HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » sibelian » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 34 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Sep 4, 2007, 07:36 AM
Number of posts: 7,804

Journal Archives

If there are any of you left that STILL can't see that the object here is nothing more than control

then I really don't know what to say to you.

They aren't establishing data networks about you for anything other than GETTING THE DATA. It's nothing to do with terrorists. they are doing it because it provides them with a generalised advantage OVER YOU.

They want to mould the populace into something more docile and easily manipulated. That's it. Why?

It makes life easier for them.

There's nothing particularly sinister about it from their point of view. They have no particular intention to cause any disturbance for YOU. They wan't to make their own lives simpler, that's all.

The question isn't whether or not your are "safe" or "unsafe", that's a fricken chimera. The likelihood of any particular person being killed violently by a nasty creepy "terrorist" or a nasty creepy "criminal" or, (GASP!) a nasty creepy GOVERNMENT SPONSORED GOON in ANY of the Western democracies has remained ROUGHLY THE SAME through the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st.

The question is whether you are in a position that satisfies YOU or a position that satisfies SOMEONE ELSE.

It doesn't MATTER whether or not some other person has some "reasonable cause" to do things with your personal information - it ISN'T THEIRS. It's YOUR PROPERTY.

If anyone EVER uses the word "terrorist" in any kind of communication with you

... distrust them and their motives.

The term is a movable feast.

It is used by whichever agency employs it to mean whatever said agency wants it to mean so long as the appropriate emotional charge is applied to the subject of the sentence in which it is used. It isn't a descriptor, it's tone device.

It is not an invitation to discuss or consider, it is not a term that explains or clarifies, it is an invitation (when not a covert instruction) to react emotionally to the individual/s to whom the term is applied.

Some years ago on DU, the vast majority of posters here seemed to know this. ("TERRA, TERRA, TERRA!!!". There are now a large number of extremely confused people here who seem genuinely to believe that the term has some value beyond simple propaganda.

It is disheartening.

I was in a relationship with an ex-prostitute.

He had also been a heroin addict.

He had lots to say about heroin and very little to say about prostitution other than how often guys came to him and paid for him to just sit and listen to them talk about their lives and how awful they felt, which pissed him off.

He didn't particularly regret doing it. He was much more cut up about the heroin.

He got out of both and eventually moved to the UK and managed to get a job and a steady life. This would very probably never have happened if he had ever been arrested for heroin addiction or prostitution.

I do not know whether this can be considered "symmetrical" with the experience of women as prostitutes. I suspect not.

Bradley Manning is not as consequential as what he revealed.

Descriptions of him and arguments regarding how we should "perceive" him are of even less consequence and serve only to obfuscate and misdirect, to re-prioritise and designify.

Any conversation about Wikileaks that bends mysteriously towards the personal qualities of Bradley Manning does so to the continued benefit of those wishing to perpetuate the ignorance of what he brought to light and no-one else.

I think good cops need help getting rid of bad ones.

Workplaces can be very isolating.

Cultures develop around the loudest people, not the best or the most useful or the nicest. The person generating the most output gets all the attention and steers the story towards themselves.

We'll all worked, some of us will have worked in environments with large numbers of employees and I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of us have worked in environments where one loud, idiotic asshole constantly fucked everything up and ruined everything for everyone else. I've had numerous experiences in workplaces where there's a bully at the top stuffing the air with offensive crap, ruining the culture of the entitre place with obnoxious, egotistical garbage. I wouldn't be at all surprised if most police officers were just *itching* to get rid of the jerks in their ranks.

There is a way to get rid of such people, but it's counterintuitive. The emotional response of someone who wants things to be fair and otherwise minds their own business is to localise, the offending behaviour clams them up and the story in their head becomes a confrontational one between them personally and the offender, and THAT's what prevents the offender being ousted.

Actually what needs to happen is the good guys need to recognise the problem, talk about it openly, band together and face it collectively. It can be really hard to do, particularly if you're not from a background that would make you familiar with such processes. It can be seen as a "witchhunt" or "scapegoating".

The most difficult thing is, in order to get it to work, you have to actually play fair with the bully, otherwise you leave them with "ammunition" against you.

All of the difficulties in taking on something like what I've described above are going to be very powerfully compounded by the other eccentricities surrounding pollice work...

Do you believe masculinity is a social construct?

If so, I have another question.

Do you believe that homosexuality is innate? Predicated by genes?

If you believe believe both, how did my genes mold my personality into something that was sexually attracted to something artificially constructed by other people?

There won't be a revolution.

Firstly, revolutions are dangerous. People get killed, injured, buildings get damaged. Not playing nice. Most ordinary people prefer to play nice.

Secondly, the circumstances under which a revolution would take place are not there, in other words, actual death through actual starvation and a clear narrative path through which the populace can hear such stories and develop an appropriate societal response, which response would never be forthcoming in current western society anyway, because...

Thirdly, the underclass must in some sense be unified by an at least similar set of moral tenets for the revolutionary fevrour to be widely legitimised. A nation entranced by opinions and disagreement at every level will not congeal into a revolutionary force.

Fourthly, there needs to be a socially established vision of a replacement for whatever the revolution is going to kick out of the way. There isn't.

Fifthly, well, you know, it's a lot of hassle.

The right wing twits who think armed revolution is going to fix anything are going to be in for a nasty surprise if they pick any kind of fight witht he US gov. Starbucks + co have paid a lot of money for that gov.

The rest of us... well. Deep down we all know that revolutions don't really work.

Doyou see THIS? I need it to be explained to me NOW.


Hey doods, can you let me know what bits of html or variant thereof is/are allowed?

I remember seeing a table somewhere with some DU stylee [html] tags that worked in posts and now I can't find it. Is it anywhere pointable to?

I did a pointless doodle.

I was deep in a commission and had to escape... I found a new tool and went a bit mad.

Could this be the beginning of a new direction?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Probably not.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ... 34 Next »