What happened to the internet?

[Slant]

Your ego is bigger than Trumps. Im impressed.

If you think not wanting to inflict violence on other people is something to brag about... this tells me you don't consider that the default state of mind. Makes me wonder if you shouldn't see a doctor if you think the default state is to want to do violence upon other people.

[Saucexorzski]

If you think not wanting to inflict violence on other people is something to brag about... this tells me you don't consider that the default state of mind. Makes me wonder if you shouldn't see a doctor if you think the default state is to want to do violence upon other people.

No. Now what?

[Endus]

How am I moving goal post? You posted if you a region keeps you from doing bad things you're a bad person, I just replaced religion with X to show you a flawed logic. It's human nature to be tempted by things, but it's how you act in those moments that define you as a person.

Because you created new goalposts in your new examples, as if the reason why you made those choices was the distinguishing factor, when the point was that you made that conscious choice to overrule your urges.

Decent people don't have the urge to rape or murder other people, that they'd have to suppress, for any reason. If you do, you're not a decent person, you're pretending to be, and that will last until you slip up or get fed up with the effort. That's the point.

It's the difference between a dog that's friendly, and a dog that's chained up but vicious. Saying the chained dog isn't a threat only works as long as the chain holds. This is also how people get radicalized; that radicalizing rhetoric gives them license to act on those urges they're otherwise repressing.

I found a wallet once I was tempted to keep it as I needed the money inside but I chose to do the right thing. Am I bad person for being tempted?

Given that you would have been a thief, had you taken it. It really depends on how bad your circumstances were; same reason why people take issue with con men stealing retirement funds but less issue with a starving man stealing a loaf of bread.

If you're going to sit here and tell me you and others like you are flawless and has never been tempted to do a bad thing I am going to call you an outright liar who is living in a fantasy world.

Where did I claim to be "flawless"? I have trouble letting things go, I can be overly passionate, I can have issues with focus due to ADHD, I have plenty of flaws.

My flaws don't involve wanting to hurt and/or victimize other people. Which is, again, the lowest of fucking bars to pass. I never had to hold myself back from hitting my (now ex-) wife. I've never had any desire to sexually assault a woman. I never cheated on any of my partners, or felt any temptation to do so. I've never stolen anything, or cheated anyone.

These are not high bars. I've been part of two separate professional organizations whose codes of ethics cover this kind of stuff, and much more. If you have to check the code of conduct before acting, for the most part, you're trying to get away with being a bad person. I'm not that bloody unusual.

[Slant]

So catch the culprits and put them to trial. Don't limit rights for citizens instead, damn it.

What rights are being limited?

[Endus]

What rights are being limited?

The phantom "right" to seize control of someone else's property because you don't like them telling you "no".

That's basically what this is all about.

[Slant]

I'm sorry but I always think about the Arab Spring, and related.

Yes, and the Arab Spring is a good example on why anonymity should have its place. Absolutely. But let's assume Arab Spring wasn't "good". Assume it was the ISIS spring. Wouldn't you want to give a state the ability to protect its people? Would you like to venture a guess how many terrorist acts have been conducted because they can do it in utter anonymity on the internet? I mean, your argument is good, but easily reversed.

And it still ignores the ongoing and very real attack at the core of our democracies: When you sow distrust in the media and allow people to openly and outrageously lie to people, it doesn't matter if "your guy" wins. If you're Putin, all you really want is the democratic process to break down. And that's what we're seeing right now. We have no way to prove russian interference to a point where we could take decisive action. We're forced to react only. While he, not being bound by any notion of morality, ethics or respect, can practically do whatever he wants.

Meanwhile, we're having a fucked up discussion about people being afraid they can't be assholes on the internet anymore... wow, priorities definitely are fucked up here.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Now what?

No, of course not. The crazy don't think they're crazy. That would be crazy.

- - - Updated - - -

The phantom "right" to seize control of someone else's property because you don't like them telling you "no".

That's basically what this is all about.

What? When did property come into this? I followed the past few pages but I'm lost now.

[Saucexorzski]

No, of course not. The crazy don't think they're crazy. That would be crazy.

Oh i know im crazy. That's not in dispute (did you not read my quote?). What's in dispute is endus claim to moral perfection. Never had an unsavor urge, never had to self reflect? I don't believe him.

[omeomorfismo]

Who's in charge of the EU, the left or the right?

- - - Updated - - -



The pendulum swung the opposite direction. You still have your extreme conservatives who want to control what you watch and what video games you play, they just don't have the power or the voice

the right actually , or better, two of the 3 political parties that compose the commission are right

[Shadowferal]

Yes, and the Arab Spring is a good example on why anonymity should have its place. Absolutely. But let's assume Arab Spring wasn't "good". Assume it was the ISIS spring. Wouldn't you want to give a state the ability to protect its people? Would you like to venture a guess how many terrorist acts have been conducted because they can do it in utter anonymity on the internet? I mean, your argument is good, but easily reversed.

I'm not a fan of playing "What if" when "What is" is pertinent.

However: There was a reversal by the Obama Admin and their help in quelling the Occupy Movement...How the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy
New documents prove what was once dismissed as paranoid fantasy: totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent. These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.

Perhaps you can explain how this was a good thing...because it really wasn't.

[Endus]

What? When did property come into this? I followed the past few pages but I'm lost now.

The whole "our free speeches!" bullshit boils down to this;

1> Big companies have a product these people like; Facebook, Youtube, etc.
2> Same big companies have rules of conduct for users.
3> Shitbirds break rules of conduct, get banned.
4> Shitbirds bitch about "free speech", when what they really are arguing is that control of those products should be taken away from their owners so that the banned shitbirds can get access again.

It isn't about defending freedom of speech, at all. It's about whether a company should be able to control the use of its product and its customer base, which makes all this an attack on freedom of association and property rights.

[Slant]

Oh i know im crazy. That's not in dispute (did you not read my quote?). What's in dispute is endus claim to moral perfection. Never had an unsavor urge, never had to self reflect? I don't believe him.

He never made a claim to moral perfection. That is something you lot attributed to him, so you can attack him for it. What he pointed out is that the default state of mind of a sane person is not wanting to harm other people out of the morality of the issue itself. This is not a new concept in psychology, there is a very real barrier to wilfully harm other people that needs to be mentally overcome. That barrier has little to do with religion, upbringing or any other outside influence, it is purely internal. Some people don't have it, sociopaths mostly.

I can say this, because there are studies concerning criminal behaviour that describe the effect very well. They also illustrate how this barrier can be lowered (soldiers using a "justification" like war, defending yourself or others from perceived injustice, etc.). They also, worryingly, show that this barrier, once it has been lowered or shattered completely, doesn't come back easily. It explains why criminals that kill people are more likely to continue killing people.

Now, I've wasted a lot of time writing this, don't make me regret it with another cheap ad hominem at Endus without having a serious argument.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not a fan of playing "What if" when "What is" is pertinent.

However: There was a reversal by the Obama Admin and their help in quelling the Occupy Movement...How the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy
New documents prove what was once dismissed as paranoid fantasy: totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent. These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.

Perhaps you can explain how this was a good thing...because it really wasn't.

In the end, the interesting bit here is: Both sides of the argument have good points. The real question is... are you willing to sacrifice one thing for the other? I mean, people in this thread jumped to the most extreme positions possible pretty quickly, some of whom have no idea whatsoever what they're really discussing (yes, I'm looking at all you free-speech morons). So far, only a few have really grasped the idea behind a discussion about removing anonymity. Endus isn't even arguing the case at this point, for example. He's really just pointing out flaws in the argument of others. I doubt he ever expressed his opinion on this matter, the actual matter. I know I didn't so far.

[Tabrotar]

Yep, and as they say, light is the great disinfectant. By hiding you just create more shadows, and add on more darkness.

That´s what they tried in the GDR, acting like they didn´t had mass murders, kidnapping or even nazis but it still happend, the people just didn´t had many informations about it and that didn´t helped getting it cleared up...

[Slant]

I did not say that. But than this comes to question of authority... God, or State(law). Or for the modern man, Ego, or State (law)... Currently our Egos are growing faster than Law. You could outpace that with better and better law enforcement and finding the "bad guys"... and turn into a dystopia like 1984.

That is what Theo is talking about. I agree with her, and to back her up she has a mountain of the same sort of criticism from celebrated cultural critics/sociologists and psychologists.

Yes, and I have the feeling neither you nor Theo are discussing the right bullet points. I mean, Theo rarely ever discusses a topic appropriately, but I expect more from you. Not that you should give a fuck about my expectations, but I'm putting it out there.

[Slant]

The whole "our free speeches!" bullshit boils down to this;

1> Big companies have a product these people like; Facebook, Youtube, etc.
2> Same big companies have rules of conduct for users.
3> Shitbirds break rules of conduct, get banned.
4> Shitbirds bitch about "free speech", when what they really are arguing is that control of those products should be taken away from their owners so that the banned shitbirds can get access again.

It isn't about defending freedom of speech, at all. It's about whether a company should be able to control the use of its product and its customer base, which makes all this an attack on freedom of association and property rights.

Yeah, this is getting side-tracked, though. This discussion isn't about free speech. These guys have barely touched the subject, because they get attracted by the more juicy censorship topic. But this really isn't about censorship.

[Slant]

She is actually discussing the right bullet points, she is hitting right on them. I am just agreeing with her because everything I have read, and observed matches it. Its not like I "LIKE" it... other than it is entertaining to watch, but most tragicomedies are.

I disagree. Theo is slipping wildly all over the place and thinks this is some form of censorship. It really isn't.

[Saucexorzski]

He never made a claim to moral perfection. That is something you lot attributed to him, so you can attack him for it. What he pointed out is that the default state of mind of a sane person is not wanting to harm other people out of the morality of the issue itself. This is not a new concept in psychology, there is a very real barrier to wilfully harm other people that needs to be mentally overcome. That barrier has little to do with religion, upbringing or any other outside influence, it is purely internal. Some people don't have it, sociopaths mostly.

I can say this, because there are studies concerning criminal behaviour that describe the effect very well. They also illustrate how this barrier can be lowered (soldiers using a "justification" like war, defending yourself or others from perceived injustice, etc.). They also, worryingly, show that this barrier, once it has been lowered or shattered completely, doesn't come back easily. It explains why criminals that kill people are more likely to continue killing people.

Now, I've wasted a lot of time writing this, don't make me regret it with another cheap ad hominem at Endus without having a serious argument.

Don't waste your time then . You judge him as a good person. I do not. It's that simple.

[Slant]

Don't waste your time then . You judge him as a good person. I do not. It's that simple.

I don't know if he's good or not. What I do know is that his posts typically make a lot more sense than most people he (patiently) responds to. It really doesn't help that they tend to waste the little attention they get by attacking him personally instead of engaging his arguments. But I understand it, his arguments are really, really hard to counter, because they're based on actual understanding of how law works out there in the real world instead of the fantasy law some people make up in their mind here.

[Slant]

Ok, well, we will have to agree to disagree.

I do not like Alex Jones, I have only seen his idiotic "gay frog" videos and 2016 election stories about Hillary being an Alien/Lizard Person.

He is not my cup of tea, but silencing him, and removing him from facebook/youtube, etc, is censorship. Killing payment instruments from sites that are trying to be independent and pick up both left and right leaning people is also censorship. It is gatekeepers of culture stopping people they do not like from spreading their ideas.

The best way to stop bad ideas is to use better ones as arguments but also realize that some people will believe non-sense no matter what.

That there, that is exactly the wrong bullet point I keep complaining about.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can put this: Removing anonymity is not equal to silencing someone. It has zero to do with censorship.

[Theodarzna]

Yeah, I think she understands as well. And I agree. And to add to that, the defence will have to be able to stand toe to toe with the, at this point I would call "Spiritual Materialists" (first coined by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche) and is the equivalent of "Woke Capitalism".

Which from my perspective means walking a fine line with the culture, and the tools of the culture to both subvert it, and try your best to "right it" back to a "balanced" state... which is a tall order and rife with its own issues.

One has to partially function on hope alone. Hope that the Kali Yuga will end, or just hope that even with a rather insane level of totalitarian social control, a Spartacus can emerge.

[Slant]

One has to partially function on hope alone. Hope that the Kali Yuga will end, or just hope that even with a rather insane level of totalitarian social control, a Spartacus can emerge.

And we're back to crazy talk...