound because of a totally unjustified conception of "rights" is just stupid and arbitrary. We regulate plenty of companies to ensure they act for the common good.

>>6976 >You're drawing this weird line around TCP and HTTP get and post as if they're fundamentally different. They're both just metadata for the actual message. It's fundamentally different because the fact that one person's GET contains the same bytes as another person's POST is completely incidental HTTP as a protocol. It's not the same as routing TCP packets in any way. I know that your point is both systems deliver bytes from A to B and the details don't matter but that's not what's happening. You send your bytes to the social media server, they assume full ownership of those bytes and then when people visit, they may or may not redistribute those bytes depending on their own rules and choice (i.e. visitor is "follower", visitor is "logged in", bytes don't contain "swastika" etc.). I don't see how you could have an expectation of "free speech" in such a system expect through ignorance or entitlement. >You don't know much about ISPs do you? I can tell you that the ISP that serves the building I'm posting from has never dug up any streets. Some of them lease the lines from the people who put them down. How does that change the point? >It's almost like I haven't been arguing that for literally weeks now. That's the ax you want to grind, it's not actually what the thread was about but ok. >Yes, they need regulating. Letting them continue as they are is bad for society as a whole. Ignoring this and pretending our hands are bound because of a totally unjustified conception of "rights" is just stupid and arbitrary. The concept that the law applies to everybody equally is not "stupid and arbitrary". I understand your motivation for taking rights away from social media but that's not enough. What are the actual metrics and heuristics involved? What separates a website you want to force your "free speech" regulations on and a website you don't? >The massive levels of impact on society. And how do you quantify that? The way you've phrased it sounds stupid and arbitrary to me.

>>6976 >Some of them lease the lines from the people who put them down. How does that change the point? Maybe the point wasn't explained well. Transmitting through wires in the government owned ground or through frequencies in the government owned air is a privilege granted by the government. It's a privileged because doing it without permission lands you in jail. So the government is fully justified in regulating their use and enforcing things like net neutrality. There is no analogous privilege involved with social media. You don't need to ask anybody's permission to run a website. The only difference between Twitter and any other website is popularity. That's why you argument "we regulate ISPs so why not social media?" doesn't fly.

>>6970 >Yes they do. Literally physically that's exactly what they do. no, they don't. Twitter DOES NOT ROUTE TCP/IP PACKETS THAT USERS SEND IT. Not in any sense. Get that through your goddamn skull. They are not "literally the same". They are *figuratively* the same. Shut the fuarrrk up about analogies if your entire argument is based around one. >It's social, not informative and it is billed and intended to be that way. can newspapers not be community/social? Seems to me they most certainly can. >So what's the difference between a packet, let's say a packet containing an email, and a tweet? A tweet is stored permanently(or semi-permanently) in a server. It can be retreived at any time. It can be deleted after it's sent. An IP packet cannot. A tweet is multicast. It doesn't even need a list of recipients. It can be public. On consumer-grade internet, IP packets are never multicast, they have a single specific recipient. A tweet is restricted in the semantic content it can contain(it must follow metadata rules etc). An IP packet is not. An IP packet can be, and usually is, routed by a giant variety of different applications, organizations, and hardware. A tweet is only ever served by twitter, otherwise it's not a tweet. These are all *very* significant technical, social, practical, and legal differences. >How is this relevant? because in terms of internet usage, an internet connection is a necessity. A connection to twitter is not. The difference between a necessity and a luxury(with the baseline of internet availability that we're talking about) is a big one. >Seriously, I don't know how you'd come to the complete opposite conclusion of what that means like that. I actually misread it. Apologies.

>>6975 >if a certain ideaology is dominating I wish! Ideologies are usually founded on quite nice ideas. The people who're running the show here care about cash and we've seen the lengths they'll go to. >>6978 >It's fundamentally different because the fact that one person's GET contains the same bytes as another person's POST is completely incidental HTTP as a protocol. I could as easily say that the fact packets are passed from one network interface to another is completely incidental to IP as a protocol. It was originally designed for single bus networks but this whole idea only works if I draw my lines exactly around HTTP/IP. If I were to include twitters API in my protocol definition then suddenly it's no longer incidental, same with the routing protocols we use. >they assume full ownership of those bytes No they don't. They'd have been arrested a million times over for having CP if they did. They're not legally liable in the same way an owner is. >then when people visit, they may or may not redistribute those bytes depending on their own rules and choice Yes, I'm aware that that is currently the case. This is an argument about what should be, not what is. >I don't see how you could have an expectation of "free speech" in such a system expect through ignorance or entitlement. Why expect it anywhere then? This is the most important place for social interaction in the modern age. >That's the ax you want to grind, it's not actually what the thread was about but ok. You've been as much a part of this as me. Threads move and either of us could have dropped out at any point. I've enjoyed myself and I hope you have too. >that's not enough. What are the actual metrics and heuristics involved? Lines can be drawn here. It's going to take pages of legalese but the gap between the big players and everyone else (and between facebook and the rest of the big players) is a gulf. This would not at all be impractical to put into law. You could literally do it by post frequency and get away with it (not that that would actually be the best idea but it would work). >>6979 Since when did government regulation end at people who apply for special permissions? I could name countless business regulations that don't require you to ask for any sort of special permission to be subject to them. >The only difference between Twitter and any other website is popularity. That's a massive difference and it's one that's already used in law (i.e. monopoly law). Let's look at Facebook instead of Twitter for a moment. Facebook is, in practice, a communications network used by the vast majority of first world citizens. The reason that we force telephone companies to maintain a single network and not do things like charge more for calls to other networks is because communications networks are only as good as the people they connect you to. This is very stifling to competition. Established players are practically unshakable and it's the reason the phone/internet industry is so heavily regulated. I mean look at the world right now. Nobody actually likes Facebook. They're getting slammed in the press for manipulating people and dragged before congress to explain themselves and nobody with the means is even talking about competing with them. Google, the kings of advertising with more money than midas, failed abjectly. It's not conductive to free market competition ideals and usually in such situations regulation is put in place. Monopoly regulations are a good example of this. None of this is anything new or radical. That we should regulate businesses for the common good, sometimes based just on their popularity, is entirely the norm. One way or another the control that social media sites have over discourse needs to be kept in check. The idea that they've gotten this control as a result of them doing a good job and that people would go elsewhere if they didn't is clearly junk. >>6981 >Twitter DOES NOT ROUTE TCP/IP PACKETS THAT USERS SEND IT Calm down there. You said TCP not me. I've maintained that the level of metadata they unwrap doesn't matter, they both just route messages from their users to their other users. >Shut the fuarrrk up about analogies if your entire argument is based around one. But it isn't. I've regularly taken the time to explain my reasoning without analogy between hoards of pointing out relevant differences in the analogies I've been given. I've used an analogy entirely as counterpoint to this idea that "it's their right." >can newspapers not be community/social? Seems to me they most certainly can. They aren't. It doesn't happen. People don't post what they had for dinner, or any other social banter, to any newspaper ever. The closest you'll see is the newsletters families send to friends at Christmas. You know, those letters actually make a better analogy than most. They're personal messages meant for friends. They're multicast and can be stored. They are a lot less frequent and so more effort is put into them, but then that's probably a matter of ease more than anything. >IP packets are never multicast, they have a single specific recipient. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_multicast >A tweet is restricted in the semantic content it can contain You really don't have a clue what you're talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64 >An IP packet can be and usually is, routed by a giant variety of different applications, organizations, and hardware. Go do a traceroute to Twitter. Mine is routed through 3 organisations (not including myself), one of which only exists separate from another for business regulation reasons. If I send a packet to the other side of the world it goes through less than 10 organisations all of which are using very similar applications and hardware. >A tweet is only ever served by twitter, otherwise it's not a tweet. Twitter is just the example remember. That they use a funny word for message isn't the point. >These are all *very* significant technical, social, practical, and legal differences. Social and legal sure. Technical and practical, not at all and you lack the technical knowledge to assess this. >The difference between a necessity and a luxury(with the baseline of internet availability that we're talking about) is a big one. By this token my ISP selectively choosing which packets to route should be ok. Access to any specific site is not a luxury. Also there are many who would say that access to Facebook is a necessity for internet use. >I actually misread it. Apologies. Oh right no worries. That one just really confused me.

>>6973 >No, it's the free speech equivalent of "you can say what you want in your own home but if you are inside someone else's home then they can tell you to shut up and get out for whatever reason they want because it's their home". Why is all public political discussion going through someone's house, then? There needs to be a public space for discussion that isn't an equivalent of someone's house. It can't all be in private hands. >>6975 >The fact is the government isn't censoring you, your fellow man is. And that makes it okay?

>>6982 Cash is an ideaology, its value is based on belief and thought. It represents many other thoughts, and I think you saying "its all cash" is just an easy answer that doesnt accurately describe everything going on in the first place. It doesnt really mean anything to me at least in the moment, like I dont know what you mean or what your trying to contradict or say. Maybe if I read it later itl make sense. >>6983 why are you asking me if something is okay to you. in my opinion its nature, and if you actually provided an answer to my question of "can you think of a way to stop this without infringing on other freedoms" i might believe it isnt and it could be fixed. but neither of you did, so instead it just seems like this argument isnt any kind of argument just general disillusionment. Not right vs wrong but just old or different not fitting into the new. And that new will also pass and people used to social policing or whatever you want to call it will feel as disillusioned as you. what im saying is what do you expect to happen. I dont care if you think its cash motivated or there is some secret reptilian jewish overlords pulling the strings, because this would happen regardless. we can communicate so quickly, there is no possible way to stop the majority opinion from crushing ones they see as wrong simply by speaking louder or drowning it out. Your upset most of humanity doesnt agree with you, there isnt anything to "do" about it.

>>6982 your making my blood boil to be honest. Stop it ignoring what people say when it's convenient to you.

>>6985 >Cash is an ideology That's very true and it's something that occurred to me as I was writing it. I wasn't really trying to contradict you at all, just to point out that the idea this is being done for traditional left vs right reasons, which is a common idea, isn't quite true. >>6987 Awwww you poor thing. I'd care but this is the most impractical request. Nobody is going to respond to every single sentence in your post. If there's a particular point you want to press then post it again and explicitly request a response. If I was actually trying to ignore something rather than just responding normally it'd quickly become apparent. But I'm not. I mean I don't even know which post is yours that I'm supposed to have missed something from. Please, by all means, elaborate instead of just whining about how angry it makes you that the people you're talking to can't read your mind about which points you feel are important.

>>6982 >You said TCP not me. what could you have possibly thought I was talking about if not TCP/IP packets? >But it isn't. you're making an analogy between tweets and packets. Tweets are not packets in any real, tangible sense. A packet containing a tweet is not a tweet, it is a packet. A tweet is an actual JSON object stored in twitter's servers and delivered via HTTP. It is not "literally, physically" an IP packet. It is *analogously* an IP packet. In your analogy. >People don't post what they had for dinner, or any other social banter, to any newspaper ever. if there was a newspaper that accepted it, I bet they would. Twitter is billed as "microblogging". Blogging itself is definitely a form of news. Many blogs have multiple writers, publishers, and editors. Even if they're about what you had for breakfast this morning. >They're multicast and can be stored. not by the service that gives them to you(the post office). If a letter is rejected by its recipient it gets thrown away. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_multicast you didn't read the whole sentence did you? Try sending a multicast packet over the public internet, see who gets it. Multicast is a pretty much restricted to LAN. Maybe if you'd read that wikipedia article you'd know that. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64 and I could steganographically implant any information I wanted into a JPEG. If you use bytes as your basic unit of information(which we do), base64 encoding is still restricted to a small subset of the possible space, it just expands your information to be expressed within that subset. It's a technicality, but then again your entire argument is technicalities so I don't think it's a big deal. >Go do a traceroute to Twitter. Again, a packet containing a tweet and a tweet are not the same thing. "routing" in your analogy means, you send your tweet to the server, and it makes that tweet available to people following you. That is what I meant by routing, I assume that's what you meant by routing. Same goes for facebook etc. "routing" or "message passing" or "message delivery" in that context means, within that service. You have to use facebook to use facebook messenger. At least that's how I've been using it, otherwise the difference between using twitter and not using twitter is very small(since I could just send you a little block of JSON and call it a tweet and say I'm using twitter). >By this token my ISP selectively choosing which packets to route should be ok. Do you consider yourself to have access to the whole internet if your packets can never reach certain recipients? There's a difference between your packet being not being delivered, and your packet being dropped/rejected by the recipient. Notably, the actual 'recipient' field of a packet is, 9 times out of 10, owned or rented by the organization you want to contact, except in the case of services like cloudflare which I consider harmful. >Also there are many who would say that access to Facebook is a necessity for internet use. and they'd be wrong.

>>6982 >No they aren't. They'd have been arrested for CP a million times over if they were actually responsible in the way the original poster is responsible. The state has full digression over who they prosecute for crimes. Not being arrested is not an indication that the law has not been broken. What I meant was more along copyright grounds though. When you share content on social media, the platform stores that content indefinitely and assumes certain rights over it as stated in their terms and conditions. That doesn't apply to ISPs who are actually just transporting data from A to B. >Yes, I'm aware that that is currently the case. This is an argument about what should be, not what is. That's how websites work though. You send a GET and stuff comes back. What stuff is entirely up to the owner of the site. When you bind a socket and read from it, whatever data arrives has nothing to do with the ISP. I kind of wish we could drop this ISPs vs websites thing. >Why expect it anywhere then? I would expect freedom of speech through government controlled resources and through my own private resources. A private person has the same right to deny me access to his resources for the same reason I can deny him access to mine. >That's a massive difference and it's one that's already used in law (i.e. monopoly law). This is a fair point. I'll think about that. >>6983 >>The fact is the government isn't censoring you, your fellow man is. >And that makes it okay? That's democracy. If 100 people like your idea to kill all Jews and 100,000,000 people want you to shut up and go away then you should reflect on your belief system instead of crying about free speech. The intention of free speech is to protect citizens from government tyranny, not from each other.

>>6989 >what could you have possibly thought I was talking about if not TCP/IP packets? Oh hey, this could have been my mistake. It can be hard to keep track when there's three people and they're all anonymous. >Tweets are not packets in any real, tangible sense. Yeah they are. Real and tangible is exactly the sense in which they're packets. >A tweet is an actual JSON object stored in twitter's servers What? No. Nobody in their right mind would agree to that definition. There's nobody around who would argue that the statement "I typed up a tweet but then decided not to send it" is erroneous because it's a contradiction in terms. It couldn't be a tweet unless it was on twitter's servers. Just for the record. ISPs store packets permanently on their servers too you know. I didn't bring it up before because it's not universal but there are places where they're legally required to do so. We could equally juggle the definition of what counts as a packet to include the specific company's hardware so long as we pick the right company. It's a lot more natural to do this with Twitter's messages because they have their own special name (for social reasons alone) but it's just as valid. >It is not "literally, physically" an IP packet. Yeah it is. >delivered via HTTP. Over TCP/IP, why stop at HTTP except that without doing so you don't have a point? >if there was a newspaper that accepted it, I bet they would. But there isn't and honestly, I don't think they would. If we accept free market ideals then the fact that there isn't shows that they wouldn't. Gaps in the market should get filled. >you didn't read the whole sentence did you? Oh hey you're right. You said "on consumer grade internet." But why are you drawing that line except that without it you don't have a point? Business serving ISPs and their multicast packets are regulated in exactly the same ways. By the same laws even. >Multicast is a pretty much restricted to LAN. Not at all. Here https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/solutions_docs/ip_multicast/White_papers/mcst_ovr.html particularly the section on interdomain multicast protocols. They travel just as far as normal packets. >it just expands your information to be expressed within that subset. You should more careful using terms like semantic content when you don't know what they mean. "The information to be expressed" is another way of saying semantic content. It means what the messages actually mean divorced from how it's represented. Obviously in hindsight you mean that the encoding they choose is more limited than the ones ISPs use. Is choice of metadata encoding really what's important considering it doesn't affect the semantics at all. >then again your entire argument is technicalities so I don't think it's a big deal. This whole aside is a technicality and one who's relevance to the original debate is fading fast. Still it's an enjoyable aside for me. >Again, a packet containing a tweet and a tweet are not the same thing. Yes they are. They are literally, physically the same thing. A tweet separate of the electrical signals is just an abstract theoretical object with no physicality at all. Physically, it's a packet. The real problem with this reasoning that tweets exist separate of the electrical signals used to send them is that you're not applying it evenly. You want to talk about physical packets when talking about ISPs and abstract messages when talking about tweets. >Same goes for facebook etc. "routing" or "message passing" or "message delivery" in that context means, within that service. I don't get what you're getting at here. The thing that's different about twitter is that they're twitter? And that when people use twitter to pass messages they're using twitter to pass them? Saying that within the context of a specific service terms like routing mean "within that service" is barely more than a tautology. I honestly think you've gotten lost in this terminology of "tweet." It's just another way of saying "message." Just because they picked a cool name doesn't make them anything more than another delivery service. >Do you consider yourself to have access to the whole internet if your packets can never reach certain recipients? No, but then I don't consider myself having access to all of twitter if I can't reach certain recipients or even can't post at all. The government forces ISPs to give me the whole internet regardless of what they'd rather do. Why not do the same for twitter? >There's a difference between your packet being not being delivered, and your packet being dropped/rejected by the recipient. Twitter is not the recipient. They're the delivery service. Nobody at twitter will read it. They will do nothing except pass it along to the actual recipients. >Notably, the actual 'recipient' field of a packet Now this is a technicality and, like I say, it's one that you want to apply to one side but not the other. My tweets (in any technical sense, JSON objects on their server or otherwise) contain data that determines the real recipients of my messages just as much. >and they'd be wrong. That I'm sure we can agree on. >>6990 >assumes certain rights over it as stated in their terms and conditions Yeah this is a big problem and it needs to change as well but let's not pretend they're doing anything other than stealing your copywrites because they may as well because who actually reads terms and conditions? What do they do with these rights other use them in unethical ways? Security? Also, there's a lot to suggest that their terms and conditions are void because nobody ever reads them (it came up at the zuck hearing for instance) but that's yet to be determined in a court. >That's how websites work though. I know. It can be very frustrating to try to talk about what is when someone else is trying to talk about what should be I know but I've been as clear as I can here. There's just not much to talk about on the is front. >When you bind a socket and read from it, whatever data arrives has nothing to do with the ISP. The metadata surrounding your message has to do with the ISP and that's the only bit of any tweets that have to do with twitter either. >A private person has the same right to deny me access to his resources This is a corporation doing business. We force all sorts of laws on them about not denying people access to resources that they provide to others. For instance it's illegal for me to charge my customers higher prices just because I don't like them. Even actual individual people have regulations on what they can do with their resources, if I own a patch of land with a stream on it and I block that stream without permission that's illegal. Honestly, this ideal that we shouldn't regulate what businesses do with their resources is far more radical than anything I've proposed. >That's democracy. This is not democracy at all. These businesses are not democracies and as Facebook has shown they don't need to act kinda like one due to market forces like most businesses do. They censored Trump for christsakes. The guy who won in their actual democracy (what were you guys thinking?). >If 100 people like your idea to kill all Jews Just to note, I don't actually hold any opinions that would be censored by Twitter. I don't think anyway, all it would take is one employee who's had a bad day. That isn't the point here. Free speech doesn't stop being important just because you have nothing to say. >The intention of free speech is to protect citizens from government tyranny, You're American right? America put free speech first in it's laws because they happened to have just got finished beating government tyranny but that's not the whole point of free speech. It's good against tyranny of all sorts and in the modern day Google and Facebook are as fearsome a tyrant as any government. For centuries before America was founded free speech rights (or the lack of them) were important in the fight against religious tyranny. >not from each other. Part of a government's job is protecting citizens from each other.

>>6997 Oh hey, as I reread this I notice that this >You want to talk about physical packets when talking about ISPs and abstract messages when talking about tweets. Is the wrong way around. You want to talk about tweets as "an actual JSON object stored in twitter's servers" but about ISPs as deliverers of abstract messages.

>>6340 >I wouldn't worry about government watching me or co-operates trying to rob me because these are the things only high standard people can afford to complain. Meanwhile, we(poor class, mind you there's no middle class now in U.S.) who have to work 9-5 just to afford shelter and monthly needs have no such luxury to complain about these mundane issues. The reason so many peopel are poor is political, and the way the elite control discourse (including surveillance and the shape of the internet) keeps the majority from improving their political situation. On the freedom of speech tardument that's been spamming up the thread: The way I see it, ISPs can't censor you because they have a monopoly. The question becomes "does twitter/fb have a monopoly"? I'd argue that they're pretty close (things aren't always black or white), and they could do with more regulation to protect speech given the importance they have in modern western society. Personally, I think facebook should be nationalised and broken up. Back on topic: The cyberpunk challenges of the 21st century mainly come down to social control. In the 19th century, empires controlled whole swathes of the earth with guns and trade goods. In the 21st century (with the first baby steps taken in the mid 20th), networks of control are run on ideas, ideology and discourse control. Look at the discourse in the USA. 'Liberals', the alt-right, neo-nazis, libertards, MAGAs, tea partiers and antifa all feel like they're being repressed by the evil enemy media and that they can't get their voices heard; yet they're all heard all over the place all of the time soykafting things up for the rest of the world who don't care. And none of these groups pose a threat to the current elite. The ones who do pose a threat you'll never find represented in the media: anti-capitalists.

>>6988 Yeah and actually same kind of goes for me when I said I didnt understand what you were saying precisely. I literally meant that I didnt understand because it was early and I didnt want to think about possible implications, because I wasn't sure yet if you were saying "no cash runs everything" or something else.

>>6979 Gov regulates your website with laws as having to give an address as a business and being responsible to adhere to dmca takedown requests. There is no lawless zone and companies in general are regulated in all fields. The only real driving force behind regulations is having enough interest/power behind it to lobby for change.

ITT: Technicality Boy and Semantics Lad having a duel.

>>7010 thanks, Apathy Man! >>6997 your entire argument seems to be "we should draw our arbitrary line *here* where I like it, not *here* where I don't like it!" Because it is an arbitrary distinction no matter how you dice it. ANyway, whether dumbasses are getting censored on twitter is pretty much besides the point. The scary thing is that it matters if you're censored from a social media site or not. Years ago you could use the internet pretty much however you liked. You could use a remailer if you really wanted that anonymity. You could reliably reach people on XMPP, IRC, email, etc. and the point was, you weren't wedded to a particular way of contacting someone. If you had their PGP key with some trust built up, you could reliably know who exactly was on the other end and get your message across no matter what platform you were using. Nowadays you have to hide behind dozens of layers of security to keep control over your own life, and if you don't give your entire life over to these corporations it can have real social and career impacts. It's fuarrrking disgusting the way society is headed, but it's not surprising. My only consolation is that nothing really matters. >>7000 >The ones who do pose a threat you'll never find represented in the media: anti-capitalists. That's exactly why they don't pose a threat, and why they're demonized by almost the entire western capitalist culture. If those ideas are allowed to take root, they can pose a real threat. The Powers that Be have worked very hard to eradicate that pesky socialist infestation and they're not about to let up.

>>6985 >Your upset most of humanity doesnt agree with you Most of humanity does agree with me, but they don't get any representation in the American media.

>>7015 Oh I guess my arguments just fuarrrked then.

>>6997 >You're American right? No, I'm just pretending to be. Looking at the timestamps I think we're both GMT. >It can be very frustrating to try to talk about what is when someone else is trying to talk about what should be I got roped into defending the xkcd comic I posted, that's why my focus has been on what-is and America, >This is a corporation doing business. My perspective has been about treating all websites as peers. But if you look at it as social media being corporations providing a service then I get your point. >This is not democracy at all. This was not addressed to you. The pedo-nazi is upset because people don't want to hear his opinions. But there is a difference between being censored and being outvoted by your peers. >Part of a government's job is protecting citizens from each other. What I meant was citizens are peers and government can't/shouldn't do anything about unpopular opinions being unpopular. >These businesses are not democracies In a small way they kind of are because it makes more business sense to ban 10 nazis than lose 1000 jewish users. But again, that wasn't really the subject.

>>7020 >pedo-nazi Still going with that feminist definition of pedo, I see. Saying nobody wants to hear my opinions is ignoring the numerous times in this thread you've been told that most of the world is much closer to my position than yours, but the way you keep calling me (and presumably anyone else you don't like) a Nazi has even less justification. The only people who would consider me a Nazi are people who think anyone to the right of Karl Marx is a Nazi.

>>7020 >But there is a difference between being censored and being outvoted by your peers. And if the peers are wrong, as they very often are, what then? You're the kind of asshole who would have told Paracelsus, Galileo and Darwin that they got outvoted by their peers and they should just accept it. If anything, you should have to justify why you shouldn't have your own standards applied to you. In an environment where America didn't dominate internet discourse, why shouldn't you be kicked off every website for suggesting that adults shouldn't be allowed to fuarrrk 14-year-olds? After all, it's the site owner's decision.

>>7023 >you keep calling me (and presumably anyone else you don't like) a Nazi Don't presume. >>6637 >If anything, you should have to justify why you shouldn't have your own standards applied to you. why shouldn't you be kicked off every website for suggesting that adults shouldn't be allowed to fuarrrk 14-year-olds? Ask me if I give a fuarrrk about being derezzed from pedo websites.

>>7024 Except they didn't, as we can see all it took was some time for the public to reconcile their ideas. If you know yourself to be right the same will be true for you, but you don't, thus why you have to try and argue peoples dissaproval of your beliefs is censorship. Instead of letting your strong ideas stand for themselves, working on them and standing strong, your complaining on an imageboard. Its a false analogy because according to your what your saying, their ideas wouldnt exist.

>>7024 it's not an American thing. Almost every culture on earth considers the 'age of consent'(age where someone can be expected to make their own decisions) to be somewhere around 16 or 18. The difference between American culture and culture in some backwater where people have 14-year-old wives is that in backwater cultures, they don't care about consent.

>>7031 Actually it's 14 in several US states. That's what that controversy with the senator from Alabama was about. Technically he had broken no law by having sex with a 14 year old while in his 30s. >>7011 > The Powers that Be have worked very hard to eradicate that pesky socialist infestation and they're not about to let up. ^_^ LAIN LUVS TEH POWERS THAT BEE !1!!!

>>7027 Stop referring to >>6637. This was already addressed and nobody is a Nazi because of it. >Ask me if I give a fuarrrk about being derezzed from pedo websites. The particular type of website in question isn't what the discussion is about. It's about what you'd do if every major website derezzed you for having views they don't like, as you advocate to be done to others. Stop trying to change the subject. >>7029 >Except they didn't, as we can see all it took was some time for the public to reconcile their ideas. It took a long time because the mainstream media of their time was against them and suppressed their views. The same is happening to many people today. Quit pretending the two situations are any different. >If you know yourself to be right the same will be true for you, but you don't, thus why you have to try and argue peoples dissaproval of your beliefs is censorship. What you just said is "If your ideas are being censored, that means you know they're wrong." You just defended every act of censorship in history. >>7031 >Almost every culture on earth considers the 'age of consent'(age where someone can be expected to make their own decisions) to be somewhere around 16 or 18. https://ageofconsent.net This is hardly "almost every culture on earth", and most cultures care about consent. They just may not agree with liberals' constantly narrowing definition of consent. Trying to pretend you have more support than you do is an extremely dishonest tactic, but it's unsurprising coming from censorship defenders.

>>7031 To the extent that this is even true (not much), it's almost entirely due to American feminazi bullying and slander. This is one more reason America is cancer. Americans threaten other countries into going along with their repressive beliefs and then pretend that those beliefs have the support of the majority when no one is allowed to speak against them. It's the most disgusting, manipulative behavior imaginable, and it occurs on a wide range of issues. The censorship advocates in this thread are giving us a perfect example. After they ban any alternative ideas from the internet, they'll use the consequent lack of opposing speech to pretend everyone agrees with them. >>7032 It was 14 at the time. It's since been raised because of the shrieking of the feminazi-controlled media. And speaking of Roy Moore, there's solid evidence that the special election was stolen from him by the Democrats, so the liberals in here saying we should accept the will of the majority clearly have no respect for it themselves. https://archive.is/7OywJ

>those damn feminazis, trying to make the word "consent" have any clear meaning!

>>7049 Bullsoykaf. This is the exact opposite of what they're doing. They're making it so words like "consent", "rape" and "pedophilia" no longer have any meaning except whatever feminists feel like at any given moment.

>>7037 >The particular type of website in question isn't what the discussion is about. It's about what you'd do if every major website derezzed you for having views they don't like, as you advocate to be done to others. You are not being derezzed for having controversial opinions. You are being derezzed for shoving them down people's throats at every opportunity. Free speech doesn't mean turning the entire world into your personal ideological battle ground. Communities need to be able to protect themselves from that by banning off topic shllls. In your opposite-land, I won't get derezzed from every major website for thinking that sex with children is wrong because age of consent is not ontopic for every major website. >What you just said is "If your ideas are being censored, that means you know they're wrong." You just defended every act of censorship in history. I thought we were talking about being outvoted by peers. If your ideas have been outvoted then yeah, they are *probably* wrong but if they're not wrong then you've got no reason to worry right? (in the long term).

>>7057 >You are being derezzed for shoving them down people's throats at every opportunity. Major websites like Reddit and Facebook don't give any such opportunities, so this is yet another claim you're pulling out of your ass. It's also an example of you backpedaling. You earlier stated that if the majority and/or the owner of a website disagree with you, they should have the right to ban you. You said nothing about only banning people for being too vocal about whatever it is that they believe. You're scrambling to backpedal because you got fuarrrking owned by the suggestion that you should be forced to abide by your own beliefs. >children Back in the old days, you were considered an adult by the time you were 14, and 16 was considered a very late age to marry. Feminists kept changing the definition of child in order to try to justify their screeching jealous bullsoykaf about how the much sexier prime teen hotties that guys love isn't mature enough, so guys should date used-up hags instead. You've got a hell of a lot of nerve to come in here claiming that you're trying to pin down a definite meaning for consent, not only because of "stare rape" "fart rape" and all the other bullsoykaf forms of rape feminists have invented, but because this entire thread is full of you people changing the definition of censorship. You're not qualified to determine who is or isn't a child.

>>7058 >much sexier prime teen hotties that guys love isn't mature enough This should be "hottie." Or "aren't." soykaf, I made a spelling/grammar mistake, so that means liberals now get to ignore everything I say, doesn't it? I decided I had more to say anyway, though. >If your ideas have been outvoted then yeah, they are *probably* wrong What the fuarrrk would possibly lead you to believe this? Do you have any idea how much stupid soykaf the majority has believed in the past? >but if they're not wrong then you've got no reason to worry right? (in the long term). Justice delayed is justice denied.

>>7058 >Major websites like Reddit and Facebook don't give any such opportunities, so this is yet another claim you're pulling out of your ass. Look at this thread, half the posts are about age of consent because of you. If this is the way you behave everywhere then it's no surprise you get derezzed from places. A community wants to talk about one thing and you roll up spewing soykaf about age of consent and feminist conspiracies at every opportunity you get. You are getting derezzed for being an asshole not for believing stupid things (>>6527) >You earlier stated that if the majority and/or the owner of a website disagree with you, they should have the right to ban you. No, I said the owner of a website/community can ban you for whatever reason they want because it's their fuarrrking website/community and you are free to fuarrrk off and create your own if you don't like it. That is still true but less relevant to your personal situation.

>>7059 >What the fuarrrk would possibly lead you to believe this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd The real question is why do you as an individual believe that you are smarter than everyone else combined? This complete lack of self awareness is indicative of some high level autism.

>>7061 >The real question is why do you as an individual believe that you are smarter than everyone else combined? Not him, but cmon you know it doesn't work like that. The wisdom of the crowd applies mostly to things like estimation where the answer is quantifiable, and it quickly breaks down when the "crowd" forms factions. An idealized democracy is supposed to work like a marketplace of ideas, but the nature of the system does not necessarily select for good ideas. Think about all the things that could make one position win a vote that have nothing to do with how well it would work - how easy it is to understand, how well it is presented and by who, who disproportionately benefits, etc. This is one argument for representative democracy but then you have a similar problem where elections select for people that are good at getting elected over people that are good leaders.

>>7059 > I made a spelling/grammar mistake, so that means liberals now get to ignore everything I say, doesn't it? That's not why people ignore people like you.

>>7060 >Look at this thread, half the posts are about age of consent because of you. It's almost as if a belief that constantly gets censored is relevant to a thread that deals heavily with the topic of censorship. >>7061 >The real question is why do you as an individual believe that you are smarter than everyone else combined? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority A teacup is smarter than all of mainstream America combined. Maybe not the whole world combined, but again, the world doesn't share America's opinion on virtually anything. To be a bit more specific, these "conspiracies" your side refers to are simply an acknowledgment of the interests of certain groups of people. Older, single women hate having to compete with younger, more attractive girls in the same way that big corporations hate having to compete with innovative upstarts that might take away their business, hence their advocacy of the various forms of totalitarianism described in the OP. The fact that I can recognize this very basic thing makes me smarter than the overwhelming majority of Americans, who are so heavily indoctrinated that many of them actually think CEOs have their best interests at heart, or that social justice is anything but a fake social movement designed to protect corporate power. The problem with America is hardly limited to its sanctimonious virtue signaling over sexual issues. Every single aspect of American society is cancer, and all it takes to uncover this is basic pattern recognition, and the skepticism needed to employ it. I have these things, and most Americans don't, not because of being enlightened by my own intelligence or some other grandiose fedora nonsense, but because the average American is a fuarrrking dunce who deserves every bit of soykaf the rest of the world throws their way. Of course, that would have to include you.

>>7068 The real challenge to older men dating teenagers used to be that their fathers would kick the crap out of you for it, not "feminists". Now that a generation of dads have emerged that grew up jerking it to barely legals (an activity that continues into their middle age and beyond) maybe feminists are just stepping in to fill the void. That, and people rather openly sharing CP in the wild west days of the internet caused a bit of a moral panic and backlash, but then again maybe you're OK with 10 year olds being raped so it can be filmed (or maybe you aren't). It's still quite legal in for instance Denmark to purchase media featuring very young performers. There's a lot more history to this than you seem to know. But if you really believe people are suddenly concerned about consent and age of consent only because some aging women are jealous, and that it was never a controversy at all in the past, you have already passed the event horizon of reasonable communication and are probably not even able to reasoned with normal people.

Why don't we talk about the real problem? All this corporate government bullsoykaf only really exists because Americans, and Westerners in general, let them get away with it. Their virtue signaling tendencies don't just cause them to repress people's individual rights. They believe all the hysteria the media bullsoykafters can dream up. They believe in censorship and tyranny in every form. They cheer when the police beat peaceful protesters or shoot someone who did nothing wrong and displayed no aggression, and when poor people die from lack of proper health care. >>7069 >The real challenge to older men dating teenagers used to be that their fathers would kick the crap out of you for it It depends partially on how much older and on where you are in the world, but this is nowhere near as common as you're trying to make it out to be, or at least it wasn't up until the boomers. Boomers were the ones who pushed this hysteria to full blast, and not surprisingly, they're the worst parents imaginable and most of the boomers' daughters would have been better off moving in with an adult boyfriend as teenagers. Boomers are responsible for basically everything the OP is complaining about.

>>7081 > this is nowhere near as common as you're trying to make it out to be I'm talking about a time a lot more recent than you think. My neighbour now even has a sticker on his car DADD: Dads Against Daughters Dating. I'll spare you from making the rather predictable response I anticipate and just say no, I'm not American either.

>>7062 If you find that most people you talk to is strongly against your idea (e.g. having sex with children), then the probability is that you are wrong and not everyone else. That's not always the case as with Paracelsus, Galileo and Darwin, but you should at least recognize that the odds are against you and try to understand why that is instead of just assuming everyone in America is an idiot. If you want to talk about democracy then true democracy is just mob rule by the 51%. The democracy we have now is the 1% preselecting the options the 99% can vote for. >>7068 >Older, single women hate having to compete with younger, more attractive girls in the same way that big corporations hate having to compete with innovative upstarts that might take away their business, hence their advocacy of the various forms of totalitarianism described in the OP Big corporations have too much inertia to innovate so startups take on all the risk of trying new things and if successful are rewarded by being acquired by said corporations and if they fail then only the employees suffer. Big corporations are not threatened by startups any more than honey bears are threatened by bees. Your conspirators don't just need motive they need means. Older single women are a vanishing minority and don't have any power (even women as whole don't have any real power), so your conspiracy theory makes no sense. If you want to play conspiracies then >>7069 makes more sense, old white men actually do have political and financial power and don't want people like you fuarrrking their daughters. The reason you reject this theory is because it conflicts with your other fabrication that all men secretly agree with you but are pussywhipped by their feminist overlords who used up all their imaginary influence to stop you banging teens and don't have enough left to get equal pay for men and women. Totally legit. >The fact that I can recognize this very basic thing makes me smarter than the overwhelming majority of Americans, This is why certain types of people are attracted to conspiracy theories. It makes outcasts feel smarter than the "mainstream" when really they are just deluded and disconnected from reality. Kind of like an inverted religion.

>>7086 >I'll spare you from making the rather predictable response I anticipate and just say no, I'm not American either. Considering how many Americans I've seen pretending to be from other countries to push bullsoykaf, even going so far as to lie about what other countries' laws are, this is questionable. Also, that father needs to get the soykaf kicked out of him regardless of what country he's from. >>7087 >you should at least recognize that the odds are against you and try to understand why that is instead of just assuming everyone in America is an idiot. Why not? This is what every other country does. If you believed in democracy so fervently, you'd acquiesce to what the majority does. >your idea (e.g. having sex with children) For the last fuarrrking time, teenagers are not children. Stop fuarrrking saying this, you dishonest twat. Note: At the time I typed the previous sentence I hadn't yet read the rest of your post. It contains the same level of dishonesty as what you've displayed here, if not more. >Your conspirators don't just need motive they need means. Older single women are a vanishing minority and don't have any power When I say "older" women, I mean women older than teens, meaning any female above 18 qualifies. Marriage rates across all ages are down, by the way, so even if you meant 40-year-olds you'd still be wrong. >(even women as whole don't have any real power) Top. fuarrrking. Kek. Feminism is supported by every major corporation, the media, academia, the legal system and one of the two major American political parties. Women have an enormous amount of political power. Pic fuarrrking related. >old white men actually do have political and financial power Take your Reddit privilege checking back to Reddit. A 60-year-old homeless white man doesn't have financial or political power. Making it about race is one of the tactics totalitarians use to create division among the people they oppress. >The reason you reject this theory is because it conflicts with your other fabrication that all men secretly agree with you but are pussywhipped by their feminist overlords who used up all their imaginary influence to stop you banging teens and don't have enough left to get equal pay for men and women. Holy soykaf, you're one of these full-on SJW retards who actually believes men and women still don't have equal pay. You're even dumber than I thought. >It makes outcasts feel smarter than the "mainstream" when really they are just deluded and disconnected from reality. Kind of like an inverted religion. This is pure projection. Your side is constantly making statements you have no evidence for, like "sex between teenagers and adults is automatically harmful due to power dynamics" or "Western women are powerless oppressed creatures who need feminism to protect them (from the possibility of having anyone call them out for being slanderous, manipulative cunts)", which is exactly the kind of statement that religions make. You don't have any business calling anyone else religious.

>>7088 >Considering how many Americans I've seen pretending to be from other countries to push bullsoykaf, even going so far as to lie about what other countries' laws are, They weren't lying. You're just an idiot. >Why not? This is what every other country does. You know literally nothing about those countries and instead of actually going and studying the nuanced AoC laws that they have, you just picked the lowest number you could find and then called all the people from those countries who were telling you that you're wrong liars. You absolute spoon. You're delusional and Europeans, such as myself, hate your pedo ass just as much as Americans.

>>7089 >They weren't lying. You're just an idiot. Being able to read laws and see that they don't say what you claim now makes someone an idiot according to you. Literally "The law is whatever I say it is even if the law books say something else!" This is what children do. Just keep digging that hole. Don't forget to top off your pile of dirt with some more bullsoykaf about the gender wage gap that hasn't existed for decades. >You know literally nothing about those countries and instead of actually going and studying the nuanced AoC laws that they have I have done this. You're lying. If you really are European, you're in a minority. Most of the Euros I've talked to want nothing to do with your kind because they hate America and see what you believe as too American, even aside from the fact that it's bullsoykaf no matter where it comes from. Either that or you're from the UK, which is basically just America's outpost in Europe, meaning you're pretty much American and have no real right, practically speaking, to represent yourself as European because the rest of Europe hates you too.

>>7088 That's your argument? I must really be American but I'm lying about it? I only mentioned it at all because that's been about 50% of your entire platform thus far. Even when it's not the case you still try and use it against another debater. Just give up.

>>7090 >If you really are European, you're in a minority. Bullsoykaf. Have you ever even been to Europe? You just like to make soykaf up don't you? Let's look at a case study. About a year back when some pedos set up a channel on our IRC. What was the nationality of the guy who brought it to everyone's attention and pushed to get rid of them? Swedish. And the people who most strongly supported him? A German and a Brit. You're talking out of your ass and then just flat denying all evidence to the contrary as Americans lying to you. Hell, during all this someone asked the Swedish guy "Why do you care?" His response? "That's just the culture in Sweden" > Most of the Euros I've talked to want nothing to do with your kind because they hate America and see what you believe as too American Yeah we hate Americans. We hate pedos a whole lot more though. The idea that not liking pedos is an American thing exists only inside your dumb mind. The hate against Americans is the same as the hate against the Brits. It's tongue in cheek, just a bit of fun. Pedos are scum. Nobody would dream of actually stamping on the back of a guys head because he was American. Come to Norway, shout about being a pedo, see what happens.

>>7094 >Hell, during all this someone asked the Swedish guy "Why do you care?" His response? "That's just the culture in Sweden" Age of consent is 15 in Sweden. The channel you're referring to was discussing people quite a bit younger than that. That said, this "get rid of anything I don't like" idea certainly isn't unique to any one country. It's one of the biggest reasons for the cyberpunk dystopia we live in now. There are a lot of people who just love censorship. If you intend to do anything about this, you have to find a way to get people to be okay with things they don't like existing.

It's like I'm really on 4chan. As is the case with most altchans.

>>7097 4chan doesn't allow non-kosher political discussion. It's basically Reddit now.

>>7097 Lainchan has a small userbase, it's just this one guy who will derail every thread he can bring up age of consent.

>>7192 That's one of many subjects 4chan doesn't allow, so you can't say this is like 4chan because of that.

Could someone tell me why this thread is still going on? It started as a topic about current political and social situation but for over 9000 post you are talking about pedos and keep feeding this soykafstorm. It's clear that this one guy has a very concrete worldwiev which cannot be changed by conversation so maybe just stop answering to him.

>>7195 >It started as a topic about current political and social situation It's still about that. Censorship is a major part of the current political and social situation. Discussing groups that are being censored is perfectly on-topic. >It's clear that this one guy has a very concrete worldwiev which cannot be changed by conversation so maybe just stop answering to him. If you want to change someone's view through conversation, you should try providing evidence and making logical arguments instead of just whining about how everything that hurts your feelings is wrong.

>>7197 >If you want to change someone's view through conversation, you should try providing evidence and making logical arguments instead of just whining about how everything that hurts your feelings is wrong. Do you really not see the irony in this? In one sentence you complain that nobody is arguing in good faith and then you dismiss all your opposition with a single strawman.

>>6401 Liberals like the moral majority, and guys who cry about imageboards violating their first amendment rights

>>7234 >strawman It's not a strawman if their conduct and standards of logic really are that lacking in merit.

>>6345 Think of the other living beings you're going to kill. Mass executions will do better than that.

I was a liberal communist then a right wing kid and now im just whatever i dont really care but definitely would be characterized as liberal. I hate participating in debates like this because conservative types online always think "oh wow its just some dumb libtard snowflake they dont know what i know XD". I've seen it all I just disagree. It annoys me how sure you guys are of yourselves. The primary difference I see betaeen the two is liberals are often ignorant or dont understand conservative beliefs and attribute it to conservatives being bad people. Conservatives assume to know liberal beliefs and attribute it to them being immature or not knowing the same information. The reason I like the first better is it's subjective as it should be, somebody being a bad person comes down to how you judge people. So its perfectly fair, according to my own morals, to say "I dont understand this but I don't need to, you are evil". It's far dumber in my opinion to assume that "wow if this dumb sjw knew the information I knew they would agree with me". Thats not true, what it comes down to is a difference of values. I for fact, sorry if you think its conceited but im not trying to convince you here just speaking on what I know is true, have been in both perspectives and it has absolutely nothing to do with whos more right or wrong. In the end I chose my position based on how it would affect those immediately around me, I figure if everyone did this then everyone would be accounted for. Rather then getting off in your head about how you as one brain think millions of brains should be told what to do. This post is probably going to make some people intensely angry. Im sure il be accused of projecting, or that "Oh I didnt really understand both sides" then. Taking a step back is a I think it taked if you dont believe what im saying. Both sides say the other is brainwashed. Both sides think they arent sides because they have a special brand of liberalism or conservatism. Both sides have "concrete facts" to back up what they are saying. Both sides have all these videos of "liberal cringe" or "conservative cringe". Both sides use insults that to the other side are compliments. I know this thread isnt "liberal vs conservative" but its happening, and I've always wanted to post something like this even though its a complete waste of time. Nobody here wants to "know the truth" or "cares about facts" as they might have you believe. The minute you start name calling using terms like "snowflake" "fascist" whatever, you can not tell me you are listening to anything with the intent of doing anything besides being right. The very nature of arguments like this is insecurity, you cant believe someone would see something different as you, the ONLY reason people get aggressive like this is insecurity. The way someone behaves who wants to get a complete picture or understand is always that they listen, ask probing questions and maybe play devils advocate sometimes. If they disagree they simply present their side and see how the other responds. Somebody who isnt insecure wont get angry if the other person still disagrees because they said what they had to say and thats all there is. Really think about why you get so frustrated about posts online. Why do we get angry when people deny what we believe to be facts? No its not "cause their idiots!". If they were idiots you wouldnt care, they could just be dismissed as such. You need to stop forcing your brain onto other people, how somebody else thinks in the end doesnt affect you. Especially a random person online. now here comes 50 false assumptions about me, about how I think I have all the answers or am conceited or whatever because of the very reasons I mentioned. thats the other thing too, ive really come to hate anonynous imageboards. The idea that not having an identity means ideas stand alone is false. People just create a false identity for you based on words. At that point id rather be seen for who I am.

>>7011 Not him, but there is a difference between apathy and being mentally mature enough to know what is and isn't a waste of your time. These arguments don't fuarrrking matter even slightly, and you could have them all day everyday, the only thing that matters is what are YOU going to do about it. If the answer is nothing other than arguing then you might as well just shut up. Less talk more action. We all know what the fuarrrking issues are, regardless of whether or not we have perfect lock-step versions of how we percieve things. There is no discussion worth having except, what is to be done?

>>7984 It's not a waste of time any more than any other intellectual pursuit.

>>7984 >These arguments don't fuarrrking matter even slightly, and you could have them all day everyday, the only thing that matters is what are YOU going to do about it. If the answer is nothing other than arguing then you might as well just shut up. I think you have this backwards. You need people to affect change and you gain people by convincing them with words. And keep in mind you are not only convincing a single person but potentially everyone who reads the discussion too.

>>8038 I was specifically refering to this post and defending this perspective >ITT: Technicality Boy and Semantics Lad having a duel. There is a vast world of difference between chatting with the random dude on the street about how police and surveillance are horrible and telling him about maybe who Edward Snowden is or what the NSA is etc etc. And what is going on here. Which is two people who basically agree up to a greater than 85% similarity, wasting time with minor trivialities rather than focusing on things that matter. The way you build a movement is not by creating more purity of ideology, but by creating more action backing said ideology. If a hacker does something that takes down a site and has a "fuarrrk surveillance" communique about it. Am I really going to sit here nitpicking his wording? What is the point? He is clearly a comrade whether I agree with every single thing he says or not. People trying to split hairs is a fun timewaster and all, but please acknowledge that in fact you are wasting your time, while people who aren't wasting their time worrying about trivialities are building the opposing side stronger by the minute...

>>8047 Hear hear.

Oops turns out cyberpunk is gay after all :^o

>>6339 >We live in a world which is more or less cyberpunk, but without the aesthetics. On the surface, the future always turns out to look a lot like the point in time where it was imagined. >In addition, most other countries (think "third world") are becoming more like large trash bins for the "big boys in town" (U.S.) I'd add China and Russia to the list, there's no one global superpower and we can all thank heavens for that. >what can be done? Democracy can only work well if the voters are well informed. If this is not the case, the problem arises that uninformed votes have the same weight as informed ones, leading to severe damage potential in a world that is becoming more and more interconnected. Seeing how little most voters seem to know about the basics of economy and politics nowadays, this needs to change. However, I do not want to take the easy way and say "the media should stop lying" or run the whole "teh joos dun did it" thing. That's stripping the people off their own responsibility. There needs to way somewhere in between and I don't know what that would be or how to get there. >Is there truly no hope for humanity? In my opinion, the world is way too complex to answer that objectively. From my point of view and seeing how many things we fuarrrked up since the end of WW II from not caring enough, there's not a lot of hope. There needs to be a big catastrophe (war or economical collapse) so people start caring more about their environment again instead of themselves and their tiny bubble. And it gets smaller everyday. You can tell by how emotionally they behave over the smallest things these days. We're close to collapse and it might be very cynical but I think it's the best that can happen to us. Again, this is only my opinion and it will be next to impossible to find an objective answer. Also, can you please stop feeding the troll? This is getting out of hand and way too far ot.

>>9694 >Democracy Democracy worked, past tense, on the principle of distribution. It never mattered that the voters were truly well informed, all they needed to be was minimally competent and autonomous agents, as the effort required to forcibly capture a reasonable part of the network usually exceeded any gains. The system even seems designed to deadlock and only allow either incremental and minor changes, or ones that were overwhelmingly supported. When a republic is working best it shouldn't really be doing anything and should require little out of the voters. That said mass media had already seriously compromised this system nearly a century ago. Now it's pretty much hopeless with facefuck and other systems of centralization, control, and information processing tools.

>>9694 >Democracy can only work well if the voters are well informed. If this is not the case, the problem arises that uninformed votes have the same weight as informed ones, leading to severe damage potential in a world that is becoming more and more interconnected. Seeing how little most voters seem to know about the basics of economy and politics nowadays, this needs to change. It's amazing how you have so little self-awareness as to say this and follow it up with: >Also, can you please stop feeding the troll? This is getting out of hand and way too far ot. You strike me as the kind of person who wandered in here from Reddit and can't understand the idea that someone having opinions different from yours isn't trolling. You're not one of the informed voters.

>>9699 I think you misunderstood me here. My definition of "working" is that of bringing (the most possible) to the society that builds upon its principles. I agree with the point that mass media has become more homogeneous, albeit only in recent years. It wasn't that long ago (maybe ten or twenty years) that newspapers, for example had distinctive political "flavours". Furthermore, there is probably more than one culprit responsible for the situation we're in. Putting the blame on "the man" alone is the wrong idea for sure. The situation isn't hopeless if we finally come to our senses and acknowledge that the freedom of the individuum is a value that is not self-sustainable and that has to be defended.

>>9739 I don't think I misunderstood you so much as disagreed with you on the function of republicanism. I believe it "works" by not working. It is a system designed to function at only at the lowest levels, deadlocking at the highest (and therefore most dangerous) levels unless there is overwhelming consensus. The electorate should not required to be more than minimally competent for the functioning of the system. The complication of the system is not an inherent part of the system itself, but is in actuality an ongoing attack on it's functioning. By obfuscating the working of the system, the political class is empowered, and further attacks against the >mass media has become more homogeneous, albeit only in recent years. I disagree entirely. The centralization of control began last century as soon as centralized media sources like radio and television became major parts of the average citizen's life. There has always been massive centralization in 'mass media' hence it's name. It's true that there was some proliferation and superficial "flavoring" in the 80s and 90s, which went through another wave of agglutination and centralization. But there was never any real non-mainstream options. The idea of "flavors" of newspapers is just window dressing. When newspapers only circulated in a single town maybe you might have had a point, but newspapers were already becoming mass media at the turn of the 20th century. Yellow journalism was the beginning of the end. The Spanish-American war is a prime example of mass media being used to capture the electorate and use it for the ends of the well-to-do and connected. This is not a new problem at all, but it has gotten exponentially worse as information technology has become the law of the land. To illustrate the point. Think of control of a republic like a game. In this game we start out with the technology of the 1800s. In this game, to enact whatever policies you wish to enact you must either capture the votes of the populous, the loyalty of the elective representatives, or the bureaucratic apparatus itself. The last is a costly move, difficult to pull off without a coup or such. The middle is possible, but if the electorate is functioning it will resist your attempts. You can try to capture the electorate, but it is such a large group, and it's nearly impossible to influence them all since individual towns have totally walled information ecosystems. Most people get their news from neighbors, family, and through written letters. The information networks are snail slow at best, walled, and decentralized. However, try playing the same game with the technology of 1950, it suddenly is easy to disseminate information. People all across the country read the same newspaper, listen to the same radio stations, watch the same three channels. Now all you need to do is control these, and your propaganda potential increases tremendously. Capture of the voter base is not yet easy, but it is far easier. You can sway the masses by controlling their grounding in reality. Now what you tell them they hear not only from the media, but from their friends who consume the same media. Now you can begin to do much more complicated attacks, by modulating the narrative. Disinfo, obfuscation, dissembling, tools that once would have never broken into the interpersonal networks now can be delivered at the speed of light. The networks are becoming centralized and speedy. Now just imagine what is being done with 2010-2020's technology. It's the wired come to life. Control of consensus reality. Targeted narrative modulation. Psycho-politik for the masses, brought to you directly through your phone or AR headset. There is no longer any question of the possibility of influencing the masses, only the question of who exactly is controlling the masses and to what ends. Democratic rule is no longer a stabilizing influence, but a massive vulnerability. >Furthermore, there is probably more than one culprit responsible for the situation we're in. Putting the blame on "the man" alone is the wrong idea for sure. It's pointless to think in terms of "culprits", adversaries are functionally interchangeable since they have to use the same means to accomplish their goals no matter how multitudinous. It doesn't really matter if "the man" is not one individual, but a whole bunch of people with a confluence of interests, no more than it matters that political parties are desperate bunch of individuals loosely affiliated with a political goal. >The situation isn't hopeless It pretty much is. If your only hope is that people will suddenly "come to their senses" and believe as you believe you're fuarrrked mate. Personally I'm just interested in seeing what happens next. Democracy is dead, but what kind of thing will come next I wonder?

>>9740 >I disagree entirely. I think what >>9739 said makes sense if you consider that the purpose of the media in a democracy is not to control what people think so much as to distract them with trivial issues and give them the illusion of control. >2010-2020's technology ... There is no longer any question of the possibility of influencing the masses, only the question of who exactly is controlling the masses and to what ends. I think you're overestimating the situation. So far nothing but chaos has come from this "control". >It's pointless to think in terms of "culprits", The plurality matters. No 2 people will ever agree on everything. It means there is no universal overriding agenda and there is conflict at all levels of the hierarchy. >Personally I'm just interested in seeing what happens next. Democracy is dead, According to you, true democracy has been dead for over a century (and I agree). Why does anything have to come after?

>>9749 >I think what >>9739 said makes sense if you consider that the purpose of the media in a democracy is not to control what people think so much as to distract them with trivial issues and give them the illusion of control. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I still think that in terms of how democracy was ideally designed to work, technology has obsoleted. >I think you're overestimating the situation. So far nothing but chaos has come from this "control". But has it really? In the US, where new forms of influence must be disguised to work with the prevailing narrative of "democratic rule" there has certainly been a tumult, but if one looks at countries where the technological trend is greatest there is far less of that. The Chinese for example are going all in for information control, and it is working well for them. There are plenty of smaller states that are weakly democratic who are adopting information technology form Plenty of other state actors who are ostensibly more democratic are also following this trend to good effect. Even in places like the US and EU, it's not really total chaos, but a temporary disruption. Power seems to be flowing uphill more so than ever before, and advances in these technologies of control would be my primary suspect. Given that there's room to grow these technologies, I don't think that total control is more than a decade or two away. >The plurality matters. No 2 people will ever agree on everything. It means there is no universal overriding agenda and there is conflict at all levels of the hierarchy. Fair enough. However what I was trying to say is that when you strip their goals to their basest, there is confluence of interest that allows groups to act as homogeneous wholes. In such case it's more useful to view groups who's goals essentially overlap as a singular causes, rather than disparate individuals. I find that thinking in such simplified terms is usually reasonably good at approximating political dynamics while also being much easier to hold in one's mind. >According to you, true democracy has been dead for over a century (and I agree). Why does anything have to come after? Well, I'm not sure if after was the right word to use. It's more of a feeling that even this sham democracy we have will be dispensed with as a cover and that will cause whatever nebulous system of control currently works behind the scenes to congeal or collapse into a coherent system. As much as I'd like to see only the best functioning parts of the current system survive such as local governance, I think it's more likely that there will be some sort of transition to either a more regressive system like autocracy or oligarchy, or a system like technocracy or even rule by algorithm. That's what I'm interested in, though I suppose it's also entirely possible that this state of affairs will continue indefinitely, but that doesn't seem nearly as fun to me so I didn't mention it.

>>9754 If you're interested in how society and politics is going to change in the near future then I think technology's role in unemployment will be a much bigger factor. Part of why our society has been so stable is because all the smartest and strongest people have been wasting 2/3 of their waking hours at "work". Nobody has the time or energy for revolution if things aren't going catastrophically wrong. But what's going to happen when self driving electric trucks go mainstream? What happens to all the unemployed truckers and the goods and services supporting their industry? (diners, truck stops, gas stations etc.). What happens when even more jobs are automated out of existence? I think that could be a greater trigger for change than voter manipulation.

>unemployment due to automation and changes in political discourse Oh yeah that's a real neat subject too. Though there are some mitigating factors. For one, I believe there was a study on how unemployment relates to civil unrest or political upheaval, and it was only really youth unemployment that correlated strongly. Automative employment losses are likely going to be most keenly felt by older generations. This will definitely affect the direction that states head, but I am unsure how large an effect size it will have. Another interesting thing to look at would be things like the advancement of video games or even drug legalization. I've seem some researchers suggest that escapist media like video games have increasingly focused on agency within the game to make up for real world deficits in that regard. The relatively cheap nature of the medium means that even people on say unemployment can afford to indulge. Depending on how technology progresses (Say for instance VR, or even using AI solutions in the creation of games) and depending on if we try to institute more generous welfare or basic income, it's possible that we won't see as much discontent as expected from unemployment. People may instead of protesting, retreat into a virtualized environment where they will also feel the effects of digital manipulation. There's also the looming legalization of various recreational drugs. Drugs like marijuana have a blunting effect on motivation over time, and more and more it is becoming a serious commercial vice. Personally I don't think it's just a coincidence that these easy demotivating pleasures are coming together just as discontent is starting to build. There's even strictly technological fixes being attempted, the whole "meditation" or "happiness" apps that purport to deal with the feelings of malaise that arise from modern living. The culture that a country has crafted for itself will also play a major part as some are more amiable to self blame rather than blaming the game. A study I read found that Europeans were overwhelmingly more likely to blame the system if they were unemployed, where as unemployed Americans typically blamed themselves It's going to be really interesting to see how all these things come to a head. Most of the aforementioned things are actually novel social developments so it's not entirely clear from precedent how if at all, they will change the outcome.

Could massive population reduction be a good thing in the long run? Sure, it'd be a bummer that all the rich assholes get to live in automated luxury while the masses starve. But blame doesn't pass down through generations. Their grandchildren will be innocent and in time this will become a world (perhaps worlds) of extremely high quality of life, excellent education, purposeful living, environmental degradation a thing of the past, et cetera.

>>10264 If they put voluntary euthanasia booths at every major intersection, lethal and painless gassing followed by cremation, would you step into one? Or do you assume you and your offspring are of the worthy few who should inherit the earth?

>>10267 no but I'd get a vasectomy

>>10264 >Sure, it'd be a bummer that all the rich assholes get to live in automated luxury while the masses starve. That's why rich assholes should be prevented from living in luxury even if it means bringing down everyone else with them. >Their grandchildren will be innocent lol no, their parents and grandparents will raise them to be horrible monsters just like they are. I'd rather have the entire human race end than see assholes like that come out on top.

>>10267 There's no way in hell I'd ever acquire the capital necessary to survive a societal breakdown. Nor do I have any moral right to be a survivor. But even if I was selfish or delusional enough to answer differently, that just means I have character flaws, it doesn't make my point any less valid. >>10281 Which is petty and shortsighted of you. Evil isn't going to magically survive in a world where any practical purpose for said evil has long since been relegated to the history books. It doesn't matter what their kids are taught, in 5 generations they'll be dead and their lessons will be obsolete.

>>10323 not everything exists because it has a practical purpose. People are complex and they hold grudges.

>stuck on a coursework question >post on /sci/ asking for help >hours later, while waiting for my train, decide to check for replies on my phone >"Vodafone has blocked this website in accordance with the Internet Watch Foundation. To verify your age, go to [insert site] and enter your credit card details. If you do not have a credit card, take photo identification to your nearest Vodafone store." Cyberpunk is now bois

>>7000 to make matters worse, the SJW and Nazist/Alt-Right movements are being used to further divide the lower class. ever notice how identity politics weren't nearly as bad before Occupy Wall Street? well the FBI knows why https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

I accept our corporate overlords

>>11022 >New documents prove what was once dismissed as paranoid fantasy I can't believe people still think like this. That's the real problem

>>11022 I really think identity politics (and yes this includes the right wing now too, go figure) are so huge nowadays because the internet allows every little subgroup on the planet to find each other and tell each new recruit that they've been right about the world all along. Confirmation bias will be a contributing factor in the downfall of civilization.

>>6831 What a lame fuarrrking string of posts This read like a cow regurgitating grass over and over with no nutritional value

>>9722 >Everything I don't like is an ad hominem That still doesn't make his stance right. Judging from the metric ton of posts above, the guy in question is clearly not interested in staying on-topic and heartily dismisses every opinion he doesn't like as a strawman he can beat up, so he's either trolling or really stupid. I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt and also go with option 1.