Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Rank #2951 on Comments
Level 317 Comments: Wizard
Send mail to krobeles
Invite krobeles to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Highest Content Rank:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress:
Level 317 Comments: Wizard → Level 318 Comments: Wizard
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
What people say about krobeles
latest user's comments
- So Facebook are the arbiters of truth now? They get to dec…
then don't use facebook
Then don't use Facebook.
Then don't use Google.
Then don't use the Internet.
Then don't use a book.
Then don't use the public.
Where does it stop? If we allow these corporations to dictate what is defined as "Truth™" then whats to stop them from demanding that that "Truth™" be enforced in books as well? Its only logical, seeing as how it is the "Truth™" and anything else than that would be spread lies. We wouldn't wanna spread lies would we?
Then, when all the books follow the "Truth™", it'll be effectively impossible to talk with anybody, because both the Internet and physical media will only be filled with the "Truth™", board approved, add-friendly! If you're one of the few stragglers by that point, who
accept the corporate "Truth™", you'll be laughed out of every forum you'll ever be in, because most everyone else will only ever have experienced the "Truth™". This is assuming that this censorious bullshit doesn't extend as far as to make "Wrong Think" legally outlawed, in which case, you'll be thrown in prison - or "Reeducation" - if you question "Truth™".
I'll say it again: Much more sinister than the unchecked corporate greed and power-hunger of the international corporations, is the willingness with which people like you and snoopi accept this oppressive censorious hell.
Are you seriously suggesting that people actually saying 'you are wrong and here's proof you're wrong' will somehow spiral into Gulags? For christs sake people, if someone's peddling bullshit and it can be proven its bullshit, it should be pointed out its bullshit.
"Are you seriously suggesting that people actually saying 'you are wrong and here's proof you're wrong' will somehow spiral into Gulags?"
No. I am not saying that. Not even in the slightest.
It isn't my impression that Facebook or Google simply wants to point out that a source is incorrect, rather it is my impression that they wish to totally curb the spread of that source of information. Pointing out that its wrong is fine - although I still feel it goes beyond what either Facebook or Google should be doing - but flat out banning its spread is certainly not.
Stop supporting capitalism, where you rely on private companies to get your news.
And whats the alternative?
To support Communism wherein I'll be relying exclusively on the state for my news? How is that better, exactly?
Given a monopoly, you can count on any group of people to abuse that monopoly. There is no reason why this should be different in the case of the state rather than a private corporation.
By relegating it to the state via Communism, all we will have done is ensure that a competitor cannot ever move in and break that monopoly. We've essentially locked ourselves into the state we previously wished to escape, forever removing even the faintest possibility that the situation might be resolved.
Your suggestion is a really really poorly thought through.
Communism does not have to rely on a state, try anarchism. Nobody has the power to control the narrative since there are no power structures.
Top fucking kek.
Are you trolling or just absolutely brain damaged?
"Try anarchism". Fucking kek. Good one man.
Even if you think it's impossible I would suggest you read into libertarian socialism a bit. It's interesting and a lot of really smart people have written about it. Noam Chomsky has written a book about the thing you are upset about, bias in news media. It is called
, and he is an anarchist.
Any type of powerstructure results in corruption, regardless of how benevolent the leaders are. If you can't see that I can't help you. In the same way capitalism always leads to power abuse and opression. To be truly free we need to get rid of both.
I personally think that anarchism is the only viable form of governance for the future, as automatization rises AI is invented capitalism will collapse and a strong government is no longer required, which is why I use the black blue profile picture.
Here is a entry level video about anarchism:
By definition, anarchy is the absence of governance.
I'd much rather be living under a corrupt and dystopian state, then to live in a anarchic hellhole. At least there I have the
to survive, so long as I tow the party line. Anarchy gives no such option. Anarchy is synonymous with death.
If you want a firsthand impression of what anarchy is like, try going Africa for a spill.
I'm sure that, given you survive, you'll have changed your mind.
Even Communism is preferable to Anarchy.
The definition of anarchy has been all over the place in the past.
Anarchist generally use the idea that anarchy is not without governance, it is without leaders. A true direct democracy would also be anarchy, since there is no leader, so also no unjustified hierachies.
There have been succesful anarchist communities in the past all of them survived for years without problems until they got annexed by other countries.
There are no anarchies in Africa, most countries not run by corrupt presidents are run by brutal warlords. A country where the strongest rule by force is not anarchy because that means you do have a leader.
Uuh! I sense the cog-wheels turning in your cob-webbed skull now!
Yes, precisely. Africa is ruled by Warlords and Tyrants, which is precisely the fate of all Anarchic regions. It is impossible for humans to live without
being in charge. Even in your idealized dreamland, a direct democracy, somebody decides on what is voted on, as the country cannot possibly vote on every single damn thing. The person(s) who decides what is voted on, will be the leader of that community, even if he(they) isn't(aren't) formally recognized as such.
Your definition of Anarchy is not a possibility. It is an idealized system that can never exist in reality.
Name a single Anarchic community that prospered. I don't want you to name one that merely "survived", I want you to name one that prospered and flourished.
It's hard to prosper and flourish when you get invaded by countries that do not recognize your independence. Anarchist spain as described by Orwell, who was there at the time. And free territory did fine. Both existed for 3 years, free territory was defeated by the soviets, which is understandable and anarchist spain lost the civil war because both the "communists" and fascists didn't like them.
There are communities that survived for longer than that but they are small scale so they won't count.
Anarchism can only happen if neighbouring countries won't just fuck their shit up, but they can exist, which I think is an improvement over the shitfest the world currently is. A mess of exploitation and opression.
It's easy to critize a political system when every attempt that is made just get's fucked up. Which is why I think anarchism is something of the future, once the masses understand capitalism won't longer work with the amount of automatization coming the shift to anarchism will happen naturally.
"Its hard to prosper..."
Ok, so you
name a single one then? I'm not surprised.
"Anarchism can only happen if neighboring countries won't just fuck their shit up"
Precisely. That is why your pipe dream of anarchy cant never exist. You will never find yourself in a situation in which this is the case. So long as there are 2 people alive on the planet, someone is going to want somebody else dead.
"It's easy to critize a political system when every attempt that is made just get's fucked up"
And why do you think it is that Anarchy has always "failed"? Ponder that real fucking hard for a moment. The answer is the same as why Socialism has failed. It is a pipe-dream. An idealized system, that is too inflexible to account for anything but perfection. All it takes is for a single human to be imperfect, and your whole system collapses. It is an idiotic pipe-dream, unrealizable in the real world.
Anarchism is not something of the future. Anarchy was something of the past. The deep dark past of horror and violence. Anarchy is a terrifying beast that rears its head whenever systems of governance collapse. Anarchy is what reigns in a state of total war, in the no-mans-land of death and carnage.
That is what Anarchy is. Senseless violence, removed of all humanity. Just destruction, deconstruction and waste.
During the civil war the conditions in Anarchist Aragon where actually better than before, free healthcare, free cultural events, food was rationed with vouchers but there was an excess. That hardly sounds like a state of total war to me. People act like beasts when they need to survive, when they know their needs are taken care off they will act rationally.
And if you don't think anarachy will be a thing of the future than I hope you are ready to starve when 90% of the jobs will be replaced by A.I. and all of the wealth will be in the hands of those that own the machines.
"when they know their needs are taken care off they will act rationally"
Yes, this is true, and it is precisely the reason that Anarchy is a failed state.
In an Anarchy, people are constantly afraid. There is no governance or power structure to keep them safe, so literally any one person can shatter the civility. Anarchy, even in the best case scenario, is a hairs breadth away from becoming a hellscape.
What you described was Anarchy. The people handing out the food had that resource to lord over their peers. They also had the weapons and the organization that the peasantry lacked. Despite calling themselves Anarchists, the Anarchist Army was themselves a power structure in the areas they occupied. They were a state, no better or really much different from the other sides of that conflict. You're viewing this with IMMENSELY rose tinted glasses.
"And if you don't think anarachy will be a thing of the future..."
If that's what happens, then that's what happens. You have no proof that this is going to happen, so for the time being its all just your own personal unsubstantiated theory. Anything that can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof, and so I retain the right to reject your assertion outright.
Although that said, people have been making this claim for years and do you know whats happened? Some jobs can been replaced with automatization while new jobs are sprung up. For example, the career of an Online Entertainer was not a valid career option 10 years ago and today, it is. Your whole doomsday scenario hinges on the fact that no new jobs will spring up and thus, all existing jobs will be automated away.
There are other flaws in your theory that I wont bother going in depth with, as they'll require a bit of technical explanations, but the above statement is simply the most readily apparent flaw in it.
To summarize then:
Your one semi-laudable instance of Anarchy wasn't even remotely Anarchic in nature and your doomsday scenario has more holes in it than a Swedish police car in a Muslim ghetto.
The difference being that in said anarchist army there was no clear hierachy, there was no punishment on not following orders and anyone could join. This was not your regular well-oiled professional army, they were the peasantry, just the peasantry that armed themselves in a civil conflict. In Orwell's book an homage to catalonia he describes a setting were people did not feel opressed and handed out the resources as needed to see fit.
Maybe Orwell did have rose tinted glasses, I can't really refute that, but at what point do you just assume that everything that has been written about the past is true or not.
Another instance of anarchism that still exists today is the Zapatista army, also Rojava has a libertarian socialist background.
As to my doomsday scenario, just self-driving cars will cost America an estimated 4 million jobs in the transportation industry. That is excluding the other sectors that can use this technology. Meanwhile programmers are putting themselves out of jobs writing algorithms that can do their job and white collar work.
Maybe you are right, maybe in the future everybody will be working in the entertainment industry, but that's not really a world I would want to live in either.
Not even mentioning the fact that with Elon Musk pushing for things like Neuralink would create a physical difference between the poor and the rich, those with augments and with not. But enough people already create dystopian movies about that for me not to delve too deep into that.
All I'm saying is that if Facebook was removing posts about Trump being in the KKK then FJ wouldn't even be posting about this shit. The question on what is ethical is still debated, but in our age of headlines, it isn't hard to skew a large amount of people into thinking one way because of a single sentence and the general public's resistance to further research/effort to confirm anything. Do you know how hard that one fake clip of Trump calling Republicans the dumbest voters out there got viral? I don't have all the answers, but getting fact checking websites to at least notify the public on the in-authenticity of these articles is better than simply letting them take over the media.
The only thing you'll accomplish with that shit, is to have the "websites" enforce their version of the truth in lieu of another. You're horribly naive if you think they're doing this out of some virtuous desire to ensure that only actual unbiased truth is spread.
By giving them this power, you'll never archive what you want. You'll only ever choose who lies to you. In the one event, it'll be some idiot who spreads a bullshit article he uncritically believed. In the other event, it'll be an international corporation who has a financial vested interest in lying to you in a fashion that increases their control over you and their profit from you.
One is an uninformed idiot, the other is a near eldritch horror that wants to use and abuse you.
Of course I'm dramatizing for effect here, but despite my exgerations the point remains the same. If you let them have this control over what is considered "true" they
will abuse it.
Don't let them have this kind of power. It is obscene.
I believe I've had this conversation on FJ before, or at least one similar. When the time comes that that actually will happen if it does, then we'll talk about it. Otherwise,we're essentially pedaling a slippery slope fallacy.
What? No we are absolutely not. I'm not saying "They'll start good, and then slowly degrade".
I'm saying that the only reason they want this in the first place, is to instantly use it to enforce their own paradigm at the expense of everything else, even the actual truth.
We're already seeing it. It has already begun. Have you not been paying attention?
Do I need to find the articles where the German state is conspiring with Facebook to curb freedom of speech and expression? Is this news to you?!
What I'm advocating for, is that we stifle the spread of this terrible cancer, not cheer it on as it devours our right to free expression and clouds our digital senses with its own approved version of reality.
We are not discussing hypotheticals. We are not discussing slippery slopes. We are discussing the terrible reality of the censor-state we are swiftly barreling towards, and which it appears you are either entirely oblivious towards or else in direct support of.
Yeah I don't agree with what Facebook is doing, but it's a PRIVATE website that has no responsibility for your freedom of speech. They can delete or edit whatever they choose if you don't like it use another site
Legally and ideally speaking, yes, this is true.
However, companies like Facebook and Google effectively have a monopoly on their respective markets. In an ideal capitalist society, monopolies don't exist.
Since we don't live in an ideal capitalist society, we cant go imposing idealized principles on our flawed system. For that reason, companies like Facebook and Google should be held to a certain moral standard, as if they were a public domain, despite the fact that they indeed are not.
And that's not even touching on the morality or ethics of the thing, which are deplorable regardless.
- More like: One black person exhibits literally every s…
- Jesus man, I had entirely forgotten about that comment...And t…
Funnyjunk Comments 2
- As a guy with a black woman as a neighbor, I can support what …
>one black person is annoying
>I hate all black people
One black person exhibits literally every single one of the stereotypical negative black traits, and every one of her black friends she has brought home has exhibited similar behavior.
Therefore, with only negative examples of black people, I choose to skew my expectations of those types of people slightly in a negative direction in accordance with what I've experienced.
Don't try to strawman me. I did not say "annoying" nor that my judgement was a blanket condemnation of
black people. I simply said that a
of racism appears to be justified, which I certainly do firmly hold that it does.
Now, I do not believe that that because of their race, rather, I believe it to be a cultural thing. However, seeing as how that culture is intricately linked to their race, there is some degree of interplay there, even if the race isn't the inseparable cause of the problem.
- What the **** is wrong with that guy? Cant he get through …
Hate Speech Isn't Real
- Yeah, and its exactly this kind of non-specific ******** that …
gov enforced trans
- What you recited there sounds like it is the Spirit of the l…
gov enforced trans
To be honest, it would give the government power to remove children in abusive homes. Abusive in this case being a home discriminating against pretty much whatever, however, when you take a closed look at the bill, you notice a lot of non direct statements. Stuff like: May be, should be, could be.
It makes the whole thing, while a very large piece of legislature, a very in effective bill. Though I'm honestly not surprised, as this seems to be my governments MO as of late.
I also just read that it protects against "gender expression" which is seriously the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Yeah, and its exactly this kind of non-specific bullshit that lends itself readily to interpretation. I don't wanna get all conspiratorial, but I wouldn't be surprised if the non-specificity was entirely intentional. I wouldn't be surprised if they worded it in such a vague fashion specifically to sneak it past the general public, and then make liberal interpretations of it after the fact, and use it to justify whatever it is they want.
Its basically what has happened in Europe. We used to have hate-speech laws from Waaaaay back when, which were worded in vague fashions because they were old. Nobody bothered to change them, because nobody was ever convicted by them. Then, suddenly, people started getting convicted by them and now its too late to change them...
Be on the look-out for this kind of legal fuckery. Its how the authoritarians convince you to sign away your rights and freedoms under the guise of protecting them...
- I could be wrong, but I think this may be in relation to a rec…
Spicy Latina doesn’t want...
- Yeah. That's the reaction of a man who saw this coming from mi…
Fake but funny af
- What do you mean "nobody is allowed to be better than oth…
We need this
well, the attitude varies from class to class, that's just what i've had. stræber and everything. tryharders. its only in math they ever did that split level thing for a short while, and also had a low-key lower level for extra help for those who struggle with it
not sure if its lowest denominator or mediocrity, but boring as heck it is. we're a country relying on developers not laborers, economically i think, theres just so much potential they're throwing out by letting them grow idle and bored and useless, but it'd seem kinda try-hardish to have a low-key upper level plus who really willingly wants to get extra work at a younger age?
Show Comments (86)