On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 9:06 PM Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <[1]punks@tfwno.gf>
   wrote:

     On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 20:12:42 -0400
     Karl <[2]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.
     >
     > >
     > >

References

   1. mailto:punks@tfwno.gf
   2. mailto:gmkarl@gmail.com