Jump to content

goDel

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13,202

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by goDel

  1. goDel
    thanks. will check those links edit: assuming that's all true, can we just agree in that case that in order to tackle todays issues it's better to address those neoliberal policies instead of pushing towards something (communism) which apparently is a couple of evolutionary steps into some future (we don't know how far).
  2. goDel
    Youre making an awful lot assumptions about my thinking here. And I simply disagree completely with your attempt to push me in some box in the first place. And a completely wrong one as well. I also dont understand what the use is of this pseudo techno argument in this context. Were not talking about technology. Were talking about society. And how a society can come to some kind of stable optimum in which it can function in a way which is sustainable.
  3. goDel
    I have the impression that a lot of issues in modern societies a squarely put in the lap of "capitalism". And not rightly so. As an example, I saw a TED talk recently where the presenter made the, imo, useful distinction between Neoliberal policies ( and its impact on society) as opposed to capitalism. My take-away was that a lot of the big issues we currently face have been a consequence of neoliberal policies. And that capitalism on itself is actually a pretty neutral framework (in theory!) which, when managed differently, is in no way a limiting factor. In short, capitalism as far as I'm concerned, is not a form of politics. Neoliberalism is. If you want to solve todays issues, I'd start with those neoliberal policies instead of jumping into the communism rabbit hole. And yes, I'm sorry, I really do think it's a rabbit hole.
  4. goDel
    Freedom is key indeed. I'd argue that communism robs society of the necessary freedom to come to some kind of optimal solution. And worse, it pretends to tell it is the optimal solution without society giving it its freedom to find that optimum for it self. Also note that there isnt a single optimum and time in itself is also a factor. Yesterdays optimum wont be tomorrows optimum. A society needs a healthy amount of Darwin to excel. I'd argue Communism inherently opposes that notion.
  5. goDel
    Competition is a central part of evolution theory. If you stop competition in a society, you'll end up with shittier products, compared to a society with competition. Simple as that.
  6. goDel
    Hahaha I'm sure Fox rather has someone with an opinion that fits their/trumps narrative. ? Actually surprised they did book him initially. Perhaps they were honestly thinking they could play the proverbial guillotine game with comey? With an emphasis on "honestly", btw. As in: they really expected some kind of outcome from the IG report which they could use on Comey. Its all speculation, obviously. But as an outside spectator, the bias is a pretty marvelous thing to see. Also comes along with a big warning though. We're all equally susceptible to fall in our own mental rabbit holes if we don't watch out (... and speculate freely). And it can happen to entire societies. (Note the difference between understanding the logic such things can happen, and actually witnessing it in real time, btw. )
  7. goDel
    Interesting interview with David Jolly, former GOP, about what happened to his party (and congress) Also, vhonest: whats the deal with posting entire twitter threads? Trying to force read twitter?
  8. goDel
    ^^^ that's the best current democratic candidate! ?
  9. goDel
    It's a f-ing disgrace that that is considered a viable option for some kind of healthcare system in a modern western society.
  10. goDel
    I believe the Cheney strategy was "more a" (not badly worded, but quoted for your attention! ? ) proto Palin that actually worked. Only, in the case of Bush/Cheney they put the "Palin" of the ticket in the top seat instead of the VP seat. Which makes sense, because Cheney would never win the race.
  11. goDel
    Drill, is it that simple? I think you've got some very superficial ideas on politics and government. I probably shouldnt have posted this response, because I'm wondering why it shouldn't be equally simple to list a couple of fundamental differences between corporations and government. It's a large list. And the differences should be both obvious and significant. But here we are. I must say it's rather difficult to stay civilized and respectful, and all that. Lets just stick to saying that it's ok to be critical of government (both the principle and the practice) and to voice your criticism. But to argue the extreme (no differences between corporations and governments) is just undermining your credibility. And tells me it's a waste of time to even bother responding.
  12. goDel
    Don't know what the backstory of this track is. If it predates his two albums, I think it's interesting to hear how he evolved his style. As he started out way more poppy. On it's own, I understand why people think it's cringy. It's basically very "pop". But I don't think it's bad. It has a catchy hook. And should be like able for a bigger audience. But thats a different audience to the one that loved his albums. I don't have a problem with this track. Or worse, I'd argue people should be able to widen up their tastes a bit. If you like Burial, this is a bit off the mark. But not in a way it should be trashed as garbage. I don't consider this garbage. opinions...
  13. goDel
    I'm curious whether you implied FB to be the "you" in that post. In the sense that FB is required to uphold certain standards. Thing is, I don't consider FB a "you". Rather a platform for "us" to interact. A tool. And "we the people" using that. With the danger of coming across overly archaic, I think thats an important distinction. Because it immediately shifts the various responsibilities in different directions. FB is responsible for the tool to work properly. And the people, or users, are responsible to use that tool in a certain way. And this is where I can put it back to you. Because now we can look at FB as a tool and the functionalities and limitations it (should) have. There's potentially lots if discussions here. Should this tool have a newsfeed? Should that newsfeed have some kinds of regulations? And what about those ads? Generally speaking, I'd support the idea that FB should be governed similarly to how we govern similar "tools" in our society. Their newsfeed should be regulated like others. And similarly the ads. If that is already the case, than youd either have to live with FB as it is, or change regulations for everything (here, newsfeeds and ads). Not just FB. So if you want to change FB -by new regulations- you have to consider more than just FB. If you want FB to change itself, without new regulations, well, your best bet is to build a better alternative and hope that people will follow.
  14. goDel
    A couple of tweets (thread) by you know who, about the defense team Trump might run during the impeachment trials. Because this isnt reported on in the media, its useful to be ..eh.. prepared for that shitshow.
  15. goDel
    The mueller report gives a good idea about the different dimensions the meddling in the 2016 elections was taking place. Fb was just a piece of the puzzle. My guess is political donations ( to politicians, but also the nra) would be more effective than just the fb ads. The stuff on FB helps to create a giant swamp of nonsense. But the irony is that it was the media and the politicians breathing life into it. My guess is theres plenty people who consider themselves conservatives who believe Nunes and Jordan moreso than facebook ads. And if the president is basically pushing russian nonsense, non stop, .... yeah, the bets are off. Again, if it was just FB without all the other stuff, I dont believe there would be as big of an impact on us society as currently seems to be the case. Regarding the IRA, i highly doubt that their activities on FB were their most effective. It was part of it. But if they didnt do all the other stuff, it would have just annoyed a bunch of people. same could be said about the uk/ brexit. Regular media (tabloids) and politicians played a huge role.
  16. goDel
    i didn't state that the only impact was doubt. it's not an either or thing. arguing either way is equally wrong. when people doubt things (like for instance that the whole impeachment procedure is partisan nonsense), it allows them to believe any bullshit they want to believe. and if people believe in stupid shit, that doesn't mean they've been swayed by propaganda. not necessarily. it takes more than a couple of FB ads to change peoples beliefs. it often take other people. often their peers. there's more to 2016 than just CA and fb ads. or twitter. or youtube. or the media. or the internet. or wikileaks. or russia. ... also, i highly doubt that CA was just in the business of running FB ads. my guess is they went way beyond FB. but you're reading the christopher wiley book, so you could tell me.
  17. goDel
    and In short: it's close to impossible to prove the impact of political ads on FB. Not that there isn't an impact. It's just that spending huge sums on FB ads doesn't automatically give you an equally huge impact. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest impact the social media trolling campaigns have, is that people start to doubt everyone and everything. People with different ideas tend to be portrayed as stupid bigots. And vice versa. From all sorts of perspectives, the others are perceived as bigots and what not. Everything becomes a stereotype. And all stereotypes get all kinds of nonsense bullshit attached to them. That's something different to pushing people to vote for Trump. That's creating a culture of doubt, mistrust, anger and a lack of tolerance. If you want to know what that's like, open the "how the world view the US" thread. It's full of posts showing how bigotted Americans are supposed to be. Are they really? Or have we reached a point where we are made to think they are? As far as I'm concerned, that thread is just as healthy as FB trolling campaigns.
  18. goDel
    Interesting stuff about Facebook. Fake accounts seem to be a far bigger issue.
  19. goDel
    Nah. Nikki will either follow up Pompeo or be the next Bolton. And Pompeo will not be fired. He will 'just' leave. His department doesnt trust him anymore. At this point, he'd be better off playing Trumps next Giuliani.
  20. goDel
    Here's a suggestion: lets say that political ads are restricted to political parties under certain conditions (during elections) through certain channels (eg. not social media). political ads by third parties are illegal. and whenever third parties buy accounts on social media to push political opinion, that's illegal too. as that's basically political ads done differently. as long as people keep to their personal opinion, all is ok.
  21. goDel
  22. goDel
    Ehm.... you leave this thread. start at his first squarepusher album on Rephlex and work your way up in proper order. only then you're allowed to enter this thread again. blasphemer @squidward
  23. goDel
    Currently looking at Sondlands testimony, I get the impression history is being written. He's outlining his actions and his communications (mails) with various officials. Lots of people were in the loop. And Giuliani is thrown under the bus as well.
  24. goDel
    Hello! A Be Up! ;D
  25. goDel
    Well, you can already see it in this thread. On the Dem side people tend to vote for different reasons than people on the GOP side. Did a lot of people who voted for Trump like him, or did they vote for him for that Supreme Court vacancy? A lot of conservatives hated Trump but voted for him anyways. On the Dem side however...sure there are progressives voting for a moderate who they don't like, but my guess is, relatively speaking less so than on the Gop side. They rather not vote, than vote for a moderate with a couple of different ideas. If it's smart, I'll leave open. From the looks of it, the Dems will not be able to vote for the candidate they are in "love" with. There is no new Obama.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.