Notre Dame Burns! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlaxZtwUpVcI am sure the religion of pieces had absolutely NOTHING to do with this. This is becoming a pretty clear pattern. Europe, you are going to have to make some hard choices very soon. |
|
|
|
The Meta board has really turned into a shitshow lately. I have no interest in reading yet another rant about the Merit Mafia or the DT Gestapo. To make things worse; it's become obvious that some members are using alt accounts (maybe multiple alts) to spam their personal attacks over and over again. I have a very practical suggestion to those who are displeased with the current system. I'll pass on a bit of wisdom from my corporate management training courses: Stop attacking the people, and start attacking the problem; stop laying blame, and start laying the groundwork for a solution. Many of the merit sources and DT members are well established, trusted, and accomplished members of this community. Continuing to attack them does nothing to resolve the issues (real or perceived) with the system. Personal attacks will only earn you more enemies, more red tags, and less credibility. If you feel some members are abusing their DT power or their Merit Source standing, present your evidence and allow the community to decide. Take the personal agenda out of the equation. If you don't like the system, make suggestions that will improve it. Even if you don't have any suggestions, but don't like an aspect of the system, open the dialogue approaching the issue with a goal towards a resolution. You might be surprised at how much support you find. There have been a couple of threads with solution oriented goals in mind, and I'll give kudos to the folks who started those threads. We need more of this type of discourse. Note: I've disagreed with both OPs in these cases, but none the less I find the discourse helpful. Should we rename Trust list to Feedback list?This Is NOT A New Problem... A Walk Down Memory LaneWhile I agree with you totally in theory, the problem with this strategy is by its very nature calling out the problem almost always necessitates calling out individual actions. As a result of this those individuals and their in group purposely exhibit exactly the type of behavior you describe while then calling any criticism of them and theirs as the instigators for pointing these events out, firmly placing the blame for the "shitshow" upon the complainant no matter how respectfully it is worded in an effort to derail the critical discussion. Another side effect of this is these individuals will abuse the trust system in order to punitively attack their critics either by totally embellishing circumstances or just completely manufacturing reasons for their negative ratings and exclusions. Unfortunately this is another case of rules for thee and not for me. Some of the people who receive the most criticism are also the most willing to use personal attacks and other troll type behavior in order to push their own desired outcome then are quite vocal about this same behavior being directed toward them. Then they go around mirroring each other's position to give the impression of consensus, which usually works because no one wants to stick out their necks and risk being targeted themselves to defend the individual complainant. This is consensus management 101. |
|
|
|
ahahahahah
So if you want to get rid of anyone according to TECSHARE:
-Insult that someone and harass him as much as you can
-Wait for him to be so upset or frightenned that he pushes you
-This is a physical assault you have the right to defend yourself!!!
-Empty a magazine in his belly, he shouldn't have assaulted you
You're not only crazy you're also obviously stupid. Ready to bet money on the verdict here? The guy will be found guilty of disproportional force use. And that's a good thing. You don't defend yourself from a fistfight with a fucking sword. Even is that's what your crazy liberal paradise is about.
Once again you ignore the facts of the situation as if they change nothing... -He was assaulted -He attempted to flee -Multiple people chased him -Only after this did he attempt to defend himself, ceasing his attack once it was made clear to the assailants he would not be made a victim I know as a subject in a nation where it is illegal to defend yourself from violence this is difficult for you to understand, but here we have rights, even if it makes soft little flowers such as you cry yourself to sleep at night over the poor criminal who got a boo boo after attacking some one on the street. |
|
|
|
I may not support the ban of online anonymity when it comes to financial transactions such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies, but on the issue of trying to stop hate speech on the social media I believe that is a food move in the right direction of you consider the havoc hate speech have cause in our society recently and social media is the vehicle use to convey this hate speech all around the world.
That's not how it works. Either you have it or you don't, you don't get to pick and choose. Also if you think finances are more important than freedom of speech then you are quite naive. |
|
|
|
That's because it was a loaded question cheese dick. Yes the one who initiated an assault has no right to then claim assault when the person they just attacked fights back, that is how the law works.
Hmm... No... If someone pushes you you don't have the right to shot him with a shotgun. Proportional use of force. So this is not how the law works but how you wished it works. Which just shows what a crazy nutsack you are. Glad there is a country for you, please stop invading others with that extremist religous mentality of yours. As usual you don't have any clue what you are talking about. The laws vary from state to state, some states have "stand your ground" laws where once some one instigates violence against you, you have no requirement to retreat and are legally authorized to use lethal force if you are in fear for your life. For reference here is some information on how the California self defense laws work. https://cinteanlaw.com/california-stand-ground-law/The man in California was assaulted. He attempted to flee but was pursued by MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS. This is WELL WITHIN the standard of fearing for life or injury as set by California code. Additionally because of the fact it was MULTIPLE people pursuing him, the use of a weapon is COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED and proportional use of force. You can boo hoo about proportional use of force all you want, but how is one man supposed to defend himself from multiple assailants without a weapon? What is proportional about fighting off multiple attackers bare handed? We have the right to self defense in this country, we aren't forced to be subjects and victims in waiting like you in your nation, and I am grateful for it. You don't get to assault people then cry they fought back, that's not how it works. The moral of the story? DON'T FUCKING ASSAULT PEOPLE |
|
|
|
There isn't a debate being had. No one supports socialism as the capitalists are defining it but people in this thread continue to argue against that straw man. No one supports a system where people have no freedom. Advocates of socialism and capitialism both want a system with more freedom.
So is your argument that all the other times Socialism and Communism failed they all sat around and said "Hey you know what would be great, if we had a Communist totalitarian dictatorship!". No. They all thought they were making an improvement just like you, and they all lacked basic understanding of economics and human nature that tell them this system ALWAYS leads to this result. What you want is irrelevant. The outcomes of your attempts to attain your goals are relevant, and history has filled entire libraries with the documentation of the failures of your ideology. Can you explain how my system leads to the same result? I think the biggest difference is that the historical examples you're thinking of wanted to achieve communism immediately by force, and I want to achieve communism slowly by improving conditions to the point where the current state of human nature under capitalism is removed and the natural, cooperative version of human nature is restored. For example, can you find any historical examples of communists who don't believe property should be taken away from the capitalist class? Theres a fundamental difference between people who want to take the power away from the capitalist class and give it to the workers vs people who want to drown out the power of the capitalist class by empowering the working class.
I would concede your point if you showed me non-authoritarian examples of marxism that failed. The bolded part of your statement I feel perfectly exemplifies your inability to even form a basic logical premise. You define conditions by which I argue do not even exist (Marxism is inherently totalitarian), and then demand I meet your impossible contradictory standard in addition to meeting my standard. In short you are doing little more than demanding I ARGUE YOUR POINT FOR YOU. Seriously man. You need to see a professional psychologist. You have problems. I don't mean that in a dismissive way. There is something seriously wrong with the lens thru which you view the world and I would wager it is the cause of many problems in your life, all of which you likely project upon other causes. Either you are here to do a job or you have serious issues. If you are on the job I am impressed with your acting skills because you fit the bill to a T. If not seek help. This bold part is called disagreement. You don't have to completely breakdown just because we disagree on premise. There are other ways to deal with this disagreement considering I have explained why I don't think my views are authoritarian. You could: A. Explain how the things I have described are not marxist B. Explain how the things I have described are indeed totalitarian C. Draw a connection between the things I have described and the failures of previous marxist regimes. I am curious, what kind of job do you think I may be working? Do you think a socialist party has sent me here as a way of campaigning? Please explain. Its also funny to see someone who dismisses psychological research and doesn't believe psychology is "real science" claim the expertise to diagnose psychological problems through the computer and in addition to that, have the nerve to recommend someone to a "professional" who according to their own claims, can't truly help because they aren't practicing "real science" in the first place. Talk about logic. Lots of totalitarians think they are benevolent, then suddenly they realize they weren't so benevolent and everyone wants their heads, and shockingly like magic that changes their outlook and approach to the situation. I have no way to know if you are simply a true believer or some one who does this for a living, but the fact is some one sent you here either by choice or by programming. I never said psychology was totally invalid, just that it is "barely science" in the grand context of all hard sciences, and I am not the only one who shares this view by far. What is not science however for sure is your preferred Frankfurt School of "Critical Theory", which is just Marxism with a superficial veneer of science, commonly known as propaganda. Work doesn't determine who makes the most in capitalism, capital does. A ton of people go to college, work two jobs, and are still barely scraping by. Making money in capitalism only requires capital. You can inherit capital and create a top income with little work at all.
No graduate professionals do not earn top salaries under capitalism. Doctors, professors and engineers are far from . the top but they still do it because its what they want to do.
Your entire post is based on an outdated premise that there is work to be done for everyone. We are approaching a world of automation where there is scarcity of work but not scarcity of necessities. That world just isn't compatible with capitalism. You are also projecting this idea that people only work to be paid but once peoples' needs are all met, they will work for leisure.
I would study regardless of what it has to do with pay assuming I'm going to have all my needs met. Don't project your own current tendencies onto humanity. People naturally want to create things that can be used by others. Not everyone but enough of us.
We aren't here to discuss your fantasies and predictions for the future. History shows your ideology is not only a complete failure but is a horrific stain on humanity itself resulting in hundreds of millions dead. The fact is there is still scarcity of resources regardless of the rest of your horse shit "reasoning". This one fact alone means everyone can't just have everything they want and there have to be limits for society to function. Even if capital is inherited stupid people don't hold on to capital for long meaning regardless they have to work to keep what they already have, and that means providing value for society as a whole. coins4commies laying down the brutal truth
We do not live in a meritocracy and the hardest workers are often the poorest. Capitalism is all about exploitation and stealing value that workers create. The system is a complete failure when one person can own hundreds of houses and millions of acres.
He is laying down delusional half truths at best. The thing about Communists is they have an argument but their solutions are always worse than the problem they claim they want to solve. |
|
|
|
He said multiple times that if he was assassinated that he would release documents that would cripple the world, he has been arrested not assassinated and I fail to see anything new on wikileaks. I think spending life in prison, is close enough to being assassinated,,, but I guess not in his eyes. Unless he has a super cool implanted technology that releases the documents when his heart beat stops or somethingl like that
Its called a dead man's switch. It is well known in the cloak and dagger world of spooks and spies. It is not a James Bond type device (usually). Usually the way people who carry such sensitive data that might get them killed protect themselves is they either hand it to several sources with instructions to release on their death or vanishing and or they have some type of encryption that auto-releases upon him not triggering it to stay encrypted which must be done every X days months years etc. |
|
|
|
If you,re looking for people to blame, blame the people who won't let women with penises into the bathroom.
I think most people would call this type of person a "man" True, but one would strongly argue the oppose if his goal was to sow division and discord into the population of the USA. That would only victimize more people! Who would want to cultivate a culture of victim-hood? |
|
|
|
Please review me in ½ year again. I am here to learn and improve.
I have excluded you anyways. Wells of positive trust received for pocket change trades are dangerous. Receiving lots of positive trust is reason for exclusion from you now? Seems reasonable.  You exist, and existing is correlated with scamming so, chances are you are a scammer [clicks button on automatic negative rating script and takes a nap]. |
|
|
|
OK well I have a feeling whatever I propose isn't going to be sufficient, so you name the metric.
That's not how this works buddy. I don't really care about your dumb wager, but you suggested it. Unless you can define an objective standard for judging it you are just pulling shit out of your ass for your own personal entertainment. So pick one, define a metric or admit your offer of a wager is a failure. snip
Very nice summary. One thing you kind of overlooked is that he specifically said he intended to cause freedoms such as second amendment rights to be taken in reaction to his acts, specifically in the USA, which he hoped would result in civil war (probably right). (Probably wrong). There's no impending civil war in America. But whatever, I already offered to play a game with you. I'm not playing this new one because there's no way to win. Those are the only games you like to play. I could offer you a bunch of different scenarios and you would all say they are invalid, so why waste our respective times. Well shit, since you said so with zero retort or substantiation, you must be right! Don't get pissy with me because you made a dumb statement then can't even define a metric by which to judge it as is standard literally for every bet ever made, but enjoy your self proclaimed correctitude. |
|
|
|
OK well I have a feeling whatever I propose isn't going to be sufficient, so you name the metric.
That's not how this works buddy. I don't really care about your dumb wager, but you suggested it. Unless you can define an objective standard for judging it you are just pulling shit out of your ass for your own personal entertainment. So pick one, define a metric or admit your offer of a wager is a failure. |
|
|
|
LOL I love how Vod always comes in & ends threads with a virtual hammer  /thread No, it just appears that way from the angle of perspective you get with your nose implanted firmly upon his rectum. |
|
|
|
The only way to confirm this would be to have Bitcointalk.org itself act as an escrow for these trades, or to designate certain people to act as escrows and report valid trades to the system.
You deserve +1, but..  . However I am strongly agree with your point. Trades can be manipulate easily if forum isn't involved with trades/escrow. But fortunately forum will never hold user fund. So its not possible to determine real trades. Again this "trading" non sense.
+1 too. Why does it have to be "default" trust. Why not just trust based on actual trading activity.
Is trust system created for trading purpose? Is forum involved with any kind of trading? Pfft, yeah who ever heard of trading within a system designed for p2p exchange. Get with the program this place is for ball washing! |
|
|
|
You won’t receive negative trust yourself for debating a DT Members level of trustworthiness.  |
|
|
|
Those people saying that all Muslims are terrorist are mentally retarded so just ignore them! Majority of Americans has this kind of thinking, therefore United states is home of retarded people!
Literally no one here is saying all Muslims are terrorists retard. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
