Please explain in detail what is wrong with the picture I posted.
The picture (which originated on 4chan) is in response to the recent coverage of the mass shootings in America and the response from the main stream media which is basically "America has a serious problem with people walking into crowded areas and shooting as many strangers as possible, as fast as possible. More often than not these are white males. And the one that happened in Texas was probably influenced by Trumps rhetoric. America has a problem with white supremacy, and the Texas shooting is evidence of that." While all gun violence is bad, it's not all the same. A shootout on the streets over a grudge or gang issues is not the same as walking down a crowded street and shooting 37 people in 30 seconds. This picture lumps them all together, showing only the color of their skin without any other information.It's clear the intent is to pass the message that "black people are worse than white people" when it comes to gun violence, which is exactly why the former grand wizard of the KKK quickly posted it on his website and had an entire podcast devoted to the subject. Thanks for exposing yourself as a racist and a hypocrite. The picture is just reality. Your prejudicial projections upon it are not my responsibility, they are yours and yours alone. People like you LOVE trying to make it seem like only white people are shooters and it is some how worse than when black people do it, and anyone who shows a picture of reality is racist. Take your weak ass guilt via association argument and shove it you fucking bigot. Progressives are more racist than any KKK member, they just think their virtue signalling makes up for it. |
|
|
|
You know who else liked memes?
HITLER
I REST MY CASE! He would def love the one you posted. Please explain in detail what is wrong with the picture I posted. |
|
|
|
LOL. The stock market will drop 80% if this moron gets elected.
Capital will flee to Asia. USD will collapse. Gold will be re-priced, north of 3K. US military complex will be undermined which will lead to major changes to the world's political map.
China, Russia will exert their might, annex few countries, control Africa and the Middle East. South America will turn socialist and follow in the footsteps of Venezuela.
You better hope Bernie is not elected. His election would lead to structural economic and political changes that will not be easy to reverse.
People were saying the exact same things about Trump - maybe even worse - and what actually happened? Nothing. Nothing happened. There's a lot of butt hurt people walking around moaning about how awful he is but really nothing has changed. The presidency is more of a figurehead position. The tide will likely turn against Trump in 2020, but will the machinations of the government actually change, regardless of who replaces him? Slightly, at best. This is without a doubt true, and for a person to say this they're fear mongering. We have to be honest about the true power of the presidency, and the fact that they don't have almighty power to do as they please all they want for whatever reason they want. The President is tamed by their advisers, congress, and the courts -- they're unable to just do whatever they want just because that's what makes them happy. Also -- no one fucking knows what the market is going to do at any given moment. But we're sure it can go up, down, or stay the same. Simple. Except when people said this about Trump is was 100% hysteria, as it always has been, and continues to be. Not based on policy positions, but based on people's emotional reactions to him. It is quite arguable that Bernie Sander's policy positions could very easily destroy the economy of the USA. Free healthcare for example, just one of his policy positions could absorb the entirety of all tax collections and then some. Then he has positions such as raising the minimum wage, which again demonstrate complete ignorance of economics and have an overall destructive effect to the economy because it results in employers cutting hours and firing people to make up the difference if not just outright shutting down. There are so many examples of his insane inability to comprehend even basic economic principles. |
|
|
|
Cloudflare is not an illegal monopoly. You're not a court -- you don't make these decisions. Here's what the current CEO of Cloudflare had to say about their decision: First, we are a private company and not bound by the First Amendment. Second, the vast majority of our customers, and more than 50% of our revenue, comes from outside the United States where the First Amendment and similarly libertarian freedom of speech protections do not apply. The only relevance of the First Amendment in this case and others is that it allows us to choose who we do and do not do business with; it does not obligate us to do business with everyone. You can fantasize away that the government forced their hand here, but you are without any sort of evidence. Calling attention to a problem is not equivalent to calling it inevitable or unsolvable. Just like the problem of the U.S. being on the brink of a civil war, right?  Also just because you are too dense to realize this effects all of us doesn't mean it doesn't effect me. You are calling me out for using ad hominems and then engaging in the in the same thing yourself. Cloudflare's decision to discontinue hosting 8chan doesn't effect your freedom. It clearly effects your mental state, but none of your freedoms have been revoked or are at risk. You can visit 8chan today if you want, so what the hell are you bitching about? Your whole argument is a big pile of nothing. You just claiming it hasn't happened and won't happen is not an argument. Its a statement of fact. No one in the U.S. is being denied food or water because of their beliefs. And I guess things will stay that way so long as keyboard warriors hero citizens such as yourself are putting up the good fight right? The shootings in New Zealand as well as in the USA are being used as pretext to condition the general public to the idea of giving up freedom for the promise of security. This is a fools bargain and is a lie. Giving up freedom for the promise of security will result in having neither. Conspiratard bullshit. Nobody's freedoms are being alienated here, and if people think that they are, I say fuck 'em, they're part of the problem. 9/11 was a much bigger pretext than all of the mass shootings put together. You're welcome to continue believing what you will, just don't expect others to. Just because they haven't been prosecuted doesn't make it not a monopoly. The fact is Cloudflare meets all the requisite terms for a monopoly. I don't have to be a court to observe facts. Furthermore the CEO is talking about revenue, not market share. These are very different things. 9/11 is the perfect example of using fear to strip rights. 9/11 was the perfect excuse to create massive uncontrolled surveillance programs, strip habeas corpus, posse comitatus, and train people to subject themselves to the regular submission of their rights in the name of security. There was more American freedom taken away under The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act than any terrorist could ever take. I find it amazing you are aware of this concept yet some how find it valid to argue it has not continued to escalate along this same path of stripping freedom for promises of security. I don't see any ad hominems directed at you, and even if they were there the difference is mine are surrounded by logical arguments, while yours consist only of personal attacks and are devoid of any other substance. I have arguments, you have only denial and name calling. Politicians are openly talking about abridging free speech and removing second amendment rights, and people such as yourself cheer because people always feel more comfortable thinking it is not for them, but only for "the bad guys". It is for everyone, including you, and just because you have chosen to pluck your own eyes out doesn't change this. "I AM THE MAJORITY!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIwf3d7hP9g"Joe Biden on whether his admin is 'going to come' for people's guns: 'Bingo'" http://www.stationgossip.com/2019/08/joe-biden-on-whether-his-admin-is-going.htmlThe rhetoric of stripping the rights of free speech and self defense are right out in the open among many of the mainstream candidates and press. Regardless of how many examples I present, you push your head even further up your ass and cry "NONONONONONO", because you are too weak too look at the painful reality of the situation and instead choose the comfortable lies, the promises these people give that it is only for the bad ones. BULLSHIT. They are coming for YOU and YOURS. This is always how it starts, and bloodshed is always how it ends. How about we just skip the part in the middle and the end and just preserve the rights? Cloudflare has a right to do what they want with their property, but it's concerning all the same.
The Internet is, unfortunately, not a magic cloud where things can live on their own. It's service providers all the way down:
- Terrorists post on 8/pol/. These people are bad.
- The 8/pol/ board owner may or may not want the terrorists posting there. If not, then he's an innocent third-party, but he's blamed. (In one of the previous shootings, I read that the 8/pol/ moderators removed the shooter's posts and reported it to the police within minutes.)
- 8/pol/ lives on 8chan, a huge collection of boards, many of them completely unrelated to politics. 8chan's boards are similar to Reddit's subreddits, with independent board owners. But 8chan as a whole is blamed for the terrorists.
- 8chan uses several service providers directly: hosting, domain registration, etc. These are blamed for the terrorists.
- Because the Internet is fundamentally flawed, every site needs DDoS protection, and Cloudflare offers by far the best value in that area. (I think that they're probably subsidized by the NSA in order to act as a honeypot, but perhaps they're just really effective.) You could use a different service or roll your own, but this would cost several thousand $/month more to get equivalent service, and in any case you're introducing more service providers who will be blamed for the terrorists.
- The hosting companies have their own ISPs, who have their own ISPs, etc., who could all be blamed for the terrorists. At the top, you have the backbone providers who mutually rely on each other and could blame each other for terrorists on their network.
For freedom to exist, at some point service providers have to have the courage to say, "Those people using my services through n degrees of separation are evil, but trying to stop them would harm freedom more than help it, so I'm not going to do so." By dropping a site with very few real issues, based on uninformed public outcry, Cloudflare failed here. The government should stay out of it, but it creates an argument for Cloudflare being unreliable & anti-freedom. (They also opened up a huge can of worms, since now they'll get complaints about basically every site they host.)
The whole situation also exposes the serious flaws of the Internet, which may someday destroy it: firstly, the fact that DDoS protection is needed at all; and secondly, the existence of this endless chain of services that you need to trust not to take you down.
In general I tend to agree with your libertarian stance. The problem is any ideology in its absolutist form is flawed, because any ideology can be subverted and abused to create the opposite of the intended effect. Drinking lots of water is good, but if they pass a law that you must be force fed gallons of water every day when you wake up, guess what, you are going to die. Any organization or ideology can be subverted, as a result decisions need to be made on the RESULTS of actions, not just on an ideological basis. That said, monopoly anti-trust laws exist for good reason, and have been a part of this country's legal process for a very long time. In fact when this nation was created corporations were very tightly controlled entities that at any moment could be crushed by revoking their charter the moment they did not serve the public good. Cloudflare DOES NOT have the right to occupy the position of a monopoly and thus deny people access to the infrastructure required to be a part of the modern world. You yourself admitted alternatives are not exactly available. Furthermore by the vary nature of this technology it can only exist at scale and as a result competition is limited and ineffectual in comparison. If this trend continues no one will be able to do simple things like use transportation, use electronic payment systems, communication systems, or any of the other basic necessities that are a requirement of survival in modern life, and I think you know this. |
|
|
|
It is fair to say? What the fuck are you talking about? What is all of this?
Fair to say was in reference to Antifa not commiting any major terrorist activity on US soil, this is more in reference to saying that they haven't shot at Americans, nor have they used suicide bombers, and so on and so forth. That's not me saying that their conduct is okay. But it'd be unfair to compare them to a group like ISIS or something along those lines if you understand what I mean. I don't get it. The "MAGA bomber" guy no one has any trouble calling a terrorist, and frankly I agree, even if no one was hurt putting it on a different level. However it is a fact ANTIFA members have shot and killed people, attempted to kill people via shootings, and made other attacks using explosives, knives, firearms, and blunt objects. No they are not quite ISIS, but they still absolutely fall under the federal legal definition of terrorism. I don't see that scale of harm and regular violence from so called right wing groups. People love to claim it but they seem to have trouble sourcing their claims. Sourcing these claims in regard to violence perpetrated by ANTIFA is not hard at all to find since it has been happening in the USA regularly since 2016 at least, and that is just ONE leftist group. |
|
|
|
False flag operations by right-wing shills, as well as fake videos and fake news sites  As opposed to these far right wing radicals literally committing mass murders which are documented heavily. But you know that, being a state agent, don't you Mr. Techshare, the spam-a-lot king While yes, it's fair to say that people in Antifa aren't going out and shooting people up, or blowing people up, or any other sort of murderous terrorist activities. But I would still call attacking people terrorist activities without a doubt. I don't think it's fair to say that far right wing extremism is the reason behind terrorism without saying that there are people on both sides that commit these atrocious acts. I don't think there's a particular political group that wants these things to happen -- these are loonies in every portion of the political spectrum doing these things. Once we say that the left or the right is the only group behind these activities, all we're doing is further dividing ourselves. It is fair to say? What the fuck are you talking about? What is all of this? Also the Gilroy Garlic festival shooter was openly involved with ANTIFA. Of course they still call it "right wing" anyway. I agree this is 100% a divide and conquer strategy, but pretending as if the violence on "both sides" is the same is a false equivalency. The left is far more regularly violent and advocating openly for violence as the media runs defense for them while simultaneously taking every act of violence and claiming it to be the act of right wing nazis radicalized by the internet, so we need to take the guns and speech. |
|
|
|
You know who else liked memes?
HITLER
I REST MY CASE! |
|
|
|
|
Just because you are allowed to do it doesn't mean it does not reflect poorly on you. Thanks everyone for helping me draw more attention to these issues. Much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
So your point is all of these companies have the right to form effective monopolies, then deny anyone they don't like services?
No, I never said any of that. Obviously what Cloudflare does isn't a monopoly. How long do you think it will be before sites like Bitcointalk are denied these services?
Never, because this isn't the breeding grounds of manifesto-writing mass murderers. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/founder-8chan-wishes-he-could-uncreate-forum-popular-white-supremacists-n1039496“There is no way I can go back and uncreate 8chan,” Brennan, 25, told NBC News on Tuesday from his home in the Philippines. “If I could, I would, but there is no way to do that. So the main way I have dealt with the guilt is to go on the offensive.” Ask Theymos how things would run around here without access to Cloudflare. It is not at all hyperbole. Just because it is happening indirectly doesn't mean it isn't happening.
It is hyperbole until it happens, or comes close to happening. What's happening is you like getting worked up over conspiracies that don't effect you in any way, shape, or form. We're on the brink of civil war according to you, so its hard to take anything you have to say very seriously. For you to pretend that censorship is not brought on by government and corporate pressure is absolutely asinine and intentionally ignorant. It is not even up for debate. Just because they haven't crushed everyone on every outlet yet does not mean they aren't denying access to tons of basic services which are in effect monopolies.
Provide some evidence. Just a shred. Its not up for debate with you because you can't present a rational debate. You live in the richest, free-est country in the world, and all you do is bitch about how unfair everything is and how America is on the brink of ruin. Get a grip. Regarding Verizon, you are incorrect. They do not have that right, as they are regulated as a utility, as such they do not have the legal authority to deny people service based on their speech (short of it violating law).
OK, well I can't find any specific law that backs this statement, but I will give the benefit of the doubt here because it actually makes sense at face value. Again, this is 100% a valid point as this trend has been and will continue, and by your metric its perfectly ok to deny basic goods and services to people based only upon their speech. This is the INEVITABLE result of your logic.
There is a giant difference between being denied food and water and being denied DDoS protection services. Only in a place as spoiled and entitled as America would people get this confused. You just pretending it will never go that far is not a valid retort.
Its more valid than pretending that it will, because so far, you're wrong, and I'm right. It hasn't happened. When people are denied food and water based on the content of their speech, I will admit I was wrong. Until then, you're wrong. All this is, is the American version of the Chinese social credit system. Soon people who say the wrong things will not be able to leave the country, use public transport, open a bank account, have a phone, or any of the basic necessities in a modern life. Don't worry though, you called me paranoid, so everything will be fine.
Hasn't happened. Won't happen. Yes, you are paranoid. Where do you think is a better place to live in the world? I am genuinely curious. Which nation do you think does a better job of protecting your freedoms? Except by every metric it does. Lets look at Cloudflare's market share. https://www.statista.com/statistics/985443/worldwide-ddos-bot-protection-market-share/Over 81% of market share. Check. Lets look at the requisites for determining a monopoly according to the FTC. "Market Power Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power. Exclusionary Conduct Judging the conduct of an alleged monopolist requires an in-depth analysis of the market and the means used to achieve or maintain the monopoly. Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns. Exclusionary or predatory acts may include such things as exclusive supply or purchase agreements; tying; predatory pricing; or refusal to deal. These topics are discussed in separate Fact Sheets for Single Firm Conduct." https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-definedExclusionary acts. Check. Cloudflare is very arguably an illegal monopoly. Furthermore almost no one can handle the amount of traffic that Cloudflare can, putting them in a unique position that other competitors can not functionally replace. A "breeding grounds of manifesto-writing mass murderers" according to what factual information? Oh you mean the former owner. I am sure there is no bias there. No need to actually prove the claims either, just make them and they become fact by virtue of media magic. They say it, and you repeat it as fact. Nothing at all subjective about this. Nope. 8chan creates mass murdering Nazis. End of story! They certainly aren't created by other factors and happen to congregate in places where speech is not restricted. Everyone knows (unproven) correlation always equals causation! It's science! Your denial does not count as a valid logical retort, neither does your accusations of "getting worked up over conspiracies that don't effect you in any way". That has nothing to do with the argument and is simply an ad hominem attack. Also just because you are too dense to realize this effects all of us doesn't mean it doesn't effect me. If one person loses their rights, it is only a matter of time before we all do, because that is how law works. Via precedent. Coincidentally this is also the same process that allows willfully ignorant ostriches such as you to acclimate to their new found servitude, via incrementalism. If you were only walking towards your own enslavement I wouldn't mind, but you and people like you are dragging us all along for the ride the whole time never once questioning if you could be wrong. No problem. It is not up for debate because anyone who cares to make any effort to look will see it everywhere. Here are a few sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Stateshttps://harvardlawreview.org/2014/06/the-brave-new-world-of-social-media-censorship/https://www.cjr.org/analysis/censorship_in_the_social_media_age.phphttps://www.eff.org/es/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-internethttps://www.rt.com/news/436058-censorship-left-right-facebook-google/You are right, this is a great country, and I want to protect the laws and culture that keep it great. The statement that "all you do is bitch about how unfair everything is and how America is on the brink of ruin" is completely projection on your part. Calling attention to a problem is not equivalent to calling it inevitable or unsolvable. Unfortunately ostriches such as yourself make it much more likely because by the time the slower folks realize what happened it will be far too late to change it without considerable costs and suffering. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/report-verizon-fios-gets-perks-from-government-while-avoiding-regulations/What is the difference? Tell me. How do you buy food without a bank account or credit card? How do you pay for a place to live? Pay for utilities? People are already being stripped of their bank accounts for their speech currently. What exactly prevents this trend from continuing and expanding? Once again your argument consists entirely of an ad hominem attack. "Its more valid than pretending that it will, because so far, you're wrong, and I'm right." Well shit, since you declare you are right and I am wrong, that is all the logical argument needed! The problem with your logic is by the time you pull your head out of your ass it will be far too late to do anything about it and cost individuals far too much to resist, so they won't. We still have a window of opportunity to expose and resist this trend, but that is closing fast. Again, your argument consists of nothing but ad hominem attacks. There doesn't have to be a place with better protections for my arguments to be valid. You just claiming it hasn't happened and won't happen is not an argument. That is called denial. Denial with zero substantiation. The shootings in New Zealand as well as in the USA are being used as pretext to condition the general public to the idea of giving up freedom for the promise of security. This is a fools bargain and is a lie. Giving up freedom for the promise of security will result in having neither. |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O-iLk1G_ng Joe Rogan Experience #1330 - Bernie Sanders Probably Ron Paul first, but this guy seems alright to. They both need to be like WE ARE ENDING THE FED FOR REAL! and they both will get in instant LOL! Literally all you have to do, I think you will even beat the guy going I`ll give you $1000 for free! Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders, since you only get 45 seconds in the debate here is your line to get in for sure. "I AM GIVING EVERYONE $2000 AND WE ARE ENDING THE FED 100% FOR REAL THIS TIME AND IT IS GOING TO BE RUN BY A DECENTRALIZED MACHINE THAT ALL OF YOU RUN, I LOVE TACOS AND I LOVE CHICKEN, I LOVE YOU ALL, LETS MAKE AMERICA AMERICA AGAIN AND NOT RANDOM BANKER LAND!" you are welcome. I know Bernie's career for many years and I consider him one of the best politicians in the world. unfortunately, the bankster FUD against him is very, very strong. Bankers love Socialists and Communists because profits can be privatized and losses collectivized. Bankers literally created Communism as a mechanism of controlled opposition to strip the material wealth created by capitalism so the cycle could be reset and repeated. |
|
|
|
We should put guns on the blockchain. Is there a company that is doing that?
Please explain to me how this would do anything to stop gun crime in any way. While you are at it please explain to me how this list will not be used as a list of people who need to be rounded up during a gun confiscation. Just slapping the blockchain on things doesn't fix problems. |
|
|
|
I mean fuck him Ron Paul is 9000x better, but he is better than Trump. He is just another puppet for the FED this Bernie guy.
Yo when are the governments going to like take back the money supply for the private sector? dah fuck is dat.
I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. Unfortunately he is not an option any longer. You know what The Federal Reserve likes most of all? Uncontrolled government spending via entitlements, because they can charge interest on every dollar of debt. Guess who loves uncontrolled spending via entitlements. That's Right, Bernie Sandbag. |
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/2O-iLk1G_ng?t=2250 here is a timestamp where they talk about gun contorl. So Bernie the solution is pretty simple, you need to auth via KYC your fingerprint in order for the gun to shoot. No it does not need to be set up to a central server so the "government can turn everyone's guns off at once" I think I know how I could make all guns exactly the same, other than the fact that they will need to scan their fingerprint in order for it to shoot, and that fingerprint would have to be properly registered. This is fucking retarded for more reasons than I can count. This is just a gun ban by another name. how is it a gun ban, you literally keep your guns, you just need to register them properly, via KYC LIKE YOU ALREADY DO, BUT NOW WE USE THE KYC ID ON THE GUN SO IT WILL ONLY SHOOT IF YOU THE REGISTER OWNER ARE USING THE GUN! IT IS FUCKING BRILLIANT SUCK MY BALLS TRUMP LOVING CUNT! It is like a stat track identifier for proof of owner, all can be done with blockchain. Actually you don`t even need to use peoples fingerprints, just something like a credit card pass that turned the gun on because you have the key for the gun now. Do you just believe everything everyone tells you because you like the way it sounds? What about technical malfunctions? What if your hands are dirty or covered in your own blood? What if a family member needs to use it? What about the exceptionally higher cost? So now poor people don't get to protect themselves? So called "smart guns" have been exposed as a horrible idea for some time now. Additionally your "KYC" would operate as a convenient registry of people to round up in a gun confiscation or to rob. Do I need to go on or are you still convinced your savior Bernie Sandbag has any clue what he is talking about? |
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/2O-iLk1G_ng?t=2250 here is a timestamp where they talk about gun contorl. So Bernie the solution is pretty simple, you need to auth via KYC your fingerprint in order for the gun to shoot. No it does not need to be set up to a central server so the "government can turn everyone's guns off at once" I think I know how I could make all guns exactly the same, other than the fact that they will need to scan their fingerprint in order for it to shoot, and that fingerprint would have to be properly registered. This is fucking retarded for more reasons than I can count. It is almost as retarded as the gun that can't fire until it detects gunshots. This is just a gun ban by another name. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
