For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Listen man, I don't owe you any evidence. I have my own shit to do with my time.

But I gave you a falsifiable theory. You have a million ways to test it.

gib wrote:Yes, but I considered Canadian style socialism to be relatively centered.

You do understand that "leftism" is just another term for "socialism?"

gib wrote: I realize that universities today are infested with wokists and extreme leftists, and I suppose that's what you're getting at--the mostly leftist consumer base for all these social media companies (which is a theory I mentioned above)-

Not just today.

gib wrote:-but this begs the question in a sense: how did the universities get so infested?

This is a different question and a different subject, with no bearing on whether it is true or not.

gib wrote:And I guess: has it taken on a life of its own, or are there agents purposefully orchestrating it all?

It just makes people amenable to certain ideas, not everything has to be a conspiracy in a smoky room for fuck's sake.

gib wrote:So you're telling me Facebook doesn't make a profit?

Alright gib, this is my last stab at explaining this position. You either get it and profit or not, or you don't get it and we each move on with our lives.

For a business, the only way to make money from another business is to go into business. To make money from government, you don't need to go into business with them at all. They can force an entire country's population to do their bidding, which bidding might be beneficial or detrimental to your business.

Rocket science it is not, correct?

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

When you do a full stop before every one of the obscene amount of stop signs in your Canadian city, does the government send you a check or do you do it because you know those bastard police are hiding everywhere and will fuck your life up?

It doesn't matter if you are "pro stop signs" or not, the answer is the same.

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Gib,

I realize now that I slightly misinterpreted what you asked about facebook, though what I wrote essentially stands. For info about facebook's revenue, short middle and long term projections, growth v profit strategy, etc, you will have to do some in-depth research. I won't be able to answer any questions simply, succinctly, or with straight-forward links. My contention is that, if you do, the things I say will bear out.

As to the issue of universities, my answer is more or less the same. I think it is obvious that, whatever the reason, they do are leftist strongholds, and produce overwhelmingly leftist graduates. For an in-depth understanding, my suggestion would be to read some Andrew Breitbart. He is much caricaturized, but astoundingly smarter than most people would believe. Youtube videos with him himself talking would be a good intro. In the mean time, I can give you a very standard Republican answer, which is that universities are institutions that, as constituted now and for a fairly long time already, depend on government both for protective regulation and straight-up funding. This will in itself give it by default a socialist bias. Thomas Sowell would call it institutional interests.

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Listen man, I don't owe you any evidence. I have my own shit to do with my time.

MEEEOOOWWW!!! Somebody's dog shat in their shoe this morning.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:But I gave you a falsifiable theory. You have a million ways to test it.

That's all I wanted to know. I realize whenever someone asks for evidence, they're usually trying to call you out on having none, but with me it was an honest question. You gave me a great new perspective on how to look at the corruption in Big Tech, and it's a far more preferable perspective than the Dems and Big Tech making shady deals in the back room; I just didn't know how to take it 'cause you didn't preface it with where it was coming from. But now I know. Thanks!

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
gib wrote:Yes, but I considered Canadian style socialism to be relatively centered.

You do understand that "leftism" is just another term for "socialism?"

NOW I do.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
gib wrote:-but this begs the question in a sense: how did the universities get so infested?

This is a different question and a different subject, with no bearing on whether it is true or not.

Fair enough.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
gib wrote:And I guess: has it taken on a life of its own, or are there agents purposefully orchestrating it all?

It just makes people amenable to certain ideas, not everything has to be a conspiracy in a smoky room for fuck's sake.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
gib wrote:So you're telling me Facebook doesn't make a profit?

Alright gib, this is my last stab at explaining this position. My, aren't you a paragon of clarity. You either get it and profit or not, or you don't get it and we each move on with our lives.

Cool with me.

For a business, the only way to make money from another business is to go into business. Even with the strike through this is true. To make money from government, you don't need to go into business with them at all. They can force an entire country's population to do their bidding, which bidding might be beneficial or detrimental to your business.

Rocket science it is not, correct?

I'm sure it would be (not rocket science) if you weren't so cryptic. I mean, what does this even mean: "They can force an entire country's population to do their bidding, which bidding might be beneficial or detrimental to your business."? One minute you're saying Facebook doesn't do business with the government, and now you're saying they do.

I don't know how Facebook makes it's money. I'd assume it's the same way any other free service makes money: renting out space for advertisers. What bidding specifically do you think government is forcing the population to do? And how does it profit Facebook?

I mean, I can guess: Democrats are convincing people they need Facebook, which draws more people to sign up on Facebook, which draws more advertisers, which draws more money. And in turn, Facebook (over-)cooperates with their regulations. Only problem is, I haven't seen the first part happening anywhere. I see government convincing people to take on left leaning values and beliefs, but why that should result in people flocking to social media platforms, I don't get. But that's what you get when you force a person to guess.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:When you do a full stop before every one of the obscene amount of stop signs in your Canadian city, does the government send you a check or do you do it because you know those bastard police are hiding everywhere and will fuck your life up?

I get it. Government carries a big stick. They're being nazis to social media companies.

If you'd left it at that, I wouldn't be so confused. But then you had to add this thing about Facebook not making a profit and I was confused again. But yeah, big stick, not rocket science.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:I realize now that I slightly misinterpreted what you asked about facebook, though what I wrote essentially stands. For info about facebook's revenue, short middle and long term projections, growth v profit strategy, etc, you will have to do some in-depth research. I won't be able to answer any questions simply, succinctly, or with straight-forward links. My contention is that, if you do, the things I say will bear out.

And that's perfectly fair. I'm not trying to fight you on this.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:As to the issue of universities, my answer is more or less the same. I think it is obvious that, whatever the reason, they do are leftist strongholds, and produce overwhelmingly leftist graduates. For an in-depth understanding, my suggestion would be to read some Andrew Breitbart. He is much caricaturized, but astoundingly smarter than most people would believe. Youtube videos with him himself talking would be a good intro. In the mean time, I can give you a very standard Republican answer, which is that universities are institutions that, as constituted now and for a fairly long time already, depend on government both for protective regulation and straight-up funding. This will in itself give it by default a socialist bias. Thomas Sowell would call it institutional interests.

You see? That's a great answer! And thanks for the reference to Andrew Breitbart.

Oh, and I just had another guess: Facebook can't get enough revenue from advertiser, so government steps in and says, "We'll be your client. Advertise for us!" (which just means spread our propaganda from your advertising space.) <-- And that's how they get the population to do their bidding. Brainwash them through Facebook. Huh? Huh?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."

"With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

gib wrote:I don't know how Facebook makes it's money.

2. They sell user information to governments, advertisers, and the highest bidder...technically they 'lease' the information, which is illegal.

3. They receive government grants and subsidies, from the Democrat party, to restrict information and push certain agendas, which is also illegal.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend

Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

gib wrote:
MEEEOOOWWW!!! Somebody's dog shat in their shoe this morning.

Yeah ok you got me, the first post was possibly written under the influence of unrelated annoyance.

gib wrote:You gave me a great new perspective on how to look at the corruption in Big Tech,

It's not corruption. Look. If you demand that the government control business and keep an eye on its "corruption," it will do that. If the people in government most interested and empowered to do that are commies (by definition they will be), then it will be regulation with a commie bias. So if the government controls what business do through regulation, they are simply doing what you asked them to, not being corrupt, whatever the hell that means.

This applies to the truckers because, if you do the same regarding public health or whatever, the individual well-being of citizens, then you are asking them to take cards on the behavior of citizens. If they decide that truckers are terrorists for getting in the way of doing what you asked them to do, that is a prerrogative you gave them.

gib wrote:NOW I do.

Didn't mean to be a cunt.

gib wrote:If you'd left it at that, I wouldn't be so confused. But then you had to add this thing about Facebook not making a profit and I was confused again.

The point is that there are many reasons, as is usually the case, for facebook to align with government on a line of policy. Facebook not having a clear path to a profitable future is one.

-

You seem to be fighting tooth and nail the concept that governments can direct the behavior of businessess without going into business with them. Regardless of the specifics of this situation, I would like to establish and for us both to agree that government is in a position to do that via regulation, with no need to go into business with anybody.

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Facebook's main source of revenue is investments and loans that use future growth as collateral. In other words, it's half a pyramid scheme.

Half in the sense that it depends solely on the idea that people will put more and more money into it without it producing actual profit itself (at least not enough to cover all the investors), but on the other hand the idea that once it has grown enough it will find a way to make money is not impossible.

So it's not a pyramid scheme in the sense that it's not by definition impossible for it to one day make a profit, and nothing is being hidden from investors, people know what they are buying.

gib wrote:Oh, and I just had another guess: Facebook can't get enough revenue from advertiser, so government steps in and says, "We'll be your client. Advertise for us!" (which just means spread our propaganda from your advertising space.) <-- And that's how they get the population to do their bidding. Brainwash them through Facebook. Huh? Huh?

Look, on the one hand, yes, it's possible. But on the other, maybe they wouldn't need to do that if they could make money from targeted advertising, which they can't now because regulation or threats of it prevent it from #1 harvesting all the data they would need and #2 creating enough communities to target enough consumers (limiting possible targeteable consumers to lefties cripples the enitre scheme).

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

The reason understanding that regulation is more powerful than money deals is so important is that it will enable you to understand how government has entwined itself with far bigger, more important, more influencial businesses:

Oil, Medicine, Finance, Construction, Manufacturing, Airspace.

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

And let's get something out of the way.

Big Tech isn't Big Tech. It is Retail Software.

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

The true mind boggling techonlogy advances are not going on anywhere near Sillicon Valley.

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Yeah ok you got me, the first post was possibly written under the influence of unrelated annoyance.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:It's not corruption. Look. If you demand that the government control business and keep an eye on its "corruption," it will do that. If the people in government most interested and empowered to do that are commies (by definition they will be), then it will be regulation with a commie bias. So if the government controls what business do through regulation, they are simply doing what you asked them to, not being corrupt, whatever the hell that means.

Whatever the hell it means, indeed! And that's kinda the issue. We aren't defining corruption precisely enough. With respect to the political system in Canada, for example, it reacted to the trucker protest according to how it was designed, and no rules were violated. But with respect to those calling the shots from within the system (Trudeau in particular) there is clearly an abuse of power going on. Yes, you can abuse the power given to you by a system that was designed to give you that power. The Emergency Act was never intended to be invoked in response to anything remotely close to the trucker protest (even if they were blocking certain important economic routes), but technically the system allows Trudeau to invoke it so he did.

And then there's lies--lies, lies, lies--politicians lie--let's not kid ourselves. You'd be a fool to think we can trust everything our political leaders tell us.

And finally, there's corruption--yes, actual corruption--no matter how you define it, it will exists to one extent or another. Like the fool who believes that politicians always tell the truth, you're a fool if you believe there is no corruption in politics.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:This applies to the truckers because, if you do the same regarding public health or whatever, the individual well-being of citizens, then you are asking them to take cards on the behavior of citizens. If they decide that truckers are terrorists for getting in the way of doing what you asked them to do, that is a prerrogative you gave them.

Who's "you"? I certainly didn't ask them to do this. The system we have in Canada was designed by our Canadian "forefathers" (we don't really use that term here), so you might say they had a hand in it. Then there's various things we vote on which determine the rules and the ways the system evolves over time, but I certainly didn't vote on every topic that was put to a vote since the inception of our nation. Even with the ones I did vote on, I didn't always get my way. So it depends on who you mean by "you". I know the truckers would have never agreed to the vaccine mandates they were fighting (even before they came down on them).

And further to the point, when the system comes down on you, creating a personal or group crisis, even if it's a consequence of a system you helped to designed or voted for, you're gonna react to it like a crisis. The truckers were faced with this: either vax up (which could seriously harm or kill them) or lose your job (which is your livelihood). Kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place there. When you're in a position like that, you can't just wait for the next voting period to come around. You can't hold a council with government and try to hash out an arrangement that works for everyone. You need to do something now!

Pedro I Rengel wrote:You seem to be fighting tooth and nail the concept that governments can direct the behavior of businessess without going into business with them. Not sure why you have that impression. Regardless of the specifics of this situation, I would like to establish and for us both to agree that government is in a position to do that via regulation, with no need to go into business with anybody.

Sure, I have no qualms entertaining that scenario. I'm not married to the "business" scenario, just didn't have a reason to drop it until you made it clear you were explicitly excluding it in your account.

In fact, I openly asked if that was the right way to interpret you:

Pedro I Rengel wrote:If I can threaten to beat you with a stick until you die, in public, with impunity, why would I need to secretly bribe you? Specially when I have low self-confidence and enjoy lording my stick and using it as often as possible?

gib wrote:So are you saying it's only the regulations that account for Facebook having this seemingly left leaning bias to the extent that they ban and censor people?

Note to Biggy: this is how you trace points in a discuss to their source.

In any case, Pedro, I think what you may be noticing is just the way the brain adjusts to new information. The brain won't change anything in its original understanding of a concept or a subject until it realizes it has to in order to fit with new incoming information (like someone else's understanding). So you kept harping about regulations, but my brain took that as "ok, shady business deals AND regulations, got it." It took a while for my brain to realized it should be taking you as "ok, regulation and NO shady business deals."

Plus you said this:

Pedro I Rengel wrote:You may not like it, but it's the constant carrot and stick of regulation that does this.

Carrot and stick implies reward and punishment (business and regulation) or just reward depending on what the stick is supposed to stand for (someone told me the stick is like a whip you use to get the horse going, but I've always thought it was the stick you dangle the carrot from).

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Look, on the one hand, yes, it's possible. But on the other, maybe they wouldn't need to do that if they could make money from targeted advertising, which they can't now because regulation or threats of it prevent it from #1 harvesting all the data they would need and #2 creating enough communities to target enough consumers (limiting possible targeteable consumers to lefties cripples the enitre scheme).

I guess I'm back to square one then... no idea what you meant by the statement you made.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Big Tech isn't Big Tech. It is Retail Software.

Yes, software and social media platforms are only a small corner of "big time technology" in general. But the term has come to mean what it means in popular culture.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."

"With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

To put my point succinctly:

The government doesn't get its powers by specific requests of yours (regulate this, police that), but by the scope you grant it (the prerogative to regulate this type of thing, the power to police that range of thing).

As for the carrot and the stick, I do mean in the whip and reward sense, and I also mean it in the sense of pure regulatory power. Regulation can be a carrot. For example, you are Exxon Mobil, established company with commercial relationships and accumulated knowledge of a century or more, the best trained people in the field and tens of thousands of millions in revenue and assets, but you are vulnerable to upstarting companies that might be willing to take on burdens you are not, and the government applies a series of regulations that make it almost impossible for any but a giant like yourself to operate, so that competition is eliminated.

In the face of this, it is pretty much meaningless whether the government invests in you directly with moneys. Even though, in cases, it might also happen, and just as legally.

As for corruption, what you bring up about defining it, as an excercice, will inevitably demonstrate how useless of a filter it is. There is no such thing as corruption. There are only means that are available to specific people and institutions or not, and conditions that control for that availability.

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

What a sad minority of sad loons, desperately clinging to any support from any country for their FoxNews generated misconceptions and lack of communitarianism.
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher

Posts: 2597
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:To put my point succinctly:

The government doesn't get its powers by specific requests of yours (regulate this, police that), but by the scope you grant it (the prerogative to regulate this type of thing, the power to police that range of thing).

Sure.

As for the carrot and the stick, I do mean in the whip and reward sense, and I also mean it in the sense of pure regulatory power. Regulation can be a carrot. For example, you are Exxon Mobil, established company with commercial relationships and accumulated knowledge of a century or more, the best trained people in the field and tens of thousands of millions in revenue and assets, but you are vulnerable to upstarting companies that might be willing to take on burdens you are not, and the government applies a series of regulations that make it almost impossible for any but a giant like yourself to operate, so that competition is eliminated.

Aaah, makes sense.

In the face of this, it is pretty much meaningless whether the government invests in you directly with moneys. Even though, in cases, it might also happen, and just as legally.

Fair enough

As for corruption, what you bring up about defining it, as an excercice, will inevitably demonstrate how useless of a filter it is. There is no such thing as corruption. What... are... you... talking... about??? There are only means that are available to specific people and institutions or not, and conditions that control for that availability.

Please tell me you're not one of these people who think government can never do anything wrong, that they're a bunch of saints who want nothing but what's good for the people. Nobody is that naïve, not even Sculptor. What do you think of Stalin's starving of 3 million Ukrainians? Is that the Ukrainians' fault for setting up a system that allowed Stalin to do that? Was Stalin really a great guy who was doing what was best for Ukrainians using the glorious political system that was built just for that purpose?

Sculptor wrote:What a sad minority of sad loons, desperately clinging to any support from any country for their FoxNews generated misconceptions and lack of communitarianism.

Speak of the devil! Look who decided to grace us with his presence. The all-wise, all-knowing Sculptor. You gonna point to a specific misconception so we can debate it or are you gonna just spout off generalities so you can report back to your superiors about how you did your part in fighting the dirty capitalists?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."

"With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

gib wrote:What... are... you... talking... about???

How is one supposed to respond to this? What specifically are you asking about?

gib wrote:Please tell me you're not one of these people who think government can never do anything wrong, that they're a bunch of saints who want nothing but what's good for the people. Nobody is that naïve, not even Sculptor. What do you think of Stalin's starving of 3 million Ukrainians? Is that the Ukrainians' fault for setting up a system that allowed Stalin to do that? Was Stalin really a great guy who was doing what was best for Ukrainians using the glorious political system that was built just for that purpose?

I'm the anarchist around here. Ask around.

The reason corruption is so pointless as a concept is precisely that purity is equally useless. People are people. Whereas this:

Pedro I Rengel wrote:There are only means that are available to specific people and institutions or not, and conditions that control for that availability.

Gives us usable concrete terms to work with not based on some Disneyland conception of human nature.

Personally, I find anyone's desire to be ruled appalling.

That's neither here nor there. Governments are not going to go anywhere. Meanwhile, truth exists and is a thing.

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Purity is a chemical term, it is neither correct nor incorrect in reference to humans but simply without point of contact. 100% irrelevant.

What is it that you mean, chastity? Decency? You want to make it illegal to be indecent?

Puritanism is one of the foulest scourges to befall mankind. An indecent excuse to tell people how to live their lives.

That, also, is neither here nor there.

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

What we are discussing here is the government's reaction to the trucker protests, and why it had the power to react that way.

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

By the way, believe it or not, the reason we are discussing it is that I actually care about you not going to jail or your name ending up on some list. I know that sounds ridiculous and absurd to you.

Thankfully, Canadians are too polite and the whole thing just fizzled out. In other places, neither party would have backed down and it would have escalated into a very bad situation, where the government's position only becomes stronger and "freedom fighters" only go to jail or die.

Meanwhile, is it possible that your wider political posture actually contributed to the situation happening in the first place? If it did, would it not be more important than making some statement that doesn't solve anything, makes everything worse, and ruins or ends lives?

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:The reason corruption is so pointless as a concept is precisely that purity is equally useless. People are people. Whereas this:

Pedro I Rengel wrote:There are only means that are available to specific people and institutions or not, and conditions that control for that availability.

Gives us usable concrete terms to work with not based on some Disneyland conception of human nature.

I'll agree that some people misuse the term "corruption", but I think it's a bit much to say it doesn't exist. I'm fairly convinced that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What this means is that one can make statements like "The more power one has, the more corrupt they are likely to become," or "she used to be a good person, but ever since she joined the police force, she's become a lot more corrupt," or "He's surprisingly uncorrupt for a man with that much power." It conveys a meaningful idea and may actually refer to something real in the actual world.

Now, you may want the person to define more precisely what they mean by corruption, and that's fair. I would say a person or group is corrupt when they violate the rules (laws) for personal gain, or abuse their power for personal gain. Depending on how precise you want to get, you might add "...and they have to have had the choice to do otherwise," and other such qualifying conditions that accurately reflect the way we use the term.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:By the way, believe it or not, the reason we are discussing it is that I actually care about you not going to jail or your name ending up on some list. I know that sounds ridiculous and absurd to you.

Well, I don't know how you feel about me, but if you really mean this then thanks... really, thanks.

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Thankfully, Canadians are too polite and the whole thing just fizzled out. But it did have the intended effect. In other places, neither party would have backed down and it would have escalated into a very bad situation, where the government's position only becomes stronger and "freedom fighters" only go to jail or die.

What do a people do then when they see their government encroaching on their freedoms and becoming a bigger, more corrupt, more tyrannical totalitarian force of terror? Do they just lay back and let it happen? Do they STFU and try their best to stay out of trouble? Submit to their overlords and hope they'll be merciful? If that's all people ever did, there'd be no America, no Canada, no democracy, no free world. The entire world would be run by communist regimes and other totalitarian states.

I get that one shouldn't be naive, expecting to be like Mel Gibson in The Patriot, but this isn't about trying to obtain personal glory, it's about the fact that sometimes you're forced into a situation where you either submit or you fight back--either way, it's not pretty--people will go to jail, people will die, people's lives will be ruined--but you have to ask: would life be any better if we let the tyrants and the monster have their way with us?

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Meanwhile, is it possible that your wider political posture actually contributed to the situation happening in the first place? No. If it did, would it not be more important than making some statement that doesn't solve anything, makes everything worse, and ruins or ends lives?

I said no because my "wider political posture" occurred after the trucker convoy started (and you know that so I'm not sure what you're trying to say). But the question of how the things I say here about the trucker convoy contribute to it can be answered any which way you want. Might it have made things worse? Sure. But maybe it made things better. Maybe it had absolutely no effect at all. Maybe it made things worse in some respects but better in another respects. Anything is possible in principle. But I'm only gonna act in a way that, to the best of my knowledge, it will contribute to a better situation overall in the long run.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

"Why, I haven't been that entertained since the stock market crash of 1929! Ha! Ha! Ha!... So many orphans."

"I want to watch the scum of the world struggle to climb up the hill of betterment only to repeatedly trip and tumble down to the fiery pit of failure."

"With all due respect’ is a wonderful expression because it actually doesn’t specify how much respect is due."

gib
resident exorcist

Posts: 9310
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm

Resistance against the Trucker Convoy really proves how retarded people are.

"NOTHING BAD HAS COME FROM MASS MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS ON THE GENERAL POPULATION, JUST READ HISTORY.....

...AND SKIP THE 20TH CENTURY!!!!"
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend

Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

gib wrote:I said no because my "wider political posture" occurred after the trucker convoy started

That is your specific political posture, about the trucker protests. Your wider political posture existed behorehand. Or did you have 0 opinions whatsoever regarding politics, government, and Canadian law before the truckers started protesting?

Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ

Posts: 13089
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

It's not a "political protest" to violently reject Eugenicists imposing their clot-shot over the general population by force.

Put yourself in Poland in the 1930s.

You think it can't happen again? That it's not happening now???

FUCK YOU PEDRO!!!
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend

Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Fucking Nazis.

We should have destroyed them all, instead of importing the Nazi Doctors and Eugenicists in 1947....

Now History repeats, yet again.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend

Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

I'm tired of people defending these "Oh get a shot, you're protected... then a 2nd, then a 3rd, then a 4th..."

When are you retards going to wake the fuck up??? When you're dieing from blood-clots, strokes, heart attacks???

No, retards die retards. They never knew what hit them. And if they survive, they Stockholm Syndrome, and immediately return to their Abusers.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend

Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

.
Urwrongx1000
ILP Legend

Posts: 7941
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

PreviousNext