Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

### Re: Boycott Google

Serendipper wrote:Well I can slaughter the arguments of the right too, so I'm not appealing to ad hom, but the hom is the topic in this case.
I get that that's in the context since I hopped in, I think, between you and Gloominary. For me picking on the rurals is problematic because it helps those with real power. They love to see us in factions. I can't quite tell if Trump is one of the real core of power, but a kid of black sheep in that group or from an extreme faction in there, or an outsider to the core elite who nevertheless is like them in many ways. The neo cons came out against him in a way they never did against the Clintons or Obama. Though that could have been smoke and mirrors.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2638
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

Serendipper wrote:Why should I have sympathy for the arrogant? That was the position of the woman on the Richard Dawkings video I posted. She asked why we don't include diversity of ability, implying we should let underqualified people have a go just to be nice and spare their feelings. And I might go along with that if the applicant were at least humble. I don't have anything against uneducated people, but only the arrogant uneducated who assert what they don't know, or even tried to know, and even go as far as supposing themselves innately smarter, by virtue of common sense, than those who have worked their ass off all their lives studying that very thing. Where do they get their balls and why should I feel sorry for them?
Well this is complicated, but it's like beating on the dust bunnies that are stirred up by the tiger stalking through your bedroom. And you are vastly more in danger from highly educated people. Both their idiocies and their consciously chosen unpleasant changes. You are vastly more threatened by the very smart people making AI, gm products and processes, nano-tech, increasing surveillance, crushing whisteblowers, using the best cognitive scientist to sell products and sway the public, etc. Technocrats who don't really give a fuck about politics except to the extent that it gets in the way of them transforming the world, or you could say the corporations around them and the connected political guiders sitting behind both parties. You are attacking people whose positions are very much the fault of experts with good educations. And sometimes these people with less education will sense bullshit where the highly educated will not. Take them out of the picture and we are more at the mercy of the people with real power, even if they get used by real power. They were right. They needed something which was outside. Something the liberals and other educated conservatives cannot admit or notice. They were wrong to think Trump was that something.

So we can laugh at, hate and batter and feel smug in relation to the unwashed masses, or we could consider that they noticed something better than other groups did. And their hope blinded them to what Trump is. If other groups had respected their reactions more, things might have actually gone in another direction.

It helps no one to call them names and feel smug about it.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2638
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

@Serendipper

You obviously haven't given much thought to what would have happened to the south if they had won the war. It's a relative shithole now with low wages and republican leadership, but imagine if slavery were legal: it would be worse than mexico.

I couldn't care less, every state/province should have the right to determine its own destiny.

The federal government should be minimally involved in state/provincial affairs.

Yes, it's going to happen. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- ... ng-naivete

No what's happening is we're in the beginning stages of a mass extinction event, where the best and worst case scenarios are: either civilization will collapse, or humanity will go extinct, if we don't begin greening, powering down, re-localizing and re-wilding our economies and societies immediately, at least in part if not in full.

Liberals, conservatives and libertarians are fundamentally on board with political and/or economic expansion, with globalization, they only differ in the details, which's why I don't really identify with either of them.

For me, the dichotomy is localization vs globalization, not liberal and conservative.
Forget about growth, we're heading for decline within the next century.
We've overextended ourselves, and either we're going to decline somewhat gracefully, or plummet, those're the only two options available to us now.

Inevitably we're going to see a mass exodus from the city to the countryside.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Boycott Google

@Seredipper

Not me. They make the ones capitalizing off the community pay for that.

I wouldn't say the middle class and small business owners are capitalizing off the community.

You mean by not beating the kids or teaching them the earth is 6000 yrs old?

I mean they'll kidnap your children for spanking them, for not giving your infant dozens of vaccinations, for not feeding them Ritalin and other psychotropics, for not teaching them there're 75 genders and paying for their sex change...

I'm not aware of forced medication. Pretty much every conservative I know has a basket of pill bottles.

I am for partly or fully nationalized healthcare, but it should be more diversified and holistic.

Give people healthier and more choices, instead of making the pharmaceutical companies richer.

That doesn't affect me.

The most qualified person/demographic should get the job(s), not the most intersectionalized.

I'm worried about women in power, but other than that, I don't care.

So sexism, ageism and geographism are okay?

Interesting.

Yet you can't fathom why people are worried about minorities in power, that they might be disloyal, anti-Christian and anti-white, especially since liberals are indoctrinating them to believe whites are solely responsible for all the evils of the world, that we invented classism, racism, sexism, slavery and genocide out of our black hearts, that the world was a proverbial garden of Eden before the white snake materialized, a pristine paradise where all peoples lived in harmony with one another and with nature.

I don't mind that there're some minorities in power, but they shouldn't be artificially propped up, they shouldn't be filled with anti-white ideas, and I'd prefer it if whites maintained our majority in power, even if minorities weren't hostile to us, altho I understand why that's not a concern for some people.

As for white women, I don't care if 50% or more of them are in positions of power, so long as they're not misandrists.

and if the extremists ever got in charge, who knows, they might ban meat

I'll never live to see it.

Well millennials and generation z might.

or ban religion, like they did in the Soviet Union,

Awesome!

This demonstrates how little you think of freedom of speech and democracy.

or ban hateful religions, like the Abrahamic ones, or castrate abhorrent men, or burn white people in ovens.

I'm not seeing that.

I don't see it either, at least not right now, but if things ever come to a head...

The internet. People are too well-connected and well-informed to be bamboozled like that.

I guess we don't have to worry about fascists and Nazis coming to power either, thanks to the internet.

Someone should tell the left, because their amygdalas are raging.

I suppose we're at the end of history now, thanks to the internet, we no longer have to worry about dictatorship, or world war, or economic or environmental catastrophe.

That's what they said about Rome too, and they said it about the titanic.

And never mind that the internet is being massively censored by the left, which gets us back to the OP, but of course we have nothing to fear, there are no extremists or power mad tyrants on the left, that's just science fiction dreamt up by wingnuts, not history.

So one group wants to kill them and the other wants to prop them up? I'll side with the propers.

They imprisoned and killed millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans and other dissidents in the Soviet Union, perhaps the new left will kill millions of whites and men in the North American Union, if they ever manage to completely depose the right, which's what many of you are praying for.

The only ones in their crosshairs are the arrogant white boomers. No one else gives a hoot.

No one should be in anyone's crosshairs, but increasingly we're seeing a radicalized left calling for bloodshed.

More and more we're becoming a divisive, polarized, volatile society, which doesn't bode well for democracy.

The right has a moral foundation and the left asserts that having a moral foundation is itself immoral. The right is on crusade against sin and the left is on crusade against those on crusade against sin.

Yea, the left is forced economic, political and social inclusivity, the right is forced economic, political and social exclusivity, and libertarianism is the absence of force.

But here's the caveat: the people you're forced to include, may decide to forcefully exclude, or eliminate you altogether, when finally given the opportunity.

We're seeing more and more of it, it's not okay to attack or exclude someone, unless they're white, or male, or hetero, or Christian, or rural, than it's okay, no matter how liberal they are, and God forbid if they're all of the above, than it's okay to string em up.

How bout it's not okay to attack and exclude anyone?

Well that's not good enough for them.

What is?

Where will liberals finally draw the line?

We can always do more.

We can make white people sit at the back of the bus.

Why not?

Why, for a liberal, would that be immoral?

They can always make the argument: reparations.

How do we repay African Americans for several centuries of slavery?

How do we repay Native Americans for supposed genocide and stealing their land?

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Boycott Google

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Well I can slaughter the arguments of the right too, so I'm not appealing to ad hom, but the hom is the topic in this case.
I get that that's in the context since I hopped in, I think, between you and Gloominary. For me picking on the rurals is problematic because it helps those with real power. They love to see us in factions. I can't quite tell if Trump is one of the real core of power, but a kid of black sheep in that group or from an extreme faction in there, or an outsider to the core elite who nevertheless is like them in many ways. The neo cons came out against him in a way they never did against the Clintons or Obama. Though that could have been smoke and mirrors.

Don't forget I'm rural too. I'm not in the sticks, but I'm in the county. The only faction I'm interested in creating is the dummies and smarties, but the dummies gave the ruralites a bad rep.

The elites didn't want Trump because he's anti climate change.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

Serendipper wrote:Don't forget I'm rural too. I'm not in the sticks, but I'm in the county. The only faction I'm interested in creating is the dummies and smarties, but the dummies gave the ruralites a bad rep.
I think the smarties need to see the gold in the core of the rurals reactions and choice of Trump, because the people with educations are not feeling that something much more fundamental is fucked up. They may have hated Clinton, but they did not get that the options being thrown at them are not democratic options and are fundamentally dangerous to us all. The highly educated, most of them, will say the US is a democracy. Those who don't are marginalized. The dummies are willing to say this in large groups.

It's like ignoring messages from the body or unconscious that seem irrational. We crave something or to feel the urge scream or feel like there is something wrong with work, in general, or cellphone use. The body and the unconscious throws up a solution - sugar say - to how we feel. We can get smug and lecture on the problems sugar causes in the body, but the thinky parts of the brain were thinking today was generally OK. And the body and the unconscious know that to live, it needs more. Sugar or Trump might not have been the solution, but the thinky brain was chugging along not noticing how fucking dead and killing everyday life was. And it comes up with all sorts of reasons to not express emotions or to not find it odd that every single person, regardless of age on the commuter train was staring in their smart phone for the whole trip.

There's a split between the thinky brain and true intelligence which incorporates the so called irrational, which is only irrational because it is cut off from the light and judged and shoved down.

Just like rural people. We can point out where they went wrong, or we can see that they felt something correct that other factions did not get. Maybe you did and do, but then you are in an extreme minority amongst the educated people. People who w ould never consider that the mainstream expert consensus might be fucked to the bone.

The elites didn't want Trump because he's anti climate change.
I have to say I can't get a hold on it. They might have been pretending. He might be from a more radical faction within the elite. He might be someone who has fucked the world over in parallel to the elite, but is not on board with their agenda. Like and idiot cousin who by mistake inherits the family farm.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2638
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Why should I have sympathy for the arrogant? That was the position of the woman on the Richard Dawkings video I posted. She asked why we don't include diversity of ability, implying we should let underqualified people have a go just to be nice and spare their feelings. And I might go along with that if the applicant were at least humble. I don't have anything against uneducated people, but only the arrogant uneducated who assert what they don't know, or even tried to know, and even go as far as supposing themselves innately smarter, by virtue of common sense, than those who have worked their ass off all their lives studying that very thing. Where do they get their balls and why should I feel sorry for them?
Well this is complicated, but it's like beating on the dust bunnies that are stirred up by the tiger stalking through your bedroom. And you are vastly more in danger from highly educated people. Both their idiocies and their consciously chosen unpleasant changes. You are vastly more threatened by the very smart people making AI, gm products and processes, nano-tech, increasing surveillance, crushing whisteblowers, using the best cognitive scientist to sell products and sway the public, etc. Technocrats who don't really give a fuck about politics except to the extent that it gets in the way of them transforming the world, or you could say the corporations around them and the connected political guiders sitting behind both parties.

Yes and you recognize all that and you aren't republican. That's pretty much my point here: republicans are too damn stupid to be in government. Only smarties can regulate smarties.

Democratic senators are twice as likely as republicans to be in the top 1% of cognitive ability https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... n-congress

You are attacking people whose positions are very much the fault of experts with good educations.

But I don't think their arrogance is the fault of educators.

And sometimes these people with less education will sense bullshit where the highly educated will not.

Even if I concede that, I still don't think it would offset their deficiencies. A 12 yr old has faster reaction times, but still can't drive a car.

How is it that knowing less things translates into sensing bullshit?

Take them out of the picture and we are more at the mercy of the people with real power, even if they get used by real power. They were right. They needed something which was outside. Something the liberals and other educated conservatives cannot admit or notice. They were wrong to think Trump was that something.

So we can laugh at, hate and batter and feel smug in relation to the unwashed masses, or we could consider that they noticed something better than other groups did. And their hope blinded them to what Trump is. If other groups had respected their reactions more, things might have actually gone in another direction.

The elites hate bernie more than trump because he'd neuter them with taxes and regulation. The trumptards are the biggest obstacle to electing bernie.

If we had a social liberal / economic conservative vs a social liberal / economic liberal, which one would the trumptards vote for? They'd support 3 bathrooms with no welfare. Because the prime directive is being sure people don't get anything that they don't deserve.

It helps no one to call them names and feel smug about it.

Try arguing against climate change and then advocate minimum wage on a political forum and see which group calls you names. Try it. I did. Not one liberal called me a name. Not one conservative didn't.

The way I figure it, the conservatives will just laugh that I think they're stupid because the ego is invincible, the liberals will agree with me, and the ones on the fence will probably not want to be associated with the side that looks stupid. No feelings have been injured in the making of this post
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Don't forget I'm rural too. I'm not in the sticks, but I'm in the county. The only faction I'm interested in creating is the dummies and smarties, but the dummies gave the ruralites a bad rep.
I think the smarties need to see the gold in the core of the rurals reactions and choice of Trump, because the people with educations are not feeling that something much more fundamental is fucked up. They may have hated Clinton, but they did not get that the options being thrown at them are not democratic options and are fundamentally dangerous to us all. The highly educated, most of them, will say the US is a democracy. Those who don't are marginalized. The dummies are willing to say this in large groups.

So you're saying we need trump to crash the economy to reveal the fundamental problems? I agree! If Biden and Trump is my choice, I'm voting Trump. I doubt it will do any good, but that's my plan.

It's like ignoring messages from the body or unconscious that seem irrational. We crave something or to feel the urge scream or feel like there is something wrong with work, in general, or cellphone use. The body and the unconscious throws up a solution - sugar say - to how we feel. We can get smug and lecture on the problems sugar causes in the body, but the thinky parts of the brain were thinking today was generally OK. And the body and the unconscious know that to live, it needs more. Sugar or Trump might not have been the solution, but the thinky brain was chugging along not noticing how fucking dead and killing everyday life was. And it comes up with all sorts of reasons to not express emotions or to not find it odd that every single person, regardless of age on the commuter train was staring in their smart phone for the whole trip.

There's a split between the thinky brain and true intelligence which incorporates the so called irrational, which is only irrational because it is cut off from the light and judged and shoved down.

That seems zen.

Just like rural people. We can point out where they went wrong, or we can see that they felt something correct that other factions did not get. Maybe you did and do, but then you are in an extreme minority amongst the educated people. People who w ould never consider that the mainstream expert consensus might be fucked to the bone.

I see what you're saying. The people in WV are good example: poor coal miners and appalachians. All 55 counties voted for bernie over clinton, but clinton was selected by the delegates. Then they voted trump in the main election. All the people know is that they do not want what they had before (ie no clinton politician types).

The elites didn't want Trump because he's anti climate change.
I have to say I can't get a hold on it. They might have been pretending. He might be from a more radical faction within the elite. He might be someone who has fucked the world over in parallel to the elite, but is not on board with their agenda. Like and idiot cousin who by mistake inherits the family farm.

How can the elites be responsible for propagating climate change propaganda while simultaneously supporting a candidate with serious intentions of exposing it as propaganda?

I knew hillary would win the election. It just made sense to have a woman after a black man. When trump won, that blew away any suspicion I had that the election was rigged.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

You obviously haven't given much thought to what would have happened to the south if they had won the war. It's a relative shithole now with low wages and republican leadership, but imagine if slavery were legal: it would be worse than mexico.

I couldn't care less, every state/province should have the right to determine its own destiny.

What you essentially said is "the undemocratically appointed officials should have the right to prostitute the people if they want." I'm sure people would be free to move to another state, but not the poor. So it's like a prison colony where people are forced to work for little pay or face starvation and their only crime was not having the financial resources to move to a state where assholes weren't running things. That's kinda how the south is now.

The federal government should be minimally involved in state/provincial affairs.

Yeah, Jefferson thought that too, until he became president and realized those idealistic fantasies don't work in reality. The ONLY reason to have states is to have pockets of poor to pillage. Detroit exists in the condition that it does specifically so the Hamptons can exist in the condition it does.

Yes, it's going to happen. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- ... ng-naivete

No what's happening is we're in the beginning stages of a mass extinction event, where the best and worst case scenarios are: either civilization will collapse, or humanity will go extinct, if we don't begin greening, powering down, re-localizing and re-wilding our economies and societies immediately, at least in part if not in full.

Liberals, conservatives and libertarians are fundamentally on board with political and/or economic expansion, with globalization, they only differ in the details, which's why I don't really identify with either of them.

For me, the dichotomy is localization vs globalization, not liberal and conservative.

The only reason not to have one big planet government is to preserve shithole countries being a source of cheap labor. You haven't pondered into this deeply enough.

Forget about growth, we're heading for decline within the next century.

I'm not seeing that.

We've overextended ourselves, and either we're going to decline somewhat gracefully, or plummet, those're the only two options available to us now.

By what mechanism?

Inevitably we're going to see a mass exodus from the city to the countryside.

I figured we'd evolve into a beehive lol
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

Serendipper wrote:So you're saying we need trump to crash the economy to reveal the fundamental problems? I agree! If Biden and Trump is my choice, I'm voting Trump. I doubt it will do any good, but that's my plan.
I won't say your plan is wrong. How would I know the way to break to something categorically better. But, lol, it wasn't what I was saying.

That seems zen.
I got overlaps with Zen.

I see what you're saying. The people in WV are good example: poor coal miners and appalachians. All 55 counties voted for bernie over clinton, but clinton was selected by the delegates. Then they voted trump in the main election. All the people know is that they do not want what they had before (ie no clinton politician types).
I liked that the right often brought up Bernie and how he and his voters were treated. I am sure this was mainly to bash the left for not being fair, but it ended up being respectful. LIke it sounded like on some level they appreciated that portion of the left for NOT wanting a usual candidate. And they could identify with the way Bernie and his voters were treated. A little sliver of cross the divide respect, even if there was a less worthy agenda in sounding that praise, at least for some.

How can the elites be responsible for propagating climate change propaganda while simultaneously supporting a candidate with serious intentions of exposing it as propaganda?
I tend to NOT think of the elite as a bunch of buddies. I think they have internal power struggles and likely different approaches to very similar goals. None of them gives a shit about most of humanity. They all want privitization of everything including air. But tactics and strategies may differ. It's a pack of komodo dragons. And mammal will get torn to pieces, but it's not like they are all mister lovey dovey with eachother.

I knew hillary would win the election. It just made sense to have a woman after a black man. When trump won, that blew away any suspicion I had that the election was rigged.
I was surprised. I mean, Trump went on infowars. But I don't think of it like the elite has perfect power. They are herding cats like everyone else. It's just they are in the position to choose the candidates most of the time. They can rig, but perhaps not perfectly. This is where I differ from what the mainstream media present as the conspiracy theorist. What I am saying here and above this. They do not have perfect control. They do not necessarily at all like each other, though the share similar goals and attitudes. And also that many of the people who are with them are confused, think they are helping humanity, are just selfish pricks and other categories that allow them to align. I also think the elites are pressed these days. More underlying bullshit is coming out in the air.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2638
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

Gloominary wrote:@Seredipper

Not me. They make the ones capitalizing off the community pay for that.

I wouldn't say the middle class and small business owners are capitalizing off the community.

Shit rolls downhill and money flows up. The middle class is capitalizing off the community, but not as much as the rich. I ran a small business for 10 years and the taxes were just too much for the work I did, but I did make quite a lot of profit from employees and I paid much more than minimum and it was under the table (so I paid their taxes at my higher rate). Small business deserves a break, but not let off the hook totally. I go by the axiom advanced by FDR that no business which depends for its existence on paying substandard wages has any right to continue in this country. If you have a business model that can't make a profit without slave wages, then it's a lousy business model and such inefficiencies shouldn't be supported by the community or even allowed to exist.

You mean by not beating the kids or teaching them the earth is 6000 yrs old?

I mean they'll kidnap your children for spanking them, for not giving your infant dozens of vaccinations, for not feeding them Ritalin and other psychotropics, for not teaching them there're 75 genders and paying for their sex change...

Ok, you have a good point there lol. I'm not for that at all. But most people want to vaccinate, most don't spank, and is ritalin still prescribed? Just tell the kid to flush it. One thing about liberal authoritarianism is it's usually easy to ignore. Ban guns? Ok, fine with me since I lost all mine in a tragic boating accident. That will go over like banning weed did.

I'm not aware of forced medication. Pretty much every conservative I know has a basket of pill bottles.

I am for partly or fully nationalized healthcare, but it should be more diversified and holistic.

Give people healthier and more choices, instead of making the pharmaceutical companies richer.

Yep.

That doesn't affect me.

The most qualified person/demographic should get the job(s), not the most intersectionalized.

I forgot the context and don't feel like scrolling lol

I'm worried about women in power, but other than that, I don't care.

So sexism, ageism and geographism are okay?

I don't know where you're going with that, but I just worry about women being in power because it would be like mom having rule over my life. If left up the her, I'd be in a cage for my protection. Women value security more than liberty (since no balls). Sorry ladies, but I don't want your irrational fears imposed on me.

Yet you can't fathom why people are worried about minorities in power, that they might be disloyal, anti-Christian and anti-white,

I am anti-christian, but the problem is the minorities are more christian than the whites lol

especially since liberals are indoctrinating them to believe whites are solely responsible for all the evils of the world, that we invented classism, racism, sexism, slavery and genocide out of our black hearts,

Not true? lol

Like I said, I think the problem is the white boomers. The latest Stephen Colbert show exemplified that:

no country cuz old men.jpg (47.63 KiB) Viewed 5679 times

I don't mind that there're some minorities in power, but they shouldn't be artificially propped up, they shouldn't be filled with anti-white ideas, and I'd prefer it if whites maintained our majority in power, even if minorities weren't hostile to us, altho I understand why that's not a concern for some people.

I don't have much concern over skin color, but more about iq and sex.

and if the extremists ever got in charge, who knows, they might ban meat

I'll never live to see it.

Well millennials and generation z might.

They probably won't care.

or ban religion, like they did in the Soviet Union,

Awesome!

This demonstrates how little you think of freedom of speech and democracy.

No, we could talk about religion: how bad it is lol. We just couldn't practice it (if it's banned, but I don't see that happening).

Some theist asked Christopher Hitchens "What is the source of evil?" Without hesitation he replied "Religion!" The audience burst out in laughter.

The internet. People are too well-connected and well-informed to be bamboozled like that.

I guess we don't have to worry about fascists and Nazis coming to power either, thanks to the internet.

But you were inquiring about the future. Trump was elected by the people "most offline" https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/th ... finds.html

But those folks are moving into nursing homes and otherwise being prohibited from voting as time moves on. So if some future fascist fancies taking power, all that's needed is for someone to post a twitter meme that goes viral to foil his fantasy.

Someone should tell the left, because their amygdalas are raging.

Yes, I wish I could tell them that.

I suppose we're at the end of history now, thanks to the internet, we no longer have to worry about dictatorship, or world war, or economic or environmental catastrophe.

Yes, we're progressing. Once slavery was a thing and women couldn't vote and such, but we've moved on and former concerns are seen as ridiculous today.

That's what they said about Rome too, and they said it about the titanic.

A lot has changed since rome.

And never mind that the internet is being massively censored by the left, which gets us back to the OP, but of course we have nothing to fear, there are no extremists or power mad tyrants on the left, that's just science fiction dreamt up by wingnuts, not history.

As far as I can tell, they are only censoring dumbassery. I don't advocate any censorship, but the right asked for it by refusing to regulate corps; they exterminated themselves. Even Tucker Carlson advocated making google a public utility right on fox news, but conservatives wanted nothing to do with it.

So one group wants to kill them and the other wants to prop them up? I'll side with the propers.

They imprisoned and killed millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans and other dissidents in the Soviet Union, perhaps the new left will kill millions of whites and men in the North American Union, if they ever manage to completely depose the right, which's what many of you are praying for.

I have a tough time imagining bernie throwing jews in ovens. Or Ocasio. Or Elizabeth Warren.

The only ones in their crosshairs are the arrogant white boomers. No one else gives a hoot.

No one should be in anyone's crosshairs, but increasingly we're seeing a radicalized left calling for bloodshed.

Yeah that's pretty stupid.

More and more we're becoming a divisive, polarized, volatile society, which doesn't bode well for democracy.

You're forgetting that half that polarization will be gone in 20-30 years.

The right has a moral foundation and the left asserts that having a moral foundation is itself immoral. The right is on crusade against sin and the left is on crusade against those on crusade against sin.

Yea, the left is forced economic, political and social inclusivity, the right is forced economic, political and social exclusivity, and libertarianism is the absence of force.

Libertarianism is like leaving the door unlocked because of the belief that thieves do not exist. If the people don't make for themselves a government to secure their rights, then someone will become that government and enslave them.

But here's the caveat: the people you're forced to include, may decide to forcefully exclude, or eliminate you altogether, when finally given the opportunity.

Why would they do that?

We're seeing more and more of it, it's not okay to attack or exclude someone, unless they're white, or male, or hetero, or Christian, or rural, than it's okay, no matter how liberal they are, and God forbid if they're all of the above, than it's okay to string em up.

How bout it's not okay to attack and exclude anyone?

We have dummies driving the bus and you're more worried about offending them by calling them dummies rather than the fact that they are? The ones getting attacked are attacked for attacking the poor, sick, coloreds, homos, etc.

We can make white people sit at the back of the bus.

Why not?

I think they just want to create the illusion of equality to acclimate everyone to it and I guess the only way to do that is to knock a few white guys out of an opportunity. The ends justify the means I suppose and there aren't many people complaining.

Why, for a liberal, would that be immoral?

Liberals are philosophically amoral.

They can always make the argument: reparations.

How do we repay African Americans for several centuries of slavery?

Idk, start by ending slavery?

How do we repay Native Americans for supposed genocide and stealing their land?

Not much sympathy for those savages.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:So you're saying we need trump to crash the economy to reveal the fundamental problems? I agree! If Biden and Trump is my choice, I'm voting Trump. I doubt it will do any good, but that's my plan.
I won't say your plan is wrong. How would I know the way to break to something categorically better. But, lol, it wasn't what I was saying.

In order to get real change, we need real pain. No pain no gain. Biden and centrists like Obama will make compromises that fix nothing and will only marginally increase the size of the scraps falling from the table while the rich continue having big meals.

I see what you're saying. The people in WV are good example: poor coal miners and appalachians. All 55 counties voted for bernie over clinton, but clinton was selected by the delegates. Then they voted trump in the main election. All the people know is that they do not want what they had before (ie no clinton politician types).
I liked that the right often brought up Bernie and how he and his voters were treated. I am sure this was mainly to bash the left for not being fair, but it ended up being respectful. LIke it sounded like on some level they appreciated that portion of the left for NOT wanting a usual candidate. And they could identify with the way Bernie and his voters were treated. A little sliver of cross the divide respect, even if there was a less worthy agenda in sounding that praise, at least for some.

The right has integrity, but that's dual edged sword.

How can the elites be responsible for propagating climate change propaganda while simultaneously supporting a candidate with serious intentions of exposing it as propaganda?
I tend to NOT think of the elite as a bunch of buddies. I think they have internal power struggles and likely different approaches to very similar goals. None of them gives a shit about most of humanity. They all want privitization of everything including air. But tactics and strategies may differ. It's a pack of komodo dragons. And mammal will get torn to pieces, but it's not like they are all mister lovey dovey with eachother.

Yeah I guess so but they all seem to be riding the climate change bandwagon... probably because they know that's their best strategy to win voters. "Free shit" isn't enough, especially since they're light on the free shit, so they need to instill "you either vote for us or the world will end in 12 years!" It's a fabricated crisis like Trump's immigration emergency, as if 40-50 years of immigrants pouring over the border was ok and suddenly now someone decides to close the barn door.

I knew hillary would win the election. It just made sense to have a woman after a black man. When trump won, that blew away any suspicion I had that the election was rigged.
I was surprised. I mean, Trump went on infowars. But I don't think of it like the elite has perfect power. They are herding cats like everyone else. It's just they are in the position to choose the candidates most of the time. They can rig, but perhaps not perfectly. This is where I differ from what the mainstream media present as the conspiracy theorist. What I am saying here and above this. They do not have perfect control.

I wonder that too. They can influence, but not totally control.

They do not necessarily at all like each other, though the share similar goals and attitudes. And also that many of the people who are with them are confused, think they are helping humanity, are just selfish pricks and other categories that allow them to align. I also think the elites are pressed these days. More underlying bullshit is coming out in the air.

Could be, but climate change seems to band most of them together.

194 countries signed the paris accord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... _Agreement

Trump withdrew.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

YouTube Tweaks Recommendations Algorithm To Block Videos By Flat Earthers, 9/11 Truthers https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- ... 1-truthers

Sorry but YouTube got this one right. Don't feed the delusions.

Why did they link Flat Earth with 9/11 conspiracy types? Delusion is the common denominator.
__________________________

HA HA HA HA HA HA you support CENSORING THE INTERNET?!!!!

People who support censoring the Internet are the reason Jesus Christ warmed up the gas chambers.
___________________________

This is not censoring

This is a service choosing what they want to provide

And it's free

I suppose it will be like going back to the days before the internet existed when none of this conspiracy stuff existed, or the only way to discover it was to find some pamphlet under a windshield wiper. One time I parked my car and opened the door to find a book about why the pope is the antichrist laying on the ground. Impressionable minds may need shielding from certain types of bullshit.

At the end of the day, google can censor its heart out and we'll still have vastly more info than we did in the 90s. This doesn't worry me. The greater goal is waiting-out the extinction of the rightwing nutjobs while minimizing their damage. No doubt this is the conclusion google came to and I'd have ethical problems hosting flat-earth bullshit myself.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

@Serendipper

All I meant to show is brain differences exist and brain differences also explain talent differences. The insula is a higher-evolved part of the brain relative to the amygdala (known as the lizard brain).

Brain-damaged humans resulting from stress of poverty which favors overdevelopment of the amygdala relative to the insula. The fear that conservatives are more prone to feel is a direct result of exercising the amygdala while leaving the insula to atrophy. Whereas coddled liberals aren't in constant survival mode which leaves time and energy to develop other neural areas.

Some liberal's amygdalas appear underdeveloped:

The Trumptards are already outnumbered, so their resolve is of no consequence, except to their own blood pressure, which only hastens their extinction.

Since the civil rights movement and the sexual revolution, we've become an increasingly socially liberal society, but since Reagan and Thatcher were elected, we've become an increasingly fiscally conservative one, and for better/worse, I can't see any indication this trend will reverse itself anytime soon.

For better/worse, Millennials and Z will likely become more conservative as they get older and their income grows.

Yes and you poofed from our discussion on immigration which I see as the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand because you'd prefer to retain your belief than risk being convinced of something you really don't want to believe. Dad does that all the time. It's a lot like not going to the dr because we'd rather not know. Dad's been listening to Rush for 30-40 years and if he's wrong, he doesn't want to know it; he just wants to live his fantasy until he dies without arguing or having to admit it was wrong. He has essentially told me so.

I prefer not to beat a dead horse.

Now after having left me with such impression you are expecting me to believe you're on an open honest quest for truth. I remember what you said, that lazy people don't deserve handouts and brown people are inferior in some ways and that's consistent with the anticipated neurological consequences of an overdeveloped amygdala (fear).

While I'm in favor of raising the standard of living of working and disabled people, good luck trying to convince people lazy people deserve handouts.

And there's no such thing as absolute parity between any two individuals, or demographics.

I think every race has strengths and weakness, I'm not sure which one is overall stronger, but it's probably not by a whole lot and I don't really care, nevertheless white people will have an easier time adapting to white civilization than non-whites.

You yourself admitted blacks were dimmer because winter forced whites to learn how to plan well in advance.

No it's all professors. Anyone with intelligence speaks nonsense to them. They flatter themselves by pedestalizing common sense as a way to pump their egos, even though they haven't put any effort into changing their level of knowledge by studying anything in particular other than sports or cars or parties and such (because they're narcissists).

I have conservative friends and family and occasionally listen to conservative talk radio, and I've never met a conservative who equated education with idiocy.

They think certain courses and professors, like sociology and sociologists, are mostly or wholly a waste of time, because they're impractical, they rarely translate into good or any jobs, and because of their strong, overwhelming liberal bias, on the other hand they hold phycists, engineers and medical practitioners in high esteem, and would never think they know more about their respective fields than they do.

Now I'm sure there's a few arrogant backwater hillbillies out there (I'm sure there's some humble hillbillies too), but they don't represent middle class, urban and mainstream conservatives.

Hillary is more intelligent than Trump, and Gore was more intelligent than Bush. All I meant is it's the dumb ones who win the election that they lost. Meaning the people picked the smart one, but the dumb one was appointed by those charged with preventing the people from picking the dummy in the first place.

I agree Hillary's iQ is a standard deviation above Trump, but seriously doubt Obama's smarter than Trump, he's highly overrated in many regards, because he's black.

Researchers. Published research exists on the matter. They found evidence of some ridiculously low, like 0.00004% voter fraud.

Interesting, I'd like to look into that.

I don't think dems think Trump conspired with Russia, but they want to make the case that he did in order to get him out of office because the ends justify any means with liberals.

Well I'm going to keep telling liberals and conservatives it's bullshit.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Boycott Google

@Seredipper

All in all, I get the most freedom from a democrat vote.

Christian fundamentalists don't hold much sway over politics anymore, at least not at the federal level, I mean look at Donald Trump, he's about as loose, a/immoral as they come.
These days mainline conservatives are mostly fiscally, and socially libertarian, or moderate.
It's the liberals who're guilty of trying to censor speech, take peoples guns, tell us what to think, how to feel, and meddle in our personal affairs with their whacky social programs.
Whatever happened to: it's the economy, stupid!
Liberals need to get back to focusing on their bread and butter: our bread and butter: the economy, and stop talking about identity politics if they want to win more votes.
Men, whites and moderate, non-fundy Christians and so on are tired of hearing about how evil we supposedly are, and everyone's tired of hearing about liberal's bizarre fetishes.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Boycott Google

@Seredipper

What you essentially said is "the undemocratically appointed officials should have the right to prostitute the people if they want." I'm sure people would be free to move to another state, but not the poor. So it's like a prison colony where people are forced to work for little pay or face starvation and their only crime was not having the financial resources to move to a state where assholes weren't running things. That's kinda how the south is now.

I don't care what happens to states/provinces as a result of choices they made.

And no one starves to death in 21st century North America, at least not yet, unless they're severely mentally disabled or ill.

Yeah, Jefferson thought that too, until he became president and realized those idealistic fantasies don't work in reality. The ONLY reason to have states is to have pockets of poor to pillage. Detroit exists in the condition that it does specifically so the Hamptons can exist in the condition it does.

Federal interventions in state/provincial affairs should be kept to a bare minimum, only when absolutely, indisputably necessary as a last resort for the survival of the state/province and/or nation as a whole.

And the nation as whole sometimes has the option to disjoin itself from a failed state/province.

The only reason not to have one big planet government is to preserve shithole countries being a source of cheap labor. You haven't pondered into this deeply enough.

Vastly different people living in different environments require vastly different governments, there is such a thing as irreconcilable differences.
It mayn't be advantageous to share our strengths with other nations, or risk being contaminated by their weaknesses.
We know and care more about ourselves than others.
Globalism squanders too many resources and is totally unnecessary.
Global totalitarianism would be far worse than totalitarianism in one nation, If some intranational division of powers is good, it follows international division of powers is even better.
Besides homogeneity is dull, and if we get bored, we can always travel on occasion or invite a fellow or two over from abroad after, they've been heavily screened.

Forget about growth, we're heading for decline within the next century.

I'm not seeing that.

Well thousands of scientists are.

By what mechanism?

Civilizations have become decadent, degraded and depleted their resources at a faster rate than they could replenish them hundreds of times before, and ours will be no different, except in scale, as our civilization is very nearly global.
And the bigger we are, the harder we fall.
We're so detached from a nature we've very nearly ruined, when we have to partly or fully return of it, billions will perish.

I figured we'd evolve into a beehive lol

Unless humans somehow biologically evolve into eusocial animals, meaning our women beomce capable of bearing dozens, hundreds or thousands of children, and only one or a handful of them specializes in reproduction, whereas the others are born largely or wholly infertile, and specialize in protecting and providing for their sibling's offspring, we'll never behave anywhere near as altruistically as bees.
We live in mostly mimetic societies, unlike ants, bees, wasps, naked mole rats and some shrimp, not genetic.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Boycott Google

@Serendipper

Shit rolls downhill and money flows up. The middle class is capitalizing off the community, but not as much as the rich. I ran a small business for 10 years and the taxes were just too much for the work I did, but I did make quite a lot of profit from employees and I paid much more than minimum and it was under the table (so I paid their taxes at my higher rate). Small business deserves a break, but not let off the hook totally. I go by the axiom advanced by FDR that no business which depends for its existence on paying substandard wages has any right to continue in this country. If you have a business model that can't make a profit without slave wages, then it's a lousy business model and such inefficiencies shouldn't be supported by the community or even allowed to exist.

The middle class doesn't exploit us anywhere near as much the overclass, if at all.
They're just trying to get by and have a little extra for themselves.
They're just a step or two ahead of us in terms of wealth, the last thing they need is government making it harder on them by increasing wages, taxes, regulations and fixing prices.

A strong, vibrant middle class provides us with choices, creativity and entrepreneurship we wouldn't have if taxes and regs are too high and hard on them, and all business is monopolized by a handful of powerful multinationals.

Much of the working class aspire to be middle class, so some of them are reluctant to go after them.

Nearly half the country is middle class, so even if you don't like them, you need some of their votes.
As long as liberals neglect or threaten their livelihood, liberals will never consolidate power, it'll bring us more of this endless class warfare and teetering back/forth we have today, until our democracy is torn apart and both classes enslaved or civilization collapses.
This's why I believe both the liberals, and conservatives are controlled opposition to the 1 10th of 1%.
If liberals had any sense, or weren't controlled, they'd promise to drastically cut taxes and regs on the small business, while increasing them on big business, increase minimum wage for big business more than small business, and increase welfare for small business, while eliminating welfare for big business.

It's only through uniting the classes, as well as the sexes, races and so on against the multinationals that we can make genuine progress (harder to do when you have multiculturalism), as well as having a greener, more localized economy, based more on need instead of greed, but that doesn't interest the elite, they want us altogether in one giant farm, but divided as hell, so we're too busy squabbling over scraps to fight the real enemy.

I am anti-christian, but the problem is the minorities are more christian than the whites lol

It'll be interesting to see what happens when a majority of European citizens are Muslim, Canadians and Australians Chinese and Indian, and the majority of Americans Mexican, I wonder what these newcomers will do with our civilization, and us?

Not true? lol

Like I said, I think the problem is the white boomers. The latest Stephen Colbert show exemplified that:

Their policies discriminate against all whites, men and Christians, not just boomer whites, not that age based discrimination is anymore okay.

No, we could talk about religion: how bad it is lol. We just couldn't practice it (if it's banned, but I don't see that happening).

Some theist asked Christopher Hitchens "What is the source of evil?" Without hesitation he replied "Religion!" The audience burst out in laughter.

Religion isn't just belief in the Gods, and it isn't necessarily violent.

What else kept psychopaths in line all those years but fear of the Gods?

Religion is art, architecture, music, charity, community, some morals and values (some questionable).

While I am an agnostic, there are mysteries in this world, and while religions feign to know the answer to these mysteries, the idea of the supernatural imbues life with a sense of wonder and enchantment secular worldviews lack.

People are always going to find excuses to kill or oppress one another, we have more secular ideology for that now.

Studies have shown religious people, so long as they're not fanatical, tend to be healthier in all sorts of ways than irreligious.

And then where do we draw the line?

Religion is somewhat of an ambiguous concept, all kinds of activities can be construed as it and banned that have little or nothing to do with it.

But you were inquiring about the future. Trump was elected by the people "most offline" https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/th ... finds.html

But those folks are moving into nursing homes and otherwise being prohibited from voting as time moves on. So if some future fascist fancies taking power, all that's needed is for someone to post a twitter meme that goes viral to foil his fantasy.

And when some new technology comes out, like androids, Millennials, who grew up with the internet but hardly interact with androids, will vote in the next conservative.

Yes, we're progressing. Once slavery was a thing and women couldn't vote and such, but we've moved on and former concerns are seen as ridiculous today.

By what metrics?
People are more overweight than ever, more drugged up, cancerous, diabetic, heart diseased, atomized, autistic, detached, overstressed, cities are noisy, crowded, polluted, we treat our animals like shit, we treat nature as our own collective toilet.
There's more political and economic monopolization than ever before.
Families and communities are broken.

A lot has changed since rome.

That's what Rome said about Egypt, Mesopotamia and Macedonia, they said a lot has changed since then.

I have a tough time imagining bernie throwing jews in ovens. Or Ocasio. Or Elizabeth Warren.

Bernie seems pretty level headed, Warren, so-so, Ocasio on the other hand scares me.

Would she put white liberals in ovens given the opportunity?

Probably not, but would she put fascists and Nazis in ovens if given the opportunity?

Of course, and thanks to the radicalization and racialization of liberals, so would millions of them.

But who're the Nazis?

Are they ultra-violent, thuggish skin heads?

Why no, anyone who wants to lower taxes for the middle class and small businesses, hold onto their freedom of speech, guns and stronger borders is a Nazi to her, or in other words, close to half the country.

Why would they do that?

Because individuals are selfish, and by extension demographics.

Why did whites and Arabs enslave Africans, why did some Africans enslave other Africans to sell to whites and Arabs?

People are tribal.

For whatever reasons, genetic, mimetic, whites tried to put their tribal memes and genes aside and embrace others, at least for now, but there's no guarantee others will do the same.

Liberals are philosophically amoral.

Trump: 'Why won't you build the wall'?

Pelosi: 'Because it's immoral'.
Last edited by Gloominary on Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Gloominary
Philosopher

Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am

### Re: Boycott Google

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

All I meant to show is brain differences exist and brain differences also explain talent differences. The insula is a higher-evolved part of the brain relative to the amygdala (known as the lizard brain).

Brain-damaged humans resulting from stress of poverty which favors overdevelopment of the amygdala relative to the insula. The fear that conservatives are more prone to feel is a direct result of exercising the amygdala while leaving the insula to atrophy. Whereas coddled liberals aren't in constant survival mode which leaves time and energy to develop other neural areas.

Some liberal's amygdalas appear underdeveloped:

To the video I say so what? The guy who headed the crusade against helmet laws crashed his bike and died without a helmet while protesting! The guy who lived with bears was eaten by a bear. This is just an ironic universe where people get killed by what they're protecting. Kinda like that woman with her face torn off by her chimp, Travis.

The cherry picking overlooks the fact that 100s of 1000s of bikers ride without helmets and don't die. Just like most liberals don't get killed by muslims while visiting other countries. One of the nicest men I have ever known was a muslim from Turkey. Hell I thought they were all terrorists up til that point. I had more respect for PJW before that video.

The Trumptards are already outnumbered, so their resolve is of no consequence, except to their own blood pressure, which only hastens their extinction.

Since the civil rights movement and the sexual revolution, we've become an increasingly socially liberal society, but since Reagan and Thatcher were elected, we've become an increasingly fiscally conservative one, and for better/worse, I can't see any indication this trend will reverse itself anytime soon.

For better/worse, Millennials and Z will likely become more conservative as they get older and their income grows.

Conservatives keep saying that, but it usually goes the other way. It's more likely that Y and Z will be more liberal as they age, not less. I bet even Rush Limbaugh is more liberal than he was 30 years ago.

Yes and you poofed from our discussion on immigration which I see as the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand because you'd prefer to retain your belief than risk being convinced of something you really don't want to believe. Dad does that all the time. It's a lot like not going to the dr because we'd rather not know. Dad's been listening to Rush for 30-40 years and if he's wrong, he doesn't want to know it; he just wants to live his fantasy until he dies without arguing or having to admit it was wrong. He has essentially told me so.

I prefer not to beat a dead horse

Well we left off with Jared Diamond's theory that domesticated animals caused the intelligence of whites, which you didn't seem to contest, but more focused on whether or not domesticated animals existed anywhere but europe, which is a point that's accepted as scientific fact pending evidence to the contrary. Once we established that as fact, you poofed, which tells me you conceded, but can't admit it ,which is sticking your head in the sand and chanting "na na I can't hear you" because you don't want your worldview changed. Same as dad. He just wants to be left alone with his fantasy until he dies. Fine, but stay out of the voting booth if that's how you feel. I guess being ethical is not part of the fantasy.

Now after having left me with such impression you are expecting me to believe you're on an open honest quest for truth. I remember what you said, that lazy people don't deserve handouts and brown people are inferior in some ways and that's consistent with the anticipated neurological consequences of an overdeveloped amygdala (fear).

While I'm in favor of raising the standard of living of working and disabled people, good luck trying to convince dogmatic people that lazy people deserve handouts.

I fixed it for you (in blue).

Same as I said last time: "deserve has nothing to do with it." But the fact that you think it does is what's telling.

I don't want to live in a shithole where people get what they "deserve". Who decides who deserves what; the dummies who relish the suffering of lazy good-for-nothings?

Show me a conservative who wouldn't let his daughter do without in order to be sure his stepson didn't get something that he didn't deserve. You can't because it's impossible because conservatism is predicated on that very fact of getting less for themselves specifically to ensure that others get even less.

Silhouette had a couple great examples of that here viewtopic.php?f=6&t=194003&start=425#p2716677

A guy didn't want to donate his organs because he feared someone might get them undeservingly.

My reply was, "I might be inclined to call him an asshole just to be sure that some asshole wasn't walking around getting respect that he didn't deserve."

We should shit on everyone because if we don't, oh hell, someone might be getting considerations that he doesn't deserve and we can't allow that.

And there's no such thing as absolute parity between any two individuals, or demographics.

Yes there is and it starts with the principle foundation upon which one chooses to view the world. It's polar. One either chooses to believe in absolute truth or he doesn't. Why do people who choose to own guns also choose never to use them to kill people? Because the dogmatic truth that killing is wrong cannot be changed. There is no neural mechanism around dogma. Kennesaw GA mandates every head of household be armed and yet no murders in 10 years. And it's not fear of others who might be armed because if we arm prisoners, they'd kill each other that much faster. So it's a mindset and dogma can't be circumvented. And that stems from a choice of worldview: does the absolute exist or does it not. Robots are trustworthy because they have no mind and the same explains conservatives who just as mechanistically follow lines of dogmatic code, and pride themselves for it.

Alan Watts actually breaks it all down and has nothing good to say about people who believe in law. He calls them "inflexible fools" and "machinery" that requires a boss with a brain. Start at 1:55:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7vFOU8e0wU

You yourself admitted blacks were dimmer because winter forced whites to learn how to plan well in advance.

Sure, yes, but not because blacks are inherently inferior but that the environment didn't favor the same outcome as whites. But it wasn't just the challenges that the whites had to endure that made them smarter, but the nutrition was better as well. Animals could be harnessed to provide much more for the whites than for the blacks.

No it's all professors. Anyone with intelligence speaks nonsense to them. They flatter themselves by pedestalizing common sense as a way to pump their egos, even though they haven't put any effort into changing their level of knowledge by studying anything in particular other than sports or cars or parties and such (because they're narcissists).

I have conservative friends and family and occasionally listen to conservative talk radio, and I've never met a conservative who equated education with idiocy.

I never met one who didn't.

Google search took 2 seconds:

And that’s what it’s going to take, whether it’s on a college campus and just standing up and saying, “No, you don’t get what you want, grow up. We have a perfectly fine institution here where you have just as fair a shot at anything anybody else has at this university. Go back and study. You really want what you want, get educated. That’s what here we’re to do, and we’ll do it. I realize you’re under a bit of a penalty because all our professors are stupid liberals, but that’s the best we can do. But we’re not gonna shut down the university and we’re not gonna shut down this or that just because you can’t handle some things you don’t like hearing. Time to grow up.” https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015 ... ain_folks/

Coming from a fatasshole who "flunked everything", so he's obviously a genius fitted to calling every professor stupid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#Early_life

I honestly can't understand how anyone could tolerate listening to that knob waxer. I try to keep enemies close, but perpetual influx of logical fallacies causes me nausea.

Conservatism is the proposition that educated people are dumb as dirt. I could prove this until time ended and never run out of examples.

They think certain courses and professors, like sociology and sociologists, are mostly or wholly a waste of time, because they're impractical, they rarely translate into good or any jobs, and because of their strong, overwhelming liberal bias, on the other hand they hold phycists, engineers and medical practitioners in high esteem, and would never think they know more about their respective fields than they do.

Shit!

Why Most of Your Professors are Idiots http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2 ... diots.html

Plenty of STEM professors just as stupid and worthless as their libtard counterparts.

DON'T FORGET THE STEM PROFESSORS! They are not much better.

And don't forget that astrophysicists are 98% liberal. http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/

(Scroll down to "science & math" and click it.)

So they're dumber than the rocks that the conservative geologists study lol

Now I'm sure there's a few arrogant backwater hillbillies out there (I'm sure there's some humble hillbillies too), but they don't represent middle class, urban and mainstream conservatives.

Sure they do since their relative "success" only feeds their arrogance and makes them that much smarter. "I ain't never read no books, but I gots me some muney so I'm a jenius just like Trump! He don't never read no books neither and just look how good he done went n done."

Hillary is more intelligent than Trump, and Gore was more intelligent than Bush. All I meant is it's the dumb ones who win the election that they lost. Meaning the people picked the smart one, but the dumb one was appointed by those charged with preventing the people from picking the dummy in the first place.

I agree Hillary's iQ is a standard deviation above Trump, but seriously doubt Obama's smarter than Trump, he's highly overrated in many regards, because he's black.

Obama is smarter than Trump, but I agree that he ain't all that.

Researchers. Published research exists on the matter. They found evidence of some ridiculously low, like 0.00004% voter fraud.

Interesting, I'd like to look into that.

I have to do everything? Here's a shitload of them https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/ ... fraud-myth

The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely, the report noted, that an American “will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”

A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims.

I was off by a hair.

I typed in "voter fraud research" and it was top of the list in google. Damn you're lazy lol! And here I am giving you handouts, which you don't deserve, since you didn't even try to look it up, but having an educated population is what's good for me, lest some surmise I'm an altruist or something.

I don't care that people are starving in the streets except for the fact that they're doing it in a world that I have to inhabit and I don't want to live in a shitty community because some short-sighted dummies are focused on making sure people get what they deserve. Maybe we should return to the days were folks threw their excrement out windows onto streets to make conservatives a nice world to live in because lazy people don't deserve toilets. The more you deprive others, the more shit-up your own environment.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

Gloominary wrote:@Seredipper

All in all, I get the most freedom from a democrat vote.

Christian fundamentalists don't hold much sway over politics anymore, at least not at the federal level, I mean look at Donald Trump, he's about as loose, a/immoral as they come.

Why wouldn't they support the guy who seems determined to ban abortion?

These days mainline conservatives are mostly fiscally, and socially libertarian, or moderate.
It's the liberals who're guilty of trying to censor speech, take peoples guns, tell us what to think, how to feel, and meddle in our personal affairs with their whacky social programs.

Oh hell. Both Reagan and Trump advocated taking guns. Seriously, republicans are gunning for every single freedom you have.

Then Reagan:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ret ... gun-lobby/

Whatever happened to: it's the economy, stupid!
Liberals need to get back to focusing on their bread and butter: our bread and butter: the economy, and stop talking about identity politics if they want to win more votes.

I totally agree. Homos are like 2% of the population. The real issue is poverty and wealth distribution.

Men, whites and moderate, non-fundy Christians and so on are tired of hearing about how evil we supposedly are, and everyone's tired of hearing about liberal's bizarre fetishes.

I don't support the fetishes, but y'all are still evil
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

Gloominary wrote:@Seredipper

What you essentially said is "the undemocratically appointed officials should have the right to prostitute the people if they want." I'm sure people would be free to move to another state, but not the poor. So it's like a prison colony where people are forced to work for little pay or face starvation and their only crime was not having the financial resources to move to a state where assholes weren't running things. That's kinda how the south is now.

I don't care what happens to states/provinces as a result of choices they made.

And no one starves to death in 21st century North America, at least not yet, unless they're severely mentally disabled or ill.

No one starves because they go to work (or they opioid themselves to death). Starvation is the sword forcing them into the laborforce by those who supposedly adore freedom so much. The only real freedom you have is in deciding which rich asshole you want to make richer.

I've correlated suicides with tax rates.

tax rates suicide.jpg (115.69 KiB) Viewed 5381 times

People kill themselves less when taxes are high (because redistribution).

The evilness of y'all's side is coming into focus.

Yeah, Jefferson thought that too, until he became president and realized those idealistic fantasies don't work in reality. The ONLY reason to have states is to have pockets of poor to pillage. Detroit exists in the condition that it does specifically so the Hamptons can exist in the condition it does.

Federal interventions in state/provincial affairs should be kept to a bare minimum, only when absolutely, indisputably necessary as a last resort for the survival of the state/province and/or nation as a whole.

Why? Because you say so? Jefferson was the OG republican and he relented by sacrificing his principles on the federalist altar.

Jefferson lived in a garden of eden paradise brimming with idealistic fantasies that proved nonsense once he was the guy in charge. I despise Hamilton, but he was right on this. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=194003&p=2715101&hilit=jefferson#p2715101

And the nation as whole sometimes has the option to disjoin itself from a failed state/province.

They tried that in the civil war and it's good fortune for the south that they lost. If not for the federal min wage, the south wouldn't have a min wage. TN, SC, LA, AL, MS have no state minimum and GA is set at $5. Pretty much the whole south and only the south! Good thing states can't do what they want. The only reason not to have one big planet government is to preserve shithole countries being a source of cheap labor. You haven't pondered into this deeply enough. Vastly different people living in different environments require vastly different governments, there is such a thing as irreconcilable differences. It mayn't be advantageous to share our strengths with other nations, or risk being contaminated by their weaknesses. We know and care more about ourselves than others. Globalism squanders too many resources and is totally unnecessary. Global totalitarianism would be far worse than totalitarianism in one nation, If some intranational division of powers is good, it follows international division of powers is even better. Besides homogeneity is dull, and if we get bored, we can always travel on occasion or invite a fellow or two over from abroad after, they've been heavily screened. I think my point still stands. The only reason not to annex mexico is to preserve their shithole status for cheap labor, otherwise our min wage would apply along with worker's rights and so on. The US couldn't be the US unless mexico were mexico. Forget about growth, we're heading for decline within the next century. I'm not seeing that. Well thousands of scientists are. Who? By what mechanism? Civilizations have become decadent, degraded and depleted their resources at a faster rate than they could replenish them hundreds of times before, and ours will be no different, except in scale, as our civilization is very nearly global. And the bigger we are, the harder we fall. We're so detached from a nature we've very nearly ruined, when we have to partly or fully return of it, billions will perish. We can't cut down a tree without asking the gov. What more do you want? I figured we'd evolve into a beehive lol Unless humans somehow biologically evolve into eusocial animals, meaning our women beomce capable of bearing dozens, hundreds or thousands of children, and only one or a handful of them specializes in reproduction, whereas the others are born largely or wholly infertile, and specialize in protecting and providing for their sibling's offspring, we'll never behave anywhere near as altruistically as bees. We live in mostly mimetic societies, unlike ants, bees, wasps, naked mole rats and some shrimp, not genetic. You don't remember the seinfeld episode of the japanese sleeping in drawers? Serendipper Philosopher Posts: 2178 Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm ### Re: Boycott Google Serendipper wrote:At the end of the day, google can censor its heart out and we'll still have vastly more info than we did in the 90s. This doesn't worry me. The greater goal is waiting-out the extinction of the rightwing nutjobs while minimizing their damage. No doubt this is the vconclusion google came to and I'd have ethical problems hosting flat-earth bullshit myself. It's not just the right, it will also be the left who gets silenced/marginalized. It will for example close off discussoins about whether global warming is human created. The current internet saturation might have stopped, for example, the invasion of Iraq. Because the WMD conspiracy theory the Bush administration had would have been pored over by people on the internet and torn apart. Obviously I think it's bad since I think some of the conspiracy theories are correct. But everyone should be concerned about using political criteria to determine content when we are talking about near monopolies like Youtube and Google. They will say it is information based criteria, but it's not. They don't put time into analyzing stuff. They check to see if it is politically correct, if it causes outrage amongst experts. Outrage amongst experts should not, for example, be a criteria in scientific research. It run counter to current paragidm? throw it out. Is a terrible heuristic- You want the core elite power to be safer to do whatever it wants, then make this kind of move. Karpel Tunnel Philosopher Posts: 2638 Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm ### Re: Boycott Google Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper Shit rolls downhill and money flows up. The middle class is capitalizing off the community, but not as much as the rich. I ran a small business for 10 years and the taxes were just too much for the work I did, but I did make quite a lot of profit from employees and I paid much more than minimum and it was under the table (so I paid their taxes at my higher rate). Small business deserves a break, but not let off the hook totally. I go by the axiom advanced by FDR that no business which depends for its existence on paying substandard wages has any right to continue in this country. If you have a business model that can't make a profit without slave wages, then it's a lousy business model and such inefficiencies shouldn't be supported by the community or even allowed to exist. The middle class doesn't exploit us anywhere near as much the overclass, if at all. They're just trying to get by and have a little extra for themselves. They're just a step or two ahead of us in terms of wealth, the last thing they need is government making it harder on them by increasing wages, taxes, regulations and fixing prices. A strong, vibrant middle class provides us with choices, creativity and entrepreneurship we wouldn't have if taxes and regs are too high and hard on the middle class, and all business is monopolized by a handful of powerful multinationals. Much of the working class aspire to be middle class, so some of them are reluctant to go after them. Nearly half the country is middle class, so even if you don't like them, you need some of their votes. What is middle class? The largest group of tax returns are in the$50k-$75k and the$100k-\$200k categories (about 20 million of each).

I am anti-christian, but the problem is the minorities are more christian than the whites lol

It'll be interesting to see what happens when a majority of European citizens are Muslim, Canadians and Australians Chinese and Indian, the majority of Americans Mexican, I wonder what these newcomers will do with our civilization, and what they will think of us?

Yes, I don't know. My old grade school is all mexican now. That's gotta be better than inbred rednecks, but I don't know what they'll do once in control of everything.

Not true? lol

Like I said, I think the problem is the white boomers. The latest Stephen Colbert show exemplified that:

Their policies discriminate against all whites, and men, and Christians, not just boomer whites, not that age based discrimination is anymore okay.

Only the boomer whites are complaining. The millennial whites don't mind stepping aside for the sake of diversity.

No, we could talk about religion: how bad it is lol. We just couldn't practice it (if it's banned, but I don't see that happening).

Some theist asked Christopher Hitchens "What is the source of evil?" Without hesitation he replied "Religion!" The audience burst out in laughter.

Religion isn't just belief in the God, and it isn't necessarily violent.
What else kept psychopaths in line all those years but fear of the Gods?
Religion is art, architecture, music, charity, community, some morals and values, some questionable.
While I am an agnostic, there are mysteries in this world, and while religions feign to know the answer to these mysteries, the idea of the supernatural imbues life with a sense of wonder and enchantment secular worldviews lack

People are always going to find excuses to kill or oppress one another, we have more ideology now.

To burn people at stakes requires religion.

Studies have shown religious people, so long as they're not fanatical, are healthier in all sorts of ways than irreligious.

No, what the studies show is the religious (7th day adventists anyway) are healthier than the average person.

And then where do we draw the line?

Religion is somewhat of an ambiguous word, all kinds of things could get banned that have little or nothing to do with it.

I don't see it happening so I don't want to devote much to this. I think religion will fizzle out on its own.

But you were inquiring about the future. Trump was elected by the people "most offline" https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/th ... finds.html

But those folks are moving into nursing homes and otherwise being prohibited from voting as time moves on. So if some future fascist fancies taking power, all that's needed is for someone to post a twitter meme that goes viral to foil his fantasy.

And when some new technology comes out, like androids, Millennials, who grew up with the internet but hardly interact with androids, will vote the next conservative.

I'm sure memes will cross platforms.

Yes, we're progressing. Once slavery was a thing and women couldn't vote and such, but we've moved on and former concerns are seen as ridiculous today.

By what metrics?
People are more overweight than ever, more drugged up, cancerous, heart diseased, diabetic, autistic, atomized, detached, overstressed, cities are noisy, crowded, polluted, we treat our animals like shit, we treat nature as our own collective toilet.
There's more political and economic monopolization than ever before.
Families and communities have been torn apart.

Thank republicans for that. Fat people and republicans correlate. Poor people overeat.

A lot has changed since rome.

That's what Rome said about Egypt, Mesopotamia and Macedonia, they said a lot has changed since then.

They may have said it changed, but there were no changes. We have cars, internet, grocery stores,,,

I have a tough time imagining bernie throwing jews in ovens. Or Ocasio. Or Elizabeth Warren.

Bernie seems pretty level headed, Warren, so-so, Ocasio on the other hand scares me.

Would she put white liberals in ovens given the opportunity?

Probably not, but would she put fascists and Nazis in ovens if given the opportunity?

That's interesting. I don't know.

Of course, and thanks to the radicalization and racialization of liberals, so would millions of them.

But who're the Nazis?

Are they violent, thuggish skin heads?

Why no, anyone who wants to lower taxes for the middle class and small businesses, hold onto their guns, freedom of speech and stronger borders is a Nazi to her, or in other words, close to half the country.

No they're grey hair, goatee, sunglasses, red ballcap and have used the word cankles in the last 2 years lol

Why would they do that?

Because individuals are selfish, and by extension demographics.

Why did whites and Arabs enslave Africans, why did some Africans enslave other Africans to sell to whites and Arabs?

Because of disparity. End disparity and there's no reason to do that.

People are selfish, and tribal.

IF they're raised in poverty.

For whatever reasons, genetic, mimetic, whites tried to put their tribal memes and genes aside and embrace others, at least for now, but there's no guarantee others will do the same.

This is why I do not fear AI. Anything smarter than us will be kinder.

Liberals are philosophically amoral.

Trump: 'Why won't you build the wall'?

Pelosi: 'Because it's immoral'.

That's just a tactic and not philosophical foundation.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:At the end of the day, google can censor its heart out and we'll still have vastly more info than we did in the 90s. This doesn't worry me. The greater goal is waiting-out the extinction of the rightwing nutjobs while minimizing their damage. No doubt this is the vconclusion google came to and I'd have ethical problems hosting flat-earth bullshit myself.
It's not just the right, it will also be the left who gets silenced/marginalized. It will for example close off discussoins about whether global warming is human created.

I don't believe it's human created, but so what? The result is free power sooner than if left to the free market.

The current internet saturation might have stopped, for example, the invasion of Iraq. Because the WMD conspiracy theory the Bush administration had would have been pored over by people on the internet and torn apart.

And that would have happened before google realized it should ban it. But google doesn't work for the gov and probably wouldn't support a war anyway.

Obviously I think it's bad since I think some of the conspiracy theories are correct. But everyone should be concerned about using political criteria to determine content when we are talking about near monopolies like Youtube and Google. They will say it is information based criteria, but it's not. They don't put time into analyzing stuff. They check to see if it is politically correct, if it causes outrage amongst experts.

I'm with you, but I'm not threatened by this little bit of censoring. If I wanted to, I'm sure I could find plenty about flat-earth stuff. Just like banning drugs... we can still find drugs.

Outrage amongst experts should not, for example, be a criteria in scientific research. It run counter to current paragidm? throw it out. Is a terrible heuristic-

You want the core elite power to be safer to do whatever it wants, then make this kind of move.

That makes sense, but to stop it google would have to be a public utility with 1st amendment protection.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

Serendipper wrote:I don't believe it's human created, but so what? The result is free power sooner than if left to the free market.
That's fine that you think it will work out in a good way if a consensus political and scientific myth is taken as the truth. But the fact that you consider this possible, and in fact share a belief with certian conspiracy theorists, should make you wary of allowing industry to close the door on the spread of not-accepted-by-the-mainstream ideas.

And that would have happened before google realized it should ban it. But google doesn't work for the gov and probably wouldn't support a war anyway.
It doesn't have to support a war, it just has to marginalize critique of the administration that believes there is a conscious plot manipulate us into a war. For example. IOW conspiracy theories, which in that case are no longer considered that.

I'm with you, but I'm not threatened by this little bit of censoring. If I wanted to, I'm sure I could find plenty about flat-earth stuff. Just like banning drugs... we can still find drugs.
You could. Many can't or won't. The more marginalized the idea is, the fewer well educated people will go....Hm, well, let's just see if there is any merit in this. Once the bulk of the educated class never even has to notice a single objection to whatever the official story is, the less chance that official stories will be questioned in the kinds of ways they need to be.

That makes sense, but to stop it google would have to be a public utility with 1st amendment protection.
Actually Trump just set these guys loose even more. And I am not a legislator. I am someone pointing out the problems of near-monopolies doing this. People acting as apologists, such as yourself, are blocking a response by come citizens to a company policy. I am talking to you. I am not yelling at my senator and saying that they should pass this law I drafted.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 2638
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Boycott Google

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I don't believe it's human created, but so what? The result is free power sooner than if left to the free market.
That's fine that you think it will work out in a good way if a consensus political and scientific myth is taken as the truth. But the fact that you consider this possible, and in fact share a belief with certian conspiracy theorists, should make you wary of allowing industry to close the door on the spread of not-accepted-by-the-mainstream ideas.

But they are not banning climate change skepticism (probably because there is too much science and reason supporting the skepticism). They're just censoring the flat-earth nonsense and I don't know enough about 9/11 to say whether it's nonsense, but whatever. When they start censoring climate change skepticism and other ideas that have good scientific footing, then I'll start complaining. The idea that the earth is flat is just garbage and a waste of space on youtube. I doubt it's even about whether someone is likely to believe it.... it's just a waste... and generates traffic for dummies who probably promulgate other dumb ideas.

And all that parroted conservative economic nonsense is too superficially sensible to allow to flourish as it's akin to mislabeling food or medicine: it's a lie, believable, and down-right dangerous. The most respected economists, currently and in history, should be the judge of this, and the empirical evidence collected over the last 100 years is absolutely overwhelming. Censor the arrogantly marshaled economic dumbassery just the same as we'd censor medicine bottles of lies because not doing that causes the suffering of too many people and can only benefit assholes.

And it's not really censoring ideas because the ideas have been noted, judged, and rejected over the course of 100 years. Your voice was heard, now move on. (I don't mean you KT, I'm just on my soapbox).

Global warming conspiracy is perhaps justifiable because people can profit from alternative energy, but who profits from low taxation? Why would anyone conspire to raise taxes??? It has always been dad's point: "they" want power. Who is they? The democrats! How do they get power from raising taxes? So they can give tax breaks as favors for their buddies. Huh? That line of reasoning is extremely weak and doesn't merit assertion of conspiracy. It's more likely that conspiracy exists on the other side because there are far more elites who'd benefit by lower taxes. Dad needs muzzled, as do those who promulgate that nonsense.

- 21 times over 80 years the min wage has been raised and those moronic imbeciles still won't relent with "sky is falling" warnings about raising the wage. Give it a rest and stfu already. They're worse than flat-earthers.
- And stifle that "real money" gold standard bullshit. When more people are born, who gives up their gold for them? A fixed money supply is absolutely idiotic and even dangerous since Ben Franklin attributed gold as being the prime cause of the revolutionary war! Now that's dangerous!
- "End the fed!" And what? Start a state bank? Idiots! The fed is semi-private and semi-state and is the best compromise between either letting banks run freely as private entities or be under total control of the government.
- "Free market!" Idiots! Show me one thing that works best without management. Apply your free market principles to your garden and watch the weeds take over. No, better yet, apply it to your car: just let the invisible hand of nature guide your wheels without any authoritarian governance from you.

Damn these people are stupid. And they are! I've illustrated the generality of that fact 27 times here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194612 How overwhelming does the proof need to be before action is taken?

I'm exhausted from slaughtering the same arguments over and over and they're become pests like mosquitoes emanating from putrid water with intent to spread dis-ease.

Dumb people advocating dumb ideas that seem sensible on the surface are dangerous because if too many people start believing that nonsense, then massive chunks of the population will suffer. If morality is in terms of suffering, then the moral choice cannot be the one that leads to more of it.

If an idea has been considered bullshit for 50-100 years by the people most equipped to judge and if said idea seems superficially plausible to laymen, then such ideas should be decreed hazardous bullshit and banned for the safety of the population. Furthermore, the constitution should be amended to prevent any form of trickle-down or supply-side economics from ever plaguing the citizens again. It's a like a herpes virus that goes into remission for a spell only to rise up and torment again.

And that would have happened before google realized it should ban it. But google doesn't work for the gov and probably wouldn't support a war anyway.
It doesn't have to support a war, it just has to marginalize critique of the administration that believes there is a conscious plot manipulate us into a war. For example. IOW conspiracy theories, which in that case are no longer considered that.

I get your point but it's a bad example because google is liberal and republicans start wars that liberals don't support, so it's hard to see them censoring anti-war conspiracy theory.

I'm with you, but I'm not threatened by this little bit of censoring. If I wanted to, I'm sure I could find plenty about flat-earth stuff. Just like banning drugs... we can still find drugs.
You could. Many can't or won't. The more marginalized the idea is, the fewer well educated people will go....Hm, well, let's just see if there is any merit in this. Once the bulk of the educated class never even has to notice a single objection to whatever the official story is, the less chance that official stories will be questioned in the kinds of ways they need to be.

All ideas started as marginalized because no one knew of them. Then over time everyone became aware of them. Marginalization doesn't work if the idea is sensible. What they're censoring is "magicians" making ideas appear more sensible than they are by taking advantage of the fact that people judge ideas by the arrogance with which they're advanced and by who is advancing them.

That makes sense, but to stop it google would have to be a public utility with 1st amendment protection.
Actually Trump just set these guys loose even more. And I am not a legislator. I am someone pointing out the problems of near-monopolies doing this. People acting as apologists, such as yourself, are blocking a response by come citizens to a company policy. I am talking to you. I am not yelling at my senator and saying that they should pass this law I drafted.

My point is the people getting blocked are the same ones protecting google from being a public utility. They are supporting the means of their own extinction.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext