Edit 2020-11-02: Added anchor tag. No substantive changes.
You have an interesting perspective, theymos. You seem to see the bipolar-uniparty dog and pony show as just that; yet here and elsewhere, you nonetheless seem to ascribe some significance to the election other than a sophisticated propaganda device (or perhaps meta-propaganda device). The underlying point of OP is that I think that voting is not useless: It is counterproductive. Following is some food for thought; I will somewhat elaborate on my position in reply to you and to eddie, respectively. Especially after watching both conventions, I really got the sense that both parties are at their core fascist parties, with only relatively minor differences between them.
Although I know that that’s a popular idea, especially amongst contemporary libertarians, I do infer a dig at my placement of the Communist red star with hammer and sickle, and the Antifa (Antifascist Action) logo, together with the logos of the big banks, the stock markets, and the Federal Reserve. My choice was deliberate. My Wall Observer post about the Antifa logo was made when I had just completed the OP cartoon here. I began to write an explanation, which I may fit into one of the reserved posts above if I ever actually finish it. (That’s questionable; it would require terrific time and energy to make a brief conspectus of historical and political issues too complex to address adequately in the format of forum posts. But I didn’t reserve so many posts without reason!) The idea that Capitalism and Communism work together is not new—and alas, I must admit, it is far from original to me. (Yes, by the way, I have read all of Ayn Rand’s works; I think that in this context, I should probably mention that. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is the other side of the coin of, “True Communism has never been tried.”) To correct the caption: Andrew Carnegie is also in the cartoon. He is the one labelled, “Andy”. By the way, what with this being the Internet, I think that I should probably point out that the only ethnic Jew in that cartoon is Karl Marx. Morgan, Carnegie, Ryan, Perkins, Theodore Roosevelt, and (despite some claims, I think) Rockefeller were all non-Jews. I think that the Warburg brothers and Jacob Schiff should have been depicted, but they still would have been outnumbered by the utterly corrupt Gentile plutocrats. #justsayingAn old political cartoon alone is not much of an argument, and is not hereby presented as one. Rather, it simply goes to show that in your own country, in 1911, astute political observers were already accusing the big banksters of bringing Communism to America. N.b. that whoever drew this, did so two years before the big banksters created the Federal Reserve system with the help of their boy Woodrow Wilson and a pliant Congress. h/t Last of the V8s. I don’t know if V8s agrees with me or not. I asked if anybody had the cartoon, which I saw somewhere years ago. He happened to have it, with appropriate sourcing in the same graphic.For both of them, their central tenants are nationalism, collectivism, authoritarianism, and maintaining the American empire. In the Democratic convention, "UNITY!!!" was the resounding message, while in the Republican convention, "LAW & ORDER!!!" was what they chose to most focus on.
For both of them, their central tenets are to get elected by telling their popular fan bases what they want to hear. It’s just advertising: Some people like Coke’s ads better; some people, Pepsi’s ads. Either way, you are getting some awful swill that I would never drink. After the election, it is business as usual. Trump has done nothing of real, long-term significance about the single most important principal issue for most of his base: Immigration. (And he can’t: Demographically, in the long term, America’s destiny to be a white-minority country is already an accomplished fact. His promises are just salesmanship.) Obama was such a bad warmonger that he was justifiably accused by a disgruntled faction of his own supporters of being Dubya Bush’s third term. Etc... After the election, there will probably be quite a bit of violence, which is really sad and pathetic.
It all depends when your government finds it convenient to roll some tanks (eh, “APCs” or whatever) and kill some Americans. From their track record, they excel at that. If the rabbles now run riot, it is only because TPTB so permit.Support for what are fundamentally Antifa riots—which so happen to exploit peculiarity American racial tensions via BLM. Now, do you begin to get why I put the Antifa logo into OP together with JPMorgan Chase’s logo? Mt. Kisco, New York, 5 June 2020
Image source: CNBC reporterThe violence will be quelled by means of bigger violence, whenever Mr Dimon, et al. decide to stop playing submissive. LOL. For almost everyone, 99.9% of life will be the same under Trump or Biden, but yet probably at least a quarter of Americans are going to feel a certain sense of hopelessness and/or fear after their candidate loses the election. According to an August Pew poll, only 16% of voters say that "things will be pretty much the same regardless of who is elected," even though this is in fact the reality. I feel bad for all of the people who have tied themselves up personally with this election, as if Trump or Biden actually cared about them, or as if their election will actually matter much to the voters personally.
Well-stated. But this is a feature, not a bug. As I argued in my “ Voting Votaries” post briefly referenced below, and as I allude in my OP cartoon here, the “polarization” keeps the voting masses engaged. It thus maintains the “consent of the governed” without which the American régime would eventually collapse just like the Soviet Union. That said, the election result won't be unimportant. The executive branch has been ceded more and more power by Congress over the decades, so a president can do quite a bit. A president could for example wield the administrative state in such a way as to make it very difficult to use Bitcoin without existing in the shadows, and a Biden administration is probably more likely to move in this direction than a Trump administration. I'd also prefer to see a Trump win because it's likely to lead the coastal states to think much more seriously about secession, which would be one path toward ending the Federal Reserve as we know it. (I think that political action of any sort almost never has positive expected value, though, including in this election.)
Concentration of power in the executive branch has been a very bad idea for you folks. In addition to the issues that you describe, it results in everything from rule by emergency order, to the proliferation of an entrenched bureaucracy (all execuctive-branch stuff!) ruling with “administrative law” tyranny. I think that most American consider the U.S. Code to be “Federal law”; well, what about that other conjoined-twin body of Federal law, the C.F.R.? (To say nothing of the thicket of Federal case law...) Anyway, if presidential precedent has already been set for seizure of your gold by E.O. before asking Congress, I think it’s safe to say that any which way, you exist at the mercy of whoever holds the reins of power in “your” government.
maintaining the American empire.
I see a lot of value in "maintaining the American empire".. Do you not? For my part, I don’t! Yes their is a lot wrong with it, but what other chance does the world have for freedom and libertarian principles than "the American empire" (staying mostly constitutional) remaining the dominant force?
America is not the world-police!America is the tyrant of the world. America’s spreading of the Orwellian American idea of “freedom” is NOT WELCOME. To be “liberated” by Americans is to be enslaved by them, if not killed outright. Of course, I do not mean that all individual Americans approve of all the work of bombing countries into “liberation” under the imposition of American-approved régimes, to “make the world safe for democracy”. In fact, I am sure that many individuals disapprove. That may be unfortunate. DOWN WITH THE AMERICAN EMPIRE!If only Bruno’s witty “conspiracy theory” were correct. :-(Which makes me think of another theory. The entire crypto space is under attack by Russians with an attempt to get nullius elected president of the US where nullius is really a US citizen.
What’s the probability? (...that “WANTED” poster did say “politically incorrect”, did it not?) As for US-USSR being distinct without difference—why yes, I think you’re right. They’re evil twins.
[...]
If "the American empire" collapses and is replaced, what do you realistically think it will be replaced by?
Me? Probably Chinese communism, including complete lack of respect for the right to LIFE, much less speech and self defense.. That is like suggesting that a patient with advanced metastatic cancer should avoid the removal of his biggest tumour, because he suffers other big tumours that may grow. The world is collapsing. I say this not from some eschatological fantasy, but from an historical perspective that is purely rational, and rejects all mysticism and quasi-mysticism (except for my beliefs in the god of Bitcoin, and the apotheosis of the Catbat goddess! ;-)Yeats was grasping for mysticism at a time when the world was in chaos, and his wife had just almost died of the flu. Global pandemic flu with high lethality, which cut through populations of young, healthy people like a scythe felling wheat. Thus, “The Second Coming”. Any Day Now™.
(Anyway, it has already happened. The true “Second Coming” was Karl Marx, who reformed the original second-century dogmata of the faith on a new foundation. In the Age of Science, fairytales became unsustainable, and rather embarrassing. The essence of Communism is a synthesis of Sermon on the Mount 2.0, Post French Revolutionary Edition, with the economic worldview of Capitalism—wherefore the Communist Bible is titled, Capital.)
The so-called “Singularity” is a religious eschatology for irrational fanatics who have swapped faith in gods for faith in technocracy. They want a god from a machine, a literal deus ex machina to save them from their own follies.
Dear Talking Monkeys:
Please get it through your thick primate skulls that you are alone in the universe, you are all going to die, there is no life beyond this world, and nothing whatsoever will remain of you if you do not safeguard your posterity.
Thank you.Moreover, Red China is currently the most Capitalist country in the world: It is ruled from the stock exchanges by giant multinational corporations running factories that are small cities packed with wage slaves. (Ultra-left Silicon Valley liberals have got to get their hipster tech devices somehow!) America is the most Communist country in the world, as well as the biggest spreader of Communism for the past century. I don’t want to launch into a long essay about that now; so... FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
Just for instance, look up what happened to Ngô Đình Diệm for an exemplary illustration of America’s long and sordid history of creating problems, and then pretending to fight them. The CIA set Vietnam up for a total Communist takeover with Diệm’s unfortunate demise—and then, of course, the valiant American world-police had to make war on Communism in Vietnam! A war that was deliberately set up, and deliberately set up to be unwinnable. Just for instance. “WAR IS PEACE”, indeed. Learn a lesson from Diệm—or from Saddam Hussein and from the Kurds in Iraq who rebelled against Saddam in ’91—or any other of numerous examples of people who met their demises through American treachery: Never trust the Americans.
You think something as radical as abolishing the federal reserve is realistic?
It’s not going to happen..
My point was that voting is not merely pointless, but counterproductive, if abolishing the Federal Reserve with the vote is unrealistic—as indeed it is. Politics is the art of the possible. Wasting your energy on elections stops you from doing what is possible. Improving your plight by voting is categorically unrealistic. Quoting myself from your 2020 election thread with suchmoon—sorry, I have not been following it:Like betting on cockfights or football games: The whole concept of this thread adequately sums the value of democracy. It is entertainment. It keeps the proles distracted, and dissipates their energies in a way that is harmless to the system. On Votaries of the VoteThe best we can hope for is preserving the constitution, stop more infringements in the constitution, mostly through SCOTUS appointments, “Preserve the Constitution!” was a good rallying cry for American Conservatives about... let’s see... arguably the 1950s or 60s. More reasonably, the 1930s. (Insert also a reply to Twitchy in the other thread about Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme.) Maybe earlier. (By the way, it’s funny that my long-time hatred for America has driven me to learn more about American political history than most Americans know. As when I study Communism per se, I study the etiology of the disease.) Your hope is to preserve the horses by locking the barn door now. Horses gone. Too late. and otherwise hope that that government does, as theymos says, nothing.. Agreed! But that is unrealistic. Let’s put it this way: Americans nowadays don’t much remember the debates for the passage of their Federal Income Tax—a big deal, back then, when people gave a hoot about the Constitution; it required action by Congress plus state governments to ratify a Constitutional amendment. Well, a common theme for proponents was to argue that tax rates could never exceed 5%— because no government could ever spend so much money. Well, nowadays, your government bills you for—how much, in taxes? It wouldn’t want to do nothing with that! Money needs to be spent. At least, that is the way that modern governments work. Your massive entrenched bureaucracies must find some way to spend their budgets, lest the budgets be cut. And politicians need to make a big show of “Do Something!” to get elected, or re-elected, as the case may be. It is getting worse and more Orwellian under either the Dems or GOP Agreed. but I believe the destruction of America’s founding principles will be slower and lesser under Trump than Biden.. The difference is negligible. Also, Trump had done an amazing job of redpilling normies the world over.. Many topics are brought to light because of him that otherwise would have never crossed the attention of most average people.. I think that it’s the reverse: Trump only even ran for political office, because people were already starting to talk about things that they hadn’t even dared to whisper about for decades. As a savvy businessman (and a savvier showman), he seized the opportunity to tell people what they want to hear—what they are desperate to hear! Don’t suppose that the tail wags the dog.
2021-03-14: Edited to add anchor.
|
|
|
|
The timestamped file:N.b., the signing time was 2020-10-24 22:51:37 UTC. I just waited for the timestamp to get confirmations, this time around; then, I forgot to post it. Why bother making another one. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Bitcoin Forum name: nullius
Bitcoin Forum userid: 976210
PGP primary key: C2E91CD74A4C57A105F6C21B5A00591B2F307E0C
# Ten most-recent Bitcoin block hashes:
654166 2020-10-24T22:49:02Z 0000000000000000000d0446d1c3157bd93b5e86899e1577b41b63d210ddefb4
654165 2020-10-24T22:44:22Z 00000000000000000003c1f683d20abffe1c8d914884e40dc5610575e627d566
654164 2020-10-24T22:42:19Z 00000000000000000007fe7e9a39a3c750adb28219b96e655d0ee15a07b4f1cf
654163 2020-10-24T22:29:47Z 000000000000000000046957f2ac9006e316f27f99d94f0e802ce05ab7edd06f
654162 2020-10-24T22:28:40Z 0000000000000000000140d1e7df7e9a1a4c9066193d7b0d8c3902f78274eb73
654161 2020-10-24T22:20:22Z 00000000000000000007336a0a2e3e3eefc450e9e93d1c2a56c9fd93ddef025d
654160 2020-10-24T22:12:06Z 000000000000000000017bce9a8de756da0d780e7483eccf22f4ab1b463b99ab
654159 2020-10-24T22:09:13Z 0000000000000000000c2ce486741dda9b48d62374247654d5f93318488bfa29
654158 2020-10-24T21:28:04Z 0000000000000000000cec4112e9b0baa1f22f5ae1771cc55b42d63f57737d02
654157 2020-10-24T21:10:59Z 000000000000000000042c0e0bd4221622eee3d7354f9d25445183645cf7add8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEARYKAB0WIQSNOMR84IlYpr/EF5vEJ5MVn575SQUCX5Sv+QAKCRDEJ5MVn575
SSZ/APwKkfSSXz1+AXV8NmR8Bc9odi5qLbESfdaCMK7zkSnsugD+ImDSBEjQFRHE
f4P+bAGRXjgSJY30OeTb5QBvklIEwQ8=
=TpWj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To verify the timestamp, you must save the signed statement with Unix line endings ('\n') and a single final line-terminator on the last line. (No blank line at the end.) Exclusively for ease of checking that the file is saved correctly, here is its SHA256 hash: 5be1da1618b445496b2877b17719656c64c7cb2dfc46c49aca1ffec31a2c3327 AE9wZW5UaW1lc3RhbXBzAABQcm9vZgC/ieLohOiSlAEIW+HaFhi0RUlrKHexdxll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|
|
|
|
PSA: Nietzsche did drugs only because he had severe and painful chronic health problems—and the drugs burnt out his brain, leaving him as an invalid lunatic for the last decade of his life! Drugs were the tragedy of Nietzsche’s downfall. nutildah is despicable—“WTF!?”-tier brain-damaged, ignorant, hallucinatory druggie scum, listing Nietzsche as an example of how drugs are just so cool. And although I don’t usually question people’s merit-sending, it is very clear in this case that suchmoon is such a lunatic. Merited by suchmoon (4), strawbs (2), vapourminer (1), 600watt (1), sirazimuth (1), P_Shep (1), soullyG (1), OutOfMemory (1)warning: nullius-sized post follows; I tried my best to keep it engaging
[...hallucinatory illogic about how LSD, pot, shrooms, etc. improve your mind oh so much...]
As far as other drugs are concerned, some of the world's most famous inhabitants owe their inventions and works to them.
[...]
Nietzsche - opium addict
[...]
So the idea that doing drugs necessarily burns one's brain out is patently false. Read a book:As the result of over-work, excessive indulgence in drugs, and a host of disappointments and anxieties, Nietzsche’s great mind at last collapsed on the 2nd or 3rd of January 1889, never again to recover.
The last words he wrote, which were subsequently found on a slip of paper in his study, throw more light upon the tragedy of his breakdown than all the learned medical treatises that have been written about his case. ‘I am taking narcotic after narcotic,’ he said, ‘in order to drown my anguish; but still I cannot sleep. To-day I will certainly take such a quantity as will drive me out of my mind.’
From that time to the day of his death (25th August 1900) he lingered a helpless and unconscious invalid, first in the care of his aged mother, and ultimately, when Elizabeth [Förster Nietzsche] returned a widow from Paraguay, as his sister’s beloved charge.
For an opinion of Nietzsche during his last phase I cannot do better than quote Professor Henri Lichtenberger of Nancy, who saw the invalid in 1898; and with this sympathetic Frenchman’s valuable observations, I shall draw this chapter to a close:—
‘In the gradual wane of this enthusiastic lover of life, of this apologist of energy, of this prophet of Superman there is something inexpressibly sad—inexpressibly beautiful and peaceful. His brow is still magnificent—his eyes, the light of which seems to be directed inwards, have an expression which is indefinably and profoundly moving. What is going on within his soul? Nobody can say. It is just possible that he may have preserved a dim recollection of his life as a thinker and a poet.’ nutildah owes Nietzsche an apology.
I just had to set the record straight about Nietzsche. I have seen many ignorant fools dismiss Nietzsche’s philosophy on grounds that he was “crazy”, without knowing that he wasn’t crazy until the drugs destroyed his brain. I have never before seen anybody so fantastically, psychotically stupid as to hold Nietzsche forth as an example of all the wondrous good that drugs have done. I gave up on following WO sometime on Monday, as I became increasingly preoccupied; and I will not waste my time untangling the illogic of nutildah’s brain-damaged transparent rationalizations, because: I won’t deign seriously to argue with your druggie religion any more than I debate Christian evangelicals. P.S., to avoid any whining about how I’m oh so much against freedom: * I must emphasize another point here; for despite my repeated statements of my position (n.b. 2017 post), this red herring was thrown at me by WO’s local druggie crowd with their hallucinatory illogic: Of course, I support and defend people’s right to harm themselves! Including by poisoning themselves with drugs. I just don’t fall for the false dichotomy that either you must support the tyranny of the War on Drugs, or you must pretend that drugs are a mostly harmless, and even beneficial recreation. Say what? Freedom includes the freedom to commit suicide.Druggies, don’t whine. I am supporting your freedom to kill yourselves!
P.P.S., edit, obiter dictum—from another author’s preface to the same book—to sum up why I despise democracy: Nietzsche may have been right, therefore he may be unsuccessful. [...] ...the driving power behind democracy is not a political one, it is religious—it is Christianity.
[...]
There [Napoleon] was another victim of democracy... The mighty sword in the beginning and the mighty pen at the end of the last century [1800s] were alike impotent against—Fate.
|
|
|
|
Why am I even here? As I said before in another thread—Kitty gone; what’s the point?
You still see a bit of potential in the group?  Nope. Here and elsewhere, if I don’t reply further, you should assume that I am no longer watching the thread. It’s a shame, for there are people here whom I respect; but I will not waste my life in an environment rife with illiterates who complain about reading, whose conceits rise from being too stupid to know how even to recognize their betters, let alone how properly to address them. |
|
|
|
Nulli buddie...
Are you trying to make enemies out of everyone? I was more referencing royse, nutildah, SM, and others, who were in recent context.. Just to be clear for the record: - Off the top of my head, I don’t recall ever having had a problem with Royse before he hereby chose to lecture me on his trust system opinions on behalf of someone whom I had reasonably intended to tag in 2018. —An important point here, which I think Royse missed while he was too busy hurling false accusations about my motives: I was then still too new, finding my feet; and I had other reasons for avoiding it, when I was already deeply involved in an old-DT firestorm. But OgNasty getting a Nullian tag was only a matter of time. The writing was on the wall. Mr Nasty must have known it; there is no other plausible explanation for his pre-emptive exclusion of me under old-DT (!).
(There. I just succinctly condensed a very long post that I did not finish earlier on this topic.) - nutildah is, among other things, an apologist for Communists and a rationalizer of drug abuse.* (I do still intend to reply to that last, but briefly; I’ve been increasingly otherwise preoccupied, and not even trying to watch WO since about mid-Monday, much less post there.) If such types did not feel enmity toward me, it would mean that I was doing something wrong.
* I must emphasize another point here; for despite my repeated statements of my position (n.b. 2017 post), this red herring was thrown at me by WO’s local druggie crowd with their hallucinatory illogic: Of course, I support and defend people’s right to harm themselves! Including by poisoning themselves with drugs. I just don’t fall for the false dichotomy that either you must support the tyranny of the War on Drugs, or you must pretend that drugs are a mostly harmless, and even beneficial recreation. Say what? Freedom includes the freedom to commit suicide. - suchmoon has been passively-aggressively trying to spite me ever since, curiously enough, she simultaneously started defending yahoo from me, and jumped in bed with TECSHARE (!) as a transparent excuse to exclude me immediately.
Against the backdrop of my previously amicable rapport with her, the timing and suddenness of her about-face toward me make her motives quite clear. She sent me a PM about TECSHARE, announced her forthcoming exclusion of me less than 10 minutes later (before I even saw the PM!), and then less than two hours later started publicly defending yahoo in a matter that I had been otherwise discussing with her. Thus, the danger to yahoo was effectively neutralized: I was suddenly kicked out of DT, and I doubt that any other DT would have dared to tag yahoo without another DT doing it first.
Beyond a brief note in my final post on the locked yahoo thread (which only you noticed, eddie—though you didn’t understand it), I didn’t pursue it further, at the time, because (0) I have no evidence that yahoo had anything to do with suchmoon’s dirty trick, so I didn’t and don’t want to stir drama over yahoo after he ended the Yobit campaign, and (1) I wanted to avoid more potential blowback to Lauda, who from several directions was unfairly attacked out of animosity toward me.
suchmoon’s subsequent vindictiveness toward me adequately demonstrates how she behaves toward someone whom she finds she cannot push around. I avoided engaging against her too much because, again, I didn’t want Lauda getting unjustifiably dragged into another mess. Now, that is no longer a reason for me to restrain myself. - Others? What, you mean that some people on the Internet may not like me? LOL.
Whereas this drama is beginning to bore me... Enough’s enough. Why am I even here? As I said before in another thread—Kitty gone; what’s the point? |
|
|
|
Unless I completely misunderstood him (which I doubt), @nullius is making fun of the typical nonsense that you can read in this section. Nooooo! The so-called “Earth” does not exist; and the “Moon” was fabricated as a lie feeding a lie. What is your motive for lying about this, Rikafip? What are you, a CIA agent shilling for this psy-op!? KEEP UP THE STANDARDS OF THE POLITICS & SOCIETY FORUM!!!More seriously, I do hypothesize that much of the psychological motive for the “moon landing hoax” nonsense is discomfit over the history of Wernher von Braun, et al. People believe what they want to believe. “Seek, and thou shalt find” is an ill epistemology, and very popular.I suppose it goes to show that either way, any which way, people tend to discover what they want to find, not what is actually there.
On topic: I think that the pre-announcement is interesting, but perforce premature to discuss. It caught my interest. I will look forward to Monday! Literally ‘Moon Day’, < O.E. mōnandæġ. Unless there are any amateur philologists in the NASA press office, it is probably a coincidence; nonetheless, it is a poetic coincidence! |
|
|
|
Thank you, Gazeta. What means much more to me than the forum merit is that somebody cares. Not many people do. Vide the results—this world in which we live... I do intend to edit OP as a living project. I do not think that I will produce a long-form essay; rather, it should be a list of principles to be learnt by heart, as thereby stated. Meanwhile, I will take this opportunity to bring here a discussion that really started in an inappropriate topic: In the big picture, why is privacy culture important?Subject: Re: DEMAND PRIVACY!People have the right to privacy
Oh if that were only true. Ever get involved in the justice system as part of an investigation (even if you were innocent)? Tell me how much of a right to privacy you have then. Tell the NSA or Facebook or Twitter how we're all entitled to privacy online....and on and on. I would love it if we really did have some legal protections to guard our privacy, but we don't--or we have the bare minimum at best. That is one of many reasons why we need privacy culture. And yes, I am going to grind that axe. I wouldn’t have much street cred as a self-described “privacy activist” if I didn’t—or if I didn’t have a long history of doing so. Laws are made by people. They do not just fall out of the sky. If people don’t value privacy— if society as a whole does not have privacy as its cultural norm—then you can expect for the laws and the legal system not only to fail to protect privacy, but to actively abuse it! Start at the grassroots level. Start in your own life, in your daily interactions. Demand privacy. Change people’s values. Praise people who have a “none of my business” attitude—and who keep confidences, in matters that are their business. Shame people who gossip, nose around, or violate confidences. If at least 10% of society consisted of active privacy fanatics like me, then everybody would have privacy. I am not pulling that number out of the air; it is based on research. It is the approximate proportion which, if unopposed (or if it’s more fanatical than its opposition), can move the whole direction of a modern society. Because most people are sheep. Inert. Apathetic. Weak. Followers only, who fear conflict and cave to peer pressure. Observe how many agendas slowly, gradually take over society—right or wrong— even if passive disliked by a supermajority of the population—for better or for worse! It starts with a raging hard core of people who just WILL NOT SHUT UP about an issue, who push and push... Do you want privacy? Push it! And even more importantly: Live it!Or on the flipside: If you are one of the sheep, then even if you feel vaguely, passively concerned about violations of privacy, your opinion is completely meaningless. If you don’t stand up for privacy—if you are not willing to fight for it—then vested interests who hate privacy will be unopposed. Now, observe the results: How much privacy do we actually have? To be clear, the question is rhetorical. |
|
|
|
icopress
I hope that I will be understood correctly.
I can't do everything perfect.
My question is, how many interviews can OP contain?
If I add trust rating to each interview, then I will have problems. I may have to create a new topic.
If I don’t do something, it doesn’t mean that I don’t hear you. I write down your ideas and possibly apply them in further design.
I think that icopress has been trying to help. I haven’t been; now I will, too. My principal suggestions are threefold: 0. Personalize the interviews. As icopress first suggested; I will add: A journalist interviewing a famous personality does not just toss over a stock list of canned questions. For each interesting individual, there are specific reasons why that person is interesting. Is the interviewee known for excellent technical posts? For firebrand speeches amidst the Fork Wars? For a peculiar pseudonym? For exceptional wit and humour? Ask more about such things, and about the experiences and thought processes behind them! Just for instance, if I were interviewing Lauda, I may ask questions about her Bitcoin wallets thread. 123,753 views and counting—a stickied legend of the Beginners & Help forum! What originally inspired the idea for the thread? Why has she spent four years of her life lovingly tending a resource to help Bitcoin beginners find the right wallet for their needs? As a sort of meta-question, how could her experience with providing this guidance in turn guide others who want to help? I can think of a dozen intriguing questions about that one topic—to say nothing of all of the other interesting things about Lauda. Lauda is an exemplary hypothetical, because it is obvious that we will never have the answers to these questions. For reasons other than her general aversion to answering personal questions. Now, think about people who are here, and who would enjoy talking about themselves. What questions are about them?1. Limit the number and frequency of interviews. By analogy, consider monetary inflation. The interviews are valuable, if they are few. I think that this thread got more respect when it was exclusive. Moreover, nobody who has a life can (or wants to) read interviews of Internet forum personalities at a prolific rate. How many Internet forum interviews can a busy person read in one day, in one thread? 2. Find a better way to connect with people who are desirable interview subjects, and who desire to be interviewed. I will present this hereby as a question, rather than trying to answer it; I think that I have written enough here, for the moment... Good luck. |
|
|
|
[—extremely selective misquoting by fabiorem—] So bitcoin going up is malicious nonsense. Thanks for clarifying. “ Considered as a whole”, the absolute totality of all you say is one big lie.
Bounty detective, people are just jealous of your achievement on the blockchain technology, I have really benefited from several bounty project manage by you. Such as AMZCOIN people where saying it was scam, but to there greatest surprise AMZCOIN was a legit project, it also made a lot of rich that believed in the project. You are a good man, looking forward to work on the project u are managing.
Unholy forking hell. I just skimmed your whole post history. The above-quoted post is your very first post that is not a bounty registration post (!). Accounts like this should be banned. (And whine threads such as this are good for shaking bad accounts out of the woodwork!) October 24, 2020, 08:21:15 PM Summary - Vine ekegwu| Name: | Vine ekegwu | | Posts: | 74 | | Activity: | 70 | | Merit: | 0 | | Position: | Newbie | | Date Registered: | September 04, 2020, 12:15:45 PM |
Edit 2020-10-26: “Vine ekegwu” is spamming this thread with a canned statement. Compare the below quote to the above. (Reporting—please report these to the moderators.) Bounty detective, people are just jealous of your achievement on the blockchain technology, I have really benefited from several bounty project manage by you. Such as AMZCOIN people where saying it was scam, but to there greatest surprise AMZCOIN was a legit project, it also made a lot of rich that believed in the project. You are a good man, looking forward to work on the project u are managing. End of edit.
she is too distraught at the moment because her notorious criminal buddy just pretended to self-destruct on that other infamous thread  ; I haven't noticed suchmoon being all that distraught by Lauda's departure. I think your perception of reality is a little bit askew, but I don't think there's anyone here who'd be able to help you with that. Nominated as a candidate for Sarcastic Compound Understatement of the Year. Bitter medicine, that. |
|
|
|
Bumping because I think you should add Lauda's name to your list, as she was an upstanding member of the community and permanently left the forum a few days ago, erasing all avenues of coming back. For the legacy thread you can use Goodbye, world!. It should go without saying, I support this. ;-)
Did Lauda in fact erase all avenues of coming back? Yes. I haven't read through that entire "Goodbye World" thread, but perhaps I should. There have been a lot of members who've said they were leaving the forum for good, and then they don't. It is not only a matter of theymos’ grant of the requested ban (with extreme measures!). And although it is one thread that I do recommend reading, even just OP thereby in itself is clear enough: Boldface is in the original:After this post, "Lauda" will cease to exist.
[...]
If it produces a signed message, you should assume that the keys are compromised. Of course, if Faketoshi appears in a catbat mask and claims to be me, then you should assume that it is a fraud.
Hereby I want to emphasize that it will never again be possible to contact "Lauda", just as it is impossible to contact the dead. |
|
|
|
Edit 2020-10-29: Added anchor tags. No substantive changes.
People have the right to privacy
Oh if that were only true. Ever get involved in the justice system as part of an investigation (even if you were innocent)? Tell me how much of a right to privacy you have then. Tell the NSA or Facebook or Twitter how we're all entitled to privacy online....and on and on. I would love it if we really did have some legal protections to guard our privacy, but we don't--or we have the bare minimum at best. That is one of many reasons why we need privacy culture. And yes, I am going to grind that axe. I wouldn’t have much street cred as a self-described “privacy activist” if I didn’t—or if I didn’t have a long history of doing so. Laws are made by people. They do not just fall out of the sky. If people don’t value privacy— if society as a whole does not have privacy as its cultural norm—then you can expect for the laws and the legal system not only to fail to protect privacy, but to actively abuse it! Start at the grassroots level. Start in your own life, in your daily interactions. Demand privacy. Change people’s values. Praise people who have a “none of my business” attitude—and who keep confidences, in matters that are their business. Shame people who gossip, nose around, or violate confidences. If at least 10% of society consisted of active privacy fanatics like me, then everybody would have privacy. I am not pulling that number out of the air; it is based on research. It is the approximate proportion which, if unopposed (or if it’s more fanatical than its opposition), can move the whole direction of a modern society. Because most people are sheep. Inert. Apathetic. Weak. Followers only, who fear conflict and cave to peer pressure. Observe how many agendas slowly, gradually take over society—right or wrong— even if passive disliked by a supermajority of the population—for better or for worse! It starts with a raging hard core of people who just WILL NOT SHUT UP about an issue, who push and push... Do you want privacy? Push it! And even more importantly: Live it!Or on the flipside: If you are one of the sheep, then even if you feel vaguely, passively concerned about violations of privacy, your opinion is completely meaningless. If you don’t stand up for privacy—if you are not willing to fight for it—then vested interests who hate privacy will be unopposed. Now, observe the results: How much privacy do we actually have? To be clear, the question is rhetorical. So what's this new drama all about? Correct answer: Some people on the Internet don’t like me. Waaaaah. :'-('''''' I'm so tired of all of this mud-slinging against members who don't deserve to get splattered. I excluded nullius from my trust list because of his "troll" feedbacks, and that's something I wish I didn't feel I had to do, but those red tags are supposed to be handed out to members you wouldn't trust with money, not because they're shitposters, trolls, assholes, arrogant, psychotic, or anything else. No hard feelings. Just to be clear, the feedback that I had issued in this case was neutral. It has now been deleted, and replaced by feedback that sounds neutral in addition to being marked as “neutral”. The controversy is now completely settled between its principal parties.
I didn’t pry into Lauda’s details, either—even though she was my friend Is that something Lauda has posted in public? I wouldn't call anyone on this forum "my friend", LOL, expecting Facebook-style social graph status announcements from privacy people. Or discussion thereof. I am only Lauda’s most notoriously obsessed fan, the one who just will not shut up about Lauda Lauda Lauda! Except when I need to shoot down bad ideas or potential bad behaviour—a quest which is certainly not beneficial to my self-interest. In that case, I am Lauda’s Cult Grand Prophet, vested with divine authority by the mystical revealed truth of how much that batty cat evidently liked my prolific Laudatory fan art. I don’t remember if there was ever anything else between us; I’ve been drinking waaay too much, these past few days, drowning my miseries. Gone full amnesiac here.
By the way, as a general observation, it is funny how this works: Before she left, I was not infrequently accused of being a Lauda alt, which is ridiculous. Now, some people... Equally ridiculous. Where are all of the conspiracy theories from Internet Sherlock Holmes wannabes with their obsessive scrutiny of real or imaginary connections? I suppose it goes to show that either way, any which way, people tend to discover what they want to find, not what is actually there.
<snip> I have no reason to reply to misinterpretations, evasions, beating of dead horses, missing of the point, and some people trying to Win An Argument On The Internet. Not playing that game.
|
|
|
|
Can I see where in my post I suggested that you did it in a public post?
To be clear, does your “no” apply only to public posts?
I asked you a straight question. Straight answers would be appreciated. Thanks.
Okay, do I understand you correctly that you are asking me a question about my private messages and want me to post my answer in this thread? If your question sounds like: "Have I looked for nonpublic confidential information about Lauda in private messages?" My answer is no. Thank you. I am sure that you will never do such a thing in the future. Absent further evidence, I have deleted my neutral trust feedback #272075 after saving a copy so that, in all fairness to both of us, anybody who reads this thread can see what we are discussing (and my my reference link) for themselves. I think that that’s important, because some people are completely misconstruing what I said—including one who even saw fit to create a pointless thread about this, oh, ma gawd. For the record, I will replace my prior neutral feedback with a neutral note with a neutral, non-accusatory tone, referencing this post. I do not want to come off in an unintended way on your trust page—although, just as a measure by a common standard around here, my feedback actually had much better evidence than some of the poison-pen “neutral” accusations that suchmoon has unalterably engraved on some people’s trust pages. To be clear whence I come: I myself have “yeah, we had a dispute in the past” neutral feedback from forum members whom I respect; I don’t have a problem with it. For my part, according to my well-known principles, I will continue to dig for information about anybody who is digging for nonpublic information about Lauda. For confidential tips, my PGP key is linked in my signature.
Now, I was NOT the one who brought this up here. Get back to your interviews, folks! I was thinking the same thing.. At the beginning I thought this was going to be more exclusive, but now it even contains interviews of spammers now banned for plagiarism.. I know, right? It started as such an exclusive club! The forum’s humblest members did not feel that they were worth joining in. 😹 And how did Vod get a red inventor tag? What did he invent? Probably BPIP? I haven’t read the thread. If I do an interview can I request a green “awesomest user” tag or something? I call dibs on “Loose Cannon”. Actually, it should be my forum title. |
|
|
|
Maybe they will finally reveal the big secret that moon is made of cheese. The moon does not exist. NASA will finally admit that they made the whole thing up. There is NO evidence for the existence of the so-called “moon”. All videos and photographs showing a “moon” have been faked on Hollywood sets. Government-employed “astronomers” have written books and “scientific” papers purporting to prove the existence of the “moon”, as part of a psy-op to make you believe in the so-called “Earth”. Prove me wrong. </politics-and-society> |
|
|
|
Well, I am not always a fan of the Babylon Bee; but they are oft funny, and this belongs here: To Improve Next Debate Both Candidates' Mics Will Be Muted The Entire TimeOctober 21st, 2020  U.S.—In an attempt to improve viewers' experience at the next debate, both candidates' mics will be muted the entire time. [...] Based on popular demand, the moderator's mic will also be muted. Both campaigns say they are in favor of the change, as it eliminates the chance their candidate will say something stupid.
Added much later. But luckily without any apparent anachronism!
|
|
|
|
The Privacy Culture ManifestoThese are your Nullian privacy mantras: 0.Need-to-know. —Or else, I don’t want to know! That is the sincere attitude of someone whom you can trust to respect your privacy; and it is the most basic indicium of one who may be trustworthy to keep your confidences, necessary but insufficient. 1.If I don’t have a valid reason to know, then it is none of my business.2.“Don’t-Know-Your-Customer” would be the policy of a bank that you can trust— maybe. Numbered accounts are good. Cryptographically secure transactional unlinkability is better. 3.Nosiness, prying, gossip— these are our enemies! 4.To pry into somebody’s private business and personal details is suspicious behaviour. It is ipso facto untrustworthy.5.“Know Your Customer” is the policy of your owner. 6.A society cannot have privacy in its laws and customs, unless it has a privacy culture. For laws are a human product. If the people of a society do not respect each others’ privacy in their mundane interactions, then the society’s government will inevitably converge on a mass-surveillance tyranny. Ultimately, to reject privacy culture is to embrace life in a panopticon. 7.To spy on the personal information of others or to invade somebody’s private affairs is, in different degree, an act like shooting somebody. It is sometimes justifiable. Sometimes. Doxing is an act of virtual violence—never to be done for mere entertainment, or from idle curiosity. Furthermore, violations of privacy can lead to real-world violence. —Before you seek somebody’s personal information, ask yourself why that person deserves it, and whether your actions are proportionate.
The foregoing list will be amended, revised, and expanded. Busy now. Meditate on these mantras to reach privacy enlightenment. He that writeth in blood and proverbs doth not want to be read, but learnt by heart.
Local rules: Moderated at my sound discretion.
|
|
|
|
Lauda could have accomplished a much more private departure by simply departing. Drop a message down the old Batline from the Cat cave to theymos and privately had their account locked.
LOL so much this. Lauda wanted one last drama so Lauda did one last drama. Trying to paint as some genius satoshi-like departure only to be forever worshiped in the memorial thread is ludicrous. It is obvious that both you and Steamtyme have personal grudges against Lauda. If you disliked her, you are really going to hate me. suchmoon, remember when I remarked to you (at the time, in a quite friendly discussion) that I was a “more extreme version of Lauda”?
People have the right to privacy, but there is no reason why a person must have privacy if they choose to not guard their privacy. Many people decide they want to share details about themselves, including personal experiences for social interaction and other reasons. It is very normal to do this.
Similar to privacy, people can talk about, including ask about, anything they want. If you have something you want to keep private, some people may look for clues about this private information, and some people may inquire about this private information. If you want this information to remain private, you should not leave any clues, and you should share this information with those you are sure you can trust not to further share it.
If you are posting about where you went one summer, or other personally-identifying information, you should expect people to know about it, even if you try to delete it from the internet. You should expect anything you post online to remain forever.
I think that PrimeNumber7 seeks earnest discussion—not about the forum drama, but about the principles that I raised in a classic nullius post. Rather than specifically replying, I stepped back for a big-picture view and created, in the abstract, my Privacy Culture Manifesto—or at least, the beginnings of one. Discussion of Lauda is generally off-topic in that thread, except insofar as (0) she herself was an exemplary paragon of cultural privacy virtue, and (1) her privacy should be respected. PN7, I said earlier that I thought you misinterpreted my post. I think that from my Privacy Culture Manifesto, you will at least partly see why. [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] |
|
|
|
I will however not allow you to use me to derail an individuals thread.
That is dishonest of you. zasad@, the OP in that thread, made posts thereby addressed to me. I replied to him. You also replied to him; and I replied to you as part of my reply to him. (And by the way, you are in no position to “allow” or “not allow” me.) “Derail”? If so, zasad@ derailed his own thread. Which, by the way, has been described as a spam megathread by persons who are not me. Oh, at that: Then gets upset when someone suggest getting [Lauda’s thread] locked, possibly preventing it from becoming a spam megathread. Pretty sure Lauda hated spam as well.
n00b protip: A spam megathread is a thread where sigspamming bounty chasers make insubstantive posts to bump their post counts. That is what you are calling a thread where (mostly) sincere well-wishers are having what has been an almost wholly positive discussion about a well-loved person who is now gone. Are you deliberately trying to be insulting toward Lauda? I do not see how it could be otherwise.
I am busy right now. Almost everything that you said is nonsense. I may reply to it if/when time permits. From the foregoing, it is clear that your creation of this thread is rather pointless. Why not continue discussing this where zasad@ started the discussion? Oh, ma Gawd...Another Nullius thread - Steamtyme hates your privacy So why did you create one?
I think that you wholly misconstrued the nature of my concern. Please take another look. |
|
|
|
Proust, no? Search for 'wet fish'. It’s impressive that you obviously knew that without consulting the link. ;-)
Like why the fuck am I even in this goddamn thread?  Truly, why!? The only reason why I am still here is that some interesting people showed up. ;-) |
|
|
|
Upon information and belief, you have been asking around about the reason why Lauda left the forum, and/or otherwise seeking information about her beyond what she chose to make public. Is that correct? No! Can I see a post where I was interested in information about this user? Can I see where in my post I suggested that you did it in a public post? To be clear, does your “no” apply only to public posts? I asked you a straight question. Straight answers would be appreciated. Thanks. Did I understand you correctly that if someone asks me about Lauda, then I should tell the person to write to you? No. If anybody is seeking nonpublic confidential information about Lauda, or the so-called “secret” of why she left, etc., then I reasonably want to know about that. (Neither I, nor anybody else here actually has such information; and anybody who claims to is lying. But that is not the point.) Lauda wanted her privacy. She is not here to address any issues with people prying around into whatever she deemed to be none of your business. I am here, she was my friend, and I will act on her behalf accordingly. I have no doubt that if our positions were reversed, she would do the same for me. For confidential tips, my PGP key is linked in my signature.
In Defence of PrivacyWhat else do I need to do to make sure you don't think badly of me?
Nothing. You are doing nothing wrong. Any negative feedback you receive would get sorted in a very similar fashion to the last instance. Don't worry about what people think, and definitely don't go changing just because someone on the internet thinks you could possibly be infringing on someone's privacy by offering them the chance to answer questions. It's not like you are forcing people into this or combing through post histories to create a profile for individuals against their will.
My advice ignore this feedback. Even the threat of negative doesn't fit with what negative feedback is for. Should you chose to take an unhealthy obsession in Lauda and dedicate your days to trying to find out who they are, it's not against forum rules to seek out information. Are we tagging anyone who researches Satoshi? No. The worst thing you can do, is change who you are and how you act in an attempt to please everyone. In sum, not only do you not respect privacy, but you are even against anyone who does. This is a cypherpunk forum, where the reasonable members value freedom and respect privacy. It was Lauda’s ethos. It is also one of my own strongest principles. Although unfortunately, there can be reasons sometimes to seek information about people who did something to deserve that, I would never pry into forum members’ personal lives out of mere curiosity. By your example: If Satoshi’s friends expressed a concern for his privacy, then you should respect that, and back the fuck off! Speculating about Satoshi based on public information is not analogous to my above question. If somebody was fishing for The Real True Secret Story from people who were more or less close to Satoshi, then that would be a matter of grave concern to me. Satoshi does NOT deserve that! I didn’t pry into Lauda’s details, either—even though she was my friend, and she trusted me sufficiently that she probably would have leaked some info to me. I didn’t ask—not seriously, never; and not at all, besides our long-running joke interrogation over whether she is male or female. And that is one good reason why she trusted me. On the flipside, I would have given her my full dox with KYC ID, selfies, and fingerprints if she had asked! She never asked anything. Never pried. Not a curious cat, in that particular aspect. “Superlatively trustworthy.”Disrespect for privacy is untrustworthy—both in general, and most specifically on a forum where most of the members want to be more or less anonymous. Really, Mr “Steamtyme”, do you want people digging around about you? Do you want for people to “offer the chance to answer questions” (!) about you? What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. I am a privacy activist, and I hold my principles consistently. As for you, if you dislike respect for privacy, I suggest that you stop bugging the forum, and retreat to your true home on Facebook. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
