US 'justice' system - paging karl.
US has the highest incarceration rate on the planet, 5 times higher than china. US nazis have re-defined the most basic human rights as 'crimes' - see for instance their 'war on drugs' As if their 'laws' were not criminal and insane enough, the 'laws' themselves are applied in a completely criminal way. There is NO DUE PROCESS in the US. In the US, innocent people are tortured and extorted in order to get fake 'confessions'. This also shows what sort of idiotic joke so called US 'constitutional guarantees' are. “Earlier this year an opinion for the Supreme Court by Justice Anthony Kennedy noted a stunning and often overlooked reality of the American legal process: a vast majority of criminal cases – 97 percent of federal cases, 94 percent of state cases – are resolved by guilty pleas. Criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system, of trials.” https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/11/08/the-plea-bargain-system-and-m... ---------- See karl, that's the sort of thing you should be telling to the non-human criminal turd david barrett.
Hey punk, I saw "paging karl". I'm working on some code I offered to maintain some time ago, and doing that is using most of my energy right now. I'm still kind of recharging regarding political stuff and criticism and all. That's why I haven't replied to more posts on the list. When I read things like "turd" applied to human beings, or perceive myself as being encouraged to blame others or be angry at them, I tend to have a pang of really really strong sadness. It takes a lot of energy to ignore that sadness and keep going. I can burn out, but I'm pretty strong too though =) I was disappointed to not finish the 'pd' story, but that style of story isn't really my thing anyway, so when I got off the state of mind I didn't push it or anything.
On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 14:25:15 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey punk, I saw "paging karl".
and I see you're ignoring the content of my message, apart from complaining because I refer to a turd like barrett using the word that fits him best. Ok.
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 2:47 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 14:25:15 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey punk, I saw "paging karl".
and I see you're ignoring the content of my message, apart from complaining because I refer to a turd like barrett using the word that fits him best.
Ok.
Yes, roughly. You're still on the queue, I'm afraid, I just wanted to say hi. I'm used to insults happening maybe once a week. This situation leaves me confused, but I'm learning slightly.
On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 18:11:13 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 2:47 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 14:25:15 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey punk, I saw "paging karl".
and I see you're ignoring the content of my message, apart from complaining because I refer to a turd like barrett using the word that fits him best.
Ok.
Yes, roughly. You're still on the queue, I'm afraid, I just wanted to say hi.
Hi there! While we are at it, add 'civil asset forfeiture' to the list of US legal-criminal abortions and crimes against humanity.
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 1:16 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
US has the highest incarceration rate on the planet, 5 times higher than china.
This sounds familiar, I'll believe it. China also has atrocities of course. US nazis have re-defined the most basic human rights as 'crimes' -
see for instance their 'war on drugs'
'war on sharing detailed information between people who are different'. More basic. Not specific to the US. As if their 'laws' were not criminal and insane enough, the 'laws'
themselves are applied in a completely criminal way. There is NO DUE PROCESS in the US.
Sometimes we stumble and accidentally let somebody have due process. What would you tear down first? How would you build it differently? In the US, innocent people are tortured and extorted in order to
get fake 'confessions'. This also shows what sort of idiotic joke so called US 'constitutional guarantees' are.
It's worse if you happen to have one of the photos of a popular billionaire loosing a machine gun into a crowd of third world civilians. Over here, we torture and extort innocent people to maintain power. Over here, we caringly rescue people in desperate need, and people come in massive throngs from other countries to be rescued. Partly funded by billionaires and government arms. People also move between the two groups. So why are you complaining via one of the same mediums that is causing what you complain about? “Earlier this year an opinion for the Supreme Court by Justice
Anthony Kennedy noted a stunning and often overlooked reality of the American legal process: a vast majority of criminal cases – 97 percent of federal cases, 94 percent of state cases – are resolved by guilty pleas. Criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system, of trials.”
The only people telling you what you can do, have the legal system as their only job.
https://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/11/08/the-plea-bargain-system-and-m...
----------
See karl, that's the sort of thing you should be telling to the non-human criminal turd david barrett.
Thanks. It's still kind of over my head. => You're saying the legal system is not functioning as advertised, is mostly and clearly not producing justice, and we have a lot of clear evidence of this. <= - punk's post here I think?
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 08:51:36 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
'war on sharing detailed information between people who are different'. More basic. Not specific to the US.
Everything is criminalized in the US. I'm not talking about other places at the moment. So again, the key fact is that the most basic personal rights are violated by 100,000 of US 'laws'. Which in turn means that any apologist of the US 'justice' system, like barrett, is an apologist of organized crime on a global scale.
As if their 'laws' were not criminal and insane enough, the 'laws'
themselves are applied in a completely criminal way. There is NO DUE PROCESS in the US.
Sometimes we stumble and accidentally let somebody have due process. What would you tear down first? How would you build it differently?
there's tons of literature on that.
In the US, innocent people are tortured and extorted in order to
get fake 'confessions'. This also shows what sort of idiotic joke so called US 'constitutional guarantees' are.
It's worse if you happen to have one of the photos of a popular billionaire loosing a machine gun into a crowd of third world civilians.
I don't think that's necessarily true. I mean, assange is getting the same treatment that any poor/brown/black guy in the US gets. Assange is obviously a more 'valuable' US military target so they are using more resources against him, but assange is better defendend than the average poor/brown/black guy in the US, so assange and the average poor/brown/black victim of US attrocites are more or less equaly fucked. Both will get no justice.
Over here, we torture and extort innocent people to maintain power. Over here, we caringly rescue people in desperate need, and people come in massive throngs from other countries to be rescued.
what. That's the worst kind of garbage you can make up. Some people move to the US because they are fucktards who care about money and the US is place where getting (looted) money is easier. You do NOT rescue anybody. Rather you put 'illegal' immigrants in concentration camps, after you razed their countries to the ground and murdered millions.
Partly funded by billionaires and government arms. People also move between the two groups.
So why are you complaining via one of the same mediums that is causing what you complain about?
what - I'm not complaining. I am stating facts. Not sure what 'medium' you're referring to? The fucking arpanet?
=> You're saying the legal system is not functioning as advertised, is mostly and clearly not producing justice, and we have a lot of clear evidence of this. <= - punk's post here
I think?
Yes, I think the FACTS speak for themselves.
Hi PunkBStasi, The things you say don't seem consistent to me, but I am a very confused person physically addicted to my gmail app. Everything is criminalized in the US. I'm not talking about other
places at the moment.
So again, the key fact is that the most basic personal rights are violated by 100,000 of US 'laws'. Which in turn means that any
apologist of the US 'justice' system, like barrett, is an apologist of
organized crime on a global scale.
I don't agree with your logic here, but do you think I disagree with your view? My 'PD' psychotic-story was about the US.
As if their 'laws' were not criminal and insane enough, the 'laws'
themselves are applied in a completely criminal way. There is NO DUE PROCESS in the US.
Sometimes we stumble and accidentally let somebody have due process. What would you tear down first? How would you build it differently?
there's tons of literature on that.
Which does more: an unread book, or a meme people are talking about? I'm asking you so I can figure out how to support your experiences. I don't know what you want, and it seems very hard to learn.
In the US, innocent people are tortured and extorted in order to
get fake 'confessions'. This also shows what sort of idiotic joke so called US 'constitutional guarantees' are.
It's worse if you happen to have one of the photos of a popular billionaire loosing a machine gun into a crowd of third world civilians.
I don't think that's necessarily true. I mean, assange is getting the same treatment that any poor/brown/black guy in the US gets. Assange is obviously a more 'valuable' US military target so they are using more resources against him, but assange is better defendend than the average poor/brown/black guy in the US, so assange and the average poor/brown/black victim of US attrocites are more or less equaly fucked. Both will get no justice.
I guess I'd tentatively agree with you here. Not always the case. We think of whistleblowers because they can help us change it, and our neighbors because they get hurt so badly.
Over here, we torture and extort innocent people to maintain power. Over
here, we caringly rescue people in desperate need, and people come in massive throngs from other countries to be rescued.
what. That's the worst kind of garbage you can make up. Some people move to the US because they are fucktards who care about money and the US is place where getting (looted) money is easier. You do NOT rescue anybody. Rather you put 'illegal' immigrants in concentration camps, after you razed their countries to the ground and murdered millions.
People who come from war-torn areas appreciate our relative peace. Foreign war is very real and very harsh and actually stimulates our economy. People happy to be living in an unimaginable fantasy world where there is no longer constant legitimized killing, pay taxes and work jobs reliably. It looks like most of the real, solid antislavery work relates to people coming from overseas. Much easier to talk publicly and safely about.
Partly funded by
billionaires and government arms. People also move between the two groups.
So why are you complaining via one of the same mediums that is causing what you complain about?
what - I'm not complaining. I am stating facts. Not sure what 'medium' you're referring to? The fucking arpanet?
Your facts are possibly a little summarised. Yes, how are your points helped by what you are saying into the arpanet's giant moneyai?
=> You're saying the legal system is not functioning as advertised, is
mostly and clearly not producing justice, and we have a lot of clear evidence of this. <= - punk's post here
I think?
Yes, I think the FACTS speak for themselves.
From punk to david: The legal system is not functioning how you claim it is. It is clearly not
Facts live forever and act once free people understand them. Thanks for confirming that I need to understand it better. producing justice, and we have a _lot_ of clear evidence of this. That's the real reason to protect Assange and everyone else, too. If David knows the legal system well, maybe they could help us learn how to work with it more safely.
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:45:32 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Everything is criminalized in the US. I'm not talking about other
places at the moment.
So again, the key fact is that the most basic personal rights are violated by 100,000 of US 'laws'. Which in turn means that any apologist of the US 'justice' system, like barrett, is an apologist of organized crime on a global scale.
I don't agree with your logic here, but do you think I disagree with your view?
My view and logic are one and the same. Which logical step do you think I got wrong. 1) US laws violate personal rights. 2) Violating personal rights is the very defintion of crime. 3) People who support the US 'legal system' support crime and are morally responsible for US crimes.
there's tons of literature on that.
Which does more: an unread book, or a meme people are talking about?
I'm asking you so I can figure out how to support your experiences. I don't know what you want, and it seems very hard to learn.
what I want is respect for personal rights. But that's not really the topic. The topic is the nature of the US govt, being the biggest example of organized crime on the planet.
I don't think that's necessarily true. I mean, assange is getting the same treatment that any poor/brown/black guy in the US gets. Assange is obviously a more 'valuable' US military target so they are using more resources against him, but assange is better defendend than the average poor/brown/black guy in the US, so assange and the average poor/brown/black victim of US attrocites are more or less equaly fucked. Both will get no justice.
I guess I'd tentatively agree with you here. Not always the case.
The vast majority of cases.
So why are you complaining via one of the same mediums that is causing what you complain about?
what - I'm not complaining. I am stating facts. Not sure what 'medium' you're referring to? The fucking arpanet?
Your facts are possibly a little summarised.
Yes, how are your points helped by what you are saying into the arpanet's giant moneyai?
I'm using the US propaganda machine against the US, as best as I can. Just like I would use a 'US gun' to blow up the head of a US soldier.
From punk to david: The legal system is not functioning how you claim it is. It is clearly not producing justice, and we have a _lot_ of clear evidence of this.
Thanks, that sums it up. I'll stop beating this poor dead horse for a couple of days at least.
That's the real reason to protect Assange and everyone else, too. If David knows the legal system well, maybe they could help us learn how to work with it more safely.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 5:10 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:45:32 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
Everything is criminalized in the US. I'm not talking about other
places at the moment.
So again, the key fact is that the most basic personal rights
are
violated by 100,000 of US 'laws'. Which in turn means that any apologist of the US 'justice' system, like barrett, is an apologist of organized crime on a global scale.
I don't agree with your logic here, but do you think I disagree with your view?
My view and logic are one and the same. Which logical step do you think I got wrong.
1) US laws violate personal rights.
Logically true. Anything exerted unilaterally is going to end up violating personal rights. 2) Violating personal rights is the very defintion of crime.
True enough, different people have different opinions; some define crime in terms of the state. 3) People who support the US 'legal system' support crime and are
morally responsible for US crimes.
Doesn't quite follow. They can support the legal system without supporting the violation of personal rights, like a conceptual filter where they only support the times they think it isn't doing that.
there's tons of literature on that.
Which does more: an unread book, or a meme people are talking about?
I'm asking you so I can figure out how to support your experiences. I don't know what you want, and it seems very hard to learn.
what I want is respect for personal rights. But that's not really the topic. The topic is the nature of the US govt, being the biggest example of organized crime on the planet.
Other govts might also demonstrate organised crime? I agree with you for this reason: our democracy clearly not functioning, and it is pretty hard to assert direction of an entire democracy. That's a lot of people to influence. Way easier in a dictatorship.
I don't think that's necessarily true. I mean, assange is
the same treatment that any poor/brown/black guy in the US gets. Assange is obviously a more 'valuable' US military target so they are using more resources against him, but assange is better defendend than the average poor/brown/black guy in the US, so assange and the average
getting poor/brown/black
victim of US attrocites are more or less equaly fucked. Both will get no justice.
I guess I'd tentatively agree with you here. Not always the case.
The vast majority of cases.
A little too leftist for my flashbacks to safely relate around. But yeah, we're agreeing that certain sets of people are getting their lives inhumanly and reasonlessly destroyed without recourse, fairness, or justice yet.
So why are you complaining via one of the same mediums that is causing what
you complain about?
what - I'm not complaining. I am stating facts. Not sure what 'medium' you're referring to? The fucking arpanet?
Your facts are possibly a little summarised.
Yes, how are your points helped by what you are saying into the arpanet's giant moneyai?
I'm using the US propaganda machine against the US, as best as I can.
Just like I would use a 'US gun' to blow up the head of a US soldier.
Both of these behaviors may be teaching your enemy how to defeat you, more than defeating your enemy ... people do need to live sometimes.
From punk to david:
The legal system is not functioning how you claim it is. It is clearly not producing justice, and we have a _lot_ of clear evidence of this.
Thanks, that sums it up. I'll stop beating this poor dead horse for a couple of days at least.
I still have to figure out how to say it to him. I said it recently and he erased it and replied without responding to it.
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:38:12 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
My view and logic are one and the same. Which logical step do you think I got wrong.
1) US laws violate personal rights.
Logically true. Anything exerted unilaterally is going to end up violating personal rights.
2) Violating personal rights is the very defintion of crime.
True enough, different people have different opinions; some define crime in terms of the state.
yeah well. That's what the position of barrett and any other government agent amounts to. According to them "a crime is whatever we say it is", and if you don't agree, they will murder you. So their position is based on circular 'logic' (i.e. it's null and void) and if you don't agree with them, they'll violate all your personal rights, up to violating your right to life.
3) People who support the US 'legal system' support crime and are
morally responsible for US crimes.
Doesn't quite follow. They can support the legal system without supporting the violation of personal rights,
No they can't, because the US legal system is explicitly designed to violate rights.
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. So it doesn't matter if people who support a criminal system lie about what they do, even to themselves. Lies do not change reality.
Other govts might also demonstrate organised crime?
yes all governments are organized crime, by definition. Their most basic nature is being organized crime. But, again, we'are talking about the US govt, biggest criminal on the planet and the one persecuting assange along with the english and swedish governments. And just for fun : there was only one government that defended assange. Ecuador's government, a 'third world' 'shithole'.
I agree with you for this reason: our democracy clearly not functioning, and it is pretty hard to assert direction of an entire democracy. That's a lot of people to influence. Way easier in a dictatorship.
hehe.
I'm using the US propaganda machine against the US, as best as I can.
Just like I would use a 'US gun' to blow up the head of a US soldier.
Both of these behaviors may be teaching your enemy how to defeat you, more than defeating your enemy ... people do need to live sometimes.
Most of the time, yes. And some people do need to die, especially the ones responsible for serial murder.
From punk to david:
The legal system is not functioning how you claim it is. It is clearly not producing justice, and we have a _lot_ of clear evidence of this.
Thanks, that sums it up. I'll stop beating this poor dead horse for a couple of days at least.
I still have to figure out how to say it to him.
I said it recently and he erased it and replied without responding to it.
Well, I guess you're using the technique you described earlier. I doubt it will work in this case, but you're free to keep trying...
True enough, different people have different opinions; some define crime in terms of the state.
yeah well. That's what the position of barrett and any other government agent amounts to. According to them "a crime is whatever we say it is", and if you don't agree, they will murder you.
I'm actually used to some anarchists using it that way, maybe my memories are confused. So their position is based on circular 'logic' (i.e. it's null and
void) and if you don't agree with them, they'll violate all your personal rights, up to violating your right to life.
3) People who support the US 'legal system' support crime and are
morally responsible for US crimes.
Doesn't quite follow. They can support the legal system without
supporting
the violation of personal rights,
No they can't, because the US legal system is explicitly designed to violate rights.
I'd say it's explicitly designed in a way that violates rights.
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. Not everything is cut and dry.
So it doesn't matter if people who support a criminal system lie about what they do, even to themselves. Lies do not change reality.
In a normal situation, it gives an avenue for all different sorts of discussion.
Other govts might also demonstrate organised crime?
yes all governments are organized crime, by definition. Their most basic nature is being organized crime. But, again, we'are talking about the US govt, biggest criminal on the planet and the one persecuting assange along with the english and swedish governments.
And just for fun : there was only one government that defended assange. Ecuador's government, a 'third world' 'shithole'.
I agree with you for this reason: our democracy clearly not functioning, and it is pretty hard to assert direction of an entire democracy.
That's a
lot of people to influence. Way easier in a dictatorship.
hehe.
Not sure why you're laughing but it's pleasant =)
I'm using the US propaganda machine against the US, as best as I
can.
Just like I would use a 'US gun' to blow up the head of a US soldier.
Both of these behaviors may be teaching your enemy how to defeat you,
more
than defeating your enemy ... people do need to live sometimes.
Most of the time, yes. And some people do need to die, especially the ones responsible for serial murder.
I meant that some people live by expressing themselves or acting passionately when it's not to their benefit to do so. Then I reread it after sending and realised it didn't sound that way.
From punk to david:
The legal system is not functioning how you claim it is. It is clearly not producing justice, and we have a _lot_ of clear evidence of this.
Thanks, that sums it up. I'll stop beating this poor dead horse for a couple of days at least.
I still have to figure out how to say it to him.
I said it recently and he erased it and replied without responding to it.
Well, I guess you're using the technique you described earlier. I doubt it will work in this case, but you're free to keep trying...
I seem to be still replying. I don't recall the technique. The legal system is not functioning how David says it is. We have extensive clear evidence that usually produces injustice. It's hard to remember when replying. Everything david says assumes the legal system is right, and then he accuses me using that as one of his assumptions, I get defensive ... hrm
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 19:44:03 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
True enough, different people have different opinions; some define crime in terms of the state.
yeah well. That's what the position of barrett and any other government agent amounts to. According to them "a crime is whatever we say it is", and if you don't agree, they will murder you.
I'm actually used to some anarchists using it that way, maybe my memories are confused.
Not sure what "it" replaces, and "what way" you're referring to. The very basic nature of anarchism is to reject the 'authority' of the state and reject the absurd claim that the state(a collection of criminals!) gets to define what crime is. I don't think there's anything else to add here.
3) People who support the US 'legal system' support crime and are
morally responsible for US crimes.
Doesn't quite follow. They can support the legal system without supporting the violation of personal rights,
No they can't, because the US legal system is explicitly designed to violate rights.
I'd say it's explicitly designed in a way that violates rights.
Sounds like a distinction without a difference? The end result is the same. Its very nature is pro-crime.
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.
Not everything is cut and dry.
and many things are. This one is.
The legal system is not functioning how David says it is. We have extensive clear evidence that usually produces injustice.
It's hard to remember when replying. Everything david says assumes the legal system is right,
yes, as mentioned above, the whole non-argument of the statists is just this laughable circular idea : "we are right because we define reality, and if you don't obey us then we kill you"
and then he accuses me using that as one of his assumptions, I get defensive ... hrm
well, you certainly should get defensive because barrett is the worst kind of threat you could face.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 8:05 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 19:44:03 -0400 Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
True enough, different people have different opinions; some define
crime
in
terms of the state.
yeah well. That's what the position of barrett and any other government agent amounts to. According to them "a crime is whatever we say it is", and if you don't agree, they will murder you.
I'm actually used to some anarchists using it that way, maybe my memories are confused.
Not sure what "it" replaces, and "what way" you're referring to.
The very basic nature of anarchism is to reject the 'authority' of the state and reject the absurd claim that the state(a collection of criminals!) gets to define what crime is.
I don't think there's anything else to add here.
Ok I guess
3) People who support the US 'legal system' support crime
and are
morally responsible for US crimes.
Doesn't quite follow. They can support the legal system without supporting the violation of personal rights,
No they can't, because the US legal system is explicitly designed to violate rights.
I'd say it's explicitly designed in a way that violates rights.
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.
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. 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.
Not everything is cut and dry.
and many things are. This one is.
I'll imagine splitting everything so tiny that "cut and dry" applies on a very very small scale.
The legal system is not functioning how David says it is. We have
extensive clear evidence that usually produces injustice.
It's hard to remember when replying. Everything david says assumes the legal system is right,
yes, as mentioned above, the whole non-argument of the statists is just this laughable circular idea : "we are right because we define reality, and if you don't obey us then we kill you"
Maybe I'll try to copy paste this into my next reply. Hard to remember, I remember based on what I see a lot in things like this. It's in my clipboard now.
and then he accuses me using that as one of his
assumptions, I get defensive ... hrm
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.
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.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 9:06 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
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.
Somebody who wants to help you can be very valuable, even if they are not actually doing so.
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.
The arpanet is smarter than you are treating it as. But I've forgotten the example regarding guns, so my expressions are groundless.
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.
No, it's just that what people do and what they value can appear different to others. What they value is what is real, since they usually change what they do to support it.
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.
participants (2)
-
Karl -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0