On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 20:12:42 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds like a distinction without a difference? The end result is the same. Its very nature is pro-crime.
The difference is the human goals held by the people designing and using it. They think of different things when they focus and act: they act with different underlying reasons.
your clarification only adds more obscurity.
like a conceptual filter where they only support the times they think it isn't doing that.
That 'conceptual filter' doesn't exist in reality. What you're calling 'conceptual filter' is actually called intelectual dishonesty. "Doublethink" in 1984.
Sounds similar to using the arpanet while deriding it.
It may sound similar but it's not.
Sounds pretty doublethinky to me.
Funny you're trying to catch me in a contradiction while ignoring your own. The arpanet is just a piece of technical crap, not a philosophical system. It's shit and we would be better off if it was gone. Meanwhile, I can use it (to a limited extent) against itself. The 'performative contradiction' here would be for me to send a message claiming "The arpanet doesn't deliver messages", the message itself proving I'm wrong. But using the US arpanet to tell you that the US is a fascist cesspool is no contradiction and there isn't any 'doublethinking' involved, sorry. See again my example about guns which you ignored by focusing on a side issue.
You're handing a behavior profile to the arpanet with me, like a firehose. It uses this to make power and money off you and anybody similar.
So I'm being blamed for the spying crimes of govcorp, of which I happen to be the victim? lawl.
well, you certainly should get defensive because barrett is the worst kind of threat you could face.
Eh defensiveness just makes you vulnerable in the real world (the one with serious threats). But ... when I say that, I am just being defensive. I rarely defend myself effectively.