CDZ How the internet is destroying us

[DarkFury]

Onus is still on you to quote the exact text of the law that is preventing you from...

These are your fallacious claims. Either back them up with the appropriate legal references or deal with the consequences.

I did back it up, with direct quotes and highlights. If you can't read english I suggest a remedial course. There are many available for free on-line.

Not a single one of your quotes backed up your feckless claim.

Those quotes referred to exporting cryptology and offshore data storage. There was nothing in your links about "strong encryption" not being allowed.

But thanks for admitting that this is just another of your empty Libertarian nonsense allegations that falls apart under scrutiny.

At least you are consistent when it comes to failing to support your drivel.

Your bile is spewing onto your prose. Again, I suggest you take a remedial reading course.

Oh the irony coming from you!

Onus remains on you to quote the appropriate wording in the legislation that supports your fallacious claim.

You have had umpteen opportunities and failed every time.

That tells us that you have squat but your empty Libertarian drivel.

Have a nice day.

Not only did I quote it, I HIGHLIGHTED IT IN BOLD AND ITALICS FOR YOU.

When you are arguing with a democrat they Often tell you that YOU have to prove this point then that point or define a word.
THAT is a "step and fetch it" way to avoid debate. IF the other person suggests/says YOUR point is false THEY need to prove the falsehood NOT you defend the truth.

 

[beagle9]

My feelings about my self worth are really none of your business.

You make it everyone's business when you post about it on the internet.

Amazing to me that people still think they're anonymous on line or don't understand that once you put them on line, one's words and photos are there forever.

People should be able to be anonymous as they want to be, just as long as they don't break the law. If they break the law, then the law should have reason to investigate them and their activities on the web if needed. No one else unless authorized by an individual, should be allowed to reveal someone's identity, harass them, stalk them or use their information without their written permission. Period!

 

[D Truth]

Forgive me for forgetting the quote thread...

Is there actually someone who claims that they have extensive experience in IT who states that there are no government requirements on retaining data?

Really?

Whomever this is may be experienced, though clearly has zero experience in working in any business related field. The IRS, a government entity, clearly has requirements for 7 years worth of transaction data.

Sorry to ruin the so-called IT guy's position, that person is certainly wrong in this micro-argument.

How long should I keep records

 

[Derideo_Te]

Onus is still on you to quote the exact text of the law that is preventing you from...

These are your fallacious claims. Either back them up with the appropriate legal references or deal with the consequences.

I did back it up, with direct quotes and highlights. If you can't read english I suggest a remedial course. There are many available for free on-line.

Not a single one of your quotes backed up your feckless claim.

Those quotes referred to exporting cryptology and offshore data storage. There was nothing in your links about "strong encryption" not being allowed.

But thanks for admitting that this is just another of your empty Libertarian nonsense allegations that falls apart under scrutiny.

At least you are consistent when it comes to failing to support your drivel.

Your bile is spewing onto your prose. Again, I suggest you take a remedial reading course.

Oh the irony coming from you!

Onus remains on you to quote the appropriate wording in the legislation that supports your fallacious claim.

You have had umpteen opportunities and failed every time.

That tells us that you have squat but your empty Libertarian drivel.

Have a nice day.

Not only did I quote it, I HIGHLIGHTED IT IN BOLD AND ITALICS FOR YOU.

What you highlighted and bolded DID NOT SUPPORT your fallacious Libertarian claim.

 

[RKMBrown]

I did back it up, with direct quotes and highlights. If you can't read english I suggest a remedial course. There are many available for free on-line.

Not a single one of your quotes backed up your feckless claim.

Those quotes referred to exporting cryptology and offshore data storage. There was nothing in your links about "strong encryption" not being allowed.

But thanks for admitting that this is just another of your empty Libertarian nonsense allegations that falls apart under scrutiny.

At least you are consistent when it comes to failing to support your drivel.

Your bile is spewing onto your prose. Again, I suggest you take a remedial reading course.

Oh the irony coming from you!

Onus remains on you to quote the appropriate wording in the legislation that supports your fallacious claim.

You have had umpteen opportunities and failed every time.

That tells us that you have squat but your empty Libertarian drivel.

Have a nice day.

Not only did I quote it, I HIGHLIGHTED IT IN BOLD AND ITALICS FOR YOU.

What you highlighted and bolded DID NOT SUPPORT your fallacious Libertarian claim.

Yes it did. Again, I suggest you find someone you trust that speaks English and have them explain it to you.

 

[Treeshepherd]

I could write a 10,000 word post on this, but it would be tldr. I'll break my argument down to two semi-brief points.

1. Is the internet making people stupid, or are stupid people populating the internet? Both. The internet has become an external storage device for memory. You need an answer, you look it up instead of exercising your brain 'muscle' to remember or reason it out.
Using physical landmarks and common sense to navigate from point A to point B exercises your brain more than following the directions of an app on your phone. So, while we may be quicker at spitting out factoids, the internet is breeding an Idiocracy. A 400 lb. fat guy in a car can travel faster than a fit guy on a skateboard, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a 400 lb slob, physically. The analogy applies to the internet and the fitness of the mind.

2. Politics is marketing, essentially. You only need to convince 51%. Never before has man been more bombarded by propaganda. The budding surveillance society collects data that can be used to market much more than deodorant and insurance to us. It can be used to market the next 'humanitarian war', the next celebrity president, the next 'lesser-of-two-evils policy, etc.. It can be used to convince you of the legitimacy of the system itself, which is mostly fake and contrived like a bad TV show. The NSA et al. builds profiles of individuals, communities, districts, states and the nation and tests responses to propaganda using the science of neuro-marketing (scientifically measuring brain response to a slogan or buzz word, for starters). In conclusion, the combination of data mining and the science of neuro-marketing result in a situation where "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated".

 

[HUGGY]

I could write a 10,000 word post on this, but it would be tldr. I'll break my argument down to two semi-brief points.

1. Is the internet making people stupid, or are stupid people populating the internet? Both. The internet has become an external storage device for memory. You need an answer, you look it up instead of exercising your brain 'muscle' to remember or reason it out.
Using physical landmarks and common sense to navigate from point A to point B exercises your brain more than following the directions of an app on your phone. So, while we may be quicker at spitting out factoids, the internet is breeding an Idiocracy. A 400 lb. fat guy in a car can travel faster than a fit guy on a skateboard, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a 400 lb slob, physically. The analogy applies to the internet and the fitness of the mind.

2. Politics is marketing, essentially. You only need to convince 51%. Never before has man been more bombarded by propaganda. The budding surveillance society collects data that can be used to market much more than deodorant and insurance to us. It can be used to market the next 'humanitarian war', the next celebrity president, the next 'lesser-of-two-evils policy, etc.. It can be used to convince you of the legitimacy of the system itself, which is mostly fake and contrived like a bad TV show. The NSA et al. builds profiles of individuals, communities, districts, states and the nation and tests responses to propaganda using the science of neuro-marketing (scientifically measuring brain response to a slogan or buzz word, for starters). In conclusion, the combination of data mining and the science of neuro-marketing result in a situation where "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated".

Not even the smartest mathematicians waste any more time than they have to. Math is ALL about simplification.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Not even the smartest mathematicians waste any more time than they have to. Math is ALL about simplification.

Yes, but doing an actual math problem is like weight lifting for the brain.

A monkey could probably be trained to work a calculator. It's not understanding math, but just responding to a punishment/reward system.

 

[D Truth]

1. ..
2. Politics is marketing, essentially. You only need to convince 51%. Never before has man been more bombarded by propaganda. The budding surveillance society collects data that can be used to market much more than deodorant and insurance to us. It can be used to market the next 'humanitarian war', the next celebrity president, the next 'lesser-of-two-evils policy, etc.. It can be used to convince you of the legitimacy of the system itself, which is mostly fake and contrived like a bad TV show. The NSA et al. builds profiles of individuals, communities, districts, states and the nation and tests responses to propaganda using the science of neuro-marketing (scientifically measuring brain response to a slogan or buzz word, for starters). In conclusion, the combination of data mining and the science of neuro-marketing result in a situation where "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated".

So you're basically saying that people should not draw their opinions based on as wide an information source as possible, and should just let the dinosaur media tell them what new celebrity president they need to elect, or what new war they should support?
Really?

 

[DarkFury]

The internet allows like minded bigots the ability to find their own kind and re-enforce their views.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not a single one of your quotes backed up your feckless claim.

Those quotes referred to exporting cryptology and offshore data storage. There was nothing in your links about "strong encryption" not being allowed.

But thanks for admitting that this is just another of your empty Libertarian nonsense allegations that falls apart under scrutiny.

At least you are consistent when it comes to failing to support your drivel.

Your bile is spewing onto your prose. Again, I suggest you take a remedial reading course.

Oh the irony coming from you!

Onus remains on you to quote the appropriate wording in the legislation that supports your fallacious claim.

You have had umpteen opportunities and failed every time.

That tells us that you have squat but your empty Libertarian drivel.

Have a nice day.

Not only did I quote it, I HIGHLIGHTED IT IN BOLD AND ITALICS FOR YOU.

What you highlighted and bolded DID NOT SUPPORT your fallacious Libertarian claim.

Yes it did. Again, I suggest you find someone you trust that speaks English and have them explain it to you.

BZZZT Wrong!

Drowning in Libertarian denial doesn't alter the fact that you have failed to provide anything that supports your bogus claim.

 

[RKMBrown]

Your bile is spewing onto your prose. Again, I suggest you take a remedial reading course.

Oh the irony coming from you!

Onus remains on you to quote the appropriate wording in the legislation that supports your fallacious claim.

You have had umpteen opportunities and failed every time.

That tells us that you have squat but your empty Libertarian drivel.

Have a nice day.

Not only did I quote it, I HIGHLIGHTED IT IN BOLD AND ITALICS FOR YOU.

What you highlighted and bolded DID NOT SUPPORT your fallacious Libertarian claim.

Yes it did. Again, I suggest you find someone you trust that speaks English and have them explain it to you.

BZZZT Wrong!

Drowning in Libertarian denial doesn't alter the fact that you have failed to provide anything that supports your bogus claim.

ROFL

 

[beagle9]

The internet allows like minded bigots the ability to find their own kind and re-enforce their views.

Well isn't that better than fabricating a group, and then getting the media to re-enforce the lie created for the ficticious narative in order to create or fabricate the data as based upon the lie that is being pushed? There are hard numbers, and then there are created or fabricated numbers based upon a lie.

 

[Treeshepherd]

1. ..
2. Politics is marketing, essentially. You only need to convince 51%. Never before has man been more bombarded by propaganda. The budding surveillance society collects data that can be used to market much more than deodorant and insurance to us. It can be used to market the next 'humanitarian war', the next celebrity president, the next 'lesser-of-two-evils policy, etc.. It can be used to convince you of the legitimacy of the system itself, which is mostly fake and contrived like a bad TV show. The NSA et al. builds profiles of individuals, communities, districts, states and the nation and tests responses to propaganda using the science of neuro-marketing (scientifically measuring brain response to a slogan or buzz word, for starters). In conclusion, the combination of data mining and the science of neuro-marketing result in a situation where "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated".

So you're basically saying that people should not draw their opinions based on as wide an information source as possible, and should just let the dinosaur media tell them what new celebrity president they need to elect, or what new war they should support?
Really?

That's not what I said at all. You must be thinking of Seashepherd, or Fleashepherd.

I made no reference to preserving the dinosaur media.

However, I do lament the demise of the old anarchistic internet which was a realm of pirates and wizards. The internet of today begins to resemble a shopping mall dominated by massive corporations and with USMB occupying a leased kiosk in a side lobby, and with mall cops watching everything on their security camera monitors. The Surveillance State creeps ever closer to building the ultimate Panopticon; its purpose being both to chill dissent and to mold the minds of the prone.

 

[Circe]

I think the way the Internet is "destroying" us, or at least our cultural grounding, is that it gives tremendous power to radicals.

Radicals are always the engine of all revolutions and they drag the great majority of the people behind them out of fear, mainly. They publicize radical ideas in huge propaganda waves, as in the French Revolution, or the early Communist takeovers, and the masses are dragged along behind them.

Revolutionary radicals are always a very small proportion of society. But what an incredible megaphone the Internet gives them now!! They can propagandize endlessly about how "normal" transgenderism is, how okay rioting against police in ghettos is, how we should all stop eating meat, or investing in countries that produce diamonds or oil or whatever is the day's hate focus. How wonderful homosexuality is, until every TV show HAS to have its homosexual token, at least.

The Internet is increasing the speed of change to light speed and in those countries where radicals want civil war, they get it easily --- the whole Mideast, Ukraine, Thailand, etc. Radicals rule the Internet because they really care and are very persistent and active, and we are all dragged along in their wake, having to support their crazy and harmful ideas out of fear of shaming and loss if we don't.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I think the way the Internet is "destroying" us, or at least our cultural grounding, is that it gives tremendous power to radicals.

Radicals are always the engine of all revolutions and they drag the great majority of the people behind them out of fear, mainly. They publicize radical ideas in huge propaganda waves, as in the French Revolution, or the early Communist takeovers, and the masses are dragged along behind them.

Revolutionary radicals are always a very small proportion of society. But what an incredible megaphone the Internet gives them now!! They can propagandize endlessly about how "normal" transgenderism is, how okay rioting against police in ghettos is, how we should all stop eating meat, or investing in countries that produce diamonds or oil or whatever is the day's hate focus. How wonderful homosexuality is, until every TV show HAS to have its homosexual token, at least.

The Internet is increasing the speed of change to light speed and in those countries where radicals want civil war, they get it easily --- the whole Mideast, Ukraine, Thailand, etc. Radicals rule the Internet because they really care and are very persistent and active, and we are all dragged along in their wake, having to support their crazy and harmful ideas out of fear of shaming and loss if we don't.

And yet you ignored the radical revolutionaries that founded this nation.

How about the radical revolutionaries of today who are demanding secession? Aren't they agitating for a civil war? Why do they get a pass?

How about the radicals who want to deny women their privacy rights? Or the radicals who are trying to subvert this nation and turn it into a Libertarian Utopia? Then there are the radicals who believe that they should be allowed to openly carry their guns into a kindergarten classroom.

 

[Circe]

And yet you ignored the radical revolutionaries that founded this nation.

How about the radical revolutionaries of today who are demanding secession? Aren't they agitating for a civil war? Why do they get a pass?

How about the radicals who want to deny women their privacy rights? Or the radicals who are trying to subvert this nation and turn it into a Libertarian Utopia? Then there are the radicals who believe that they should be allowed to openly carry their guns into a kindergarten classroom.

I'm not sure of your point here? Those are all good examples of radicals trying to change society, true.

My point is that big revolutions in communications favor the spread of radical ideas. The last one before this was Gutenberg's printing press, which caused the Reformation and two centuries of religious wars, but this digital communications revolution now has FAR more widespread impact all over the world. Radicals who understand this can have a disproportionate effect on society, and they are doing just that.

Are you saying that you approve of the cause of some radicals but disapprove of some others?

 

[Derideo_Te]

And yet you ignored the radical revolutionaries that founded this nation.

How about the radical revolutionaries of today who are demanding secession? Aren't they agitating for a civil war? Why do they get a pass?

How about the radicals who want to deny women their privacy rights? Or the radicals who are trying to subvert this nation and turn it into a Libertarian Utopia? Then there are the radicals who believe that they should be allowed to openly carry their guns into a kindergarten classroom.

I'm not sure of your point here? Those are all good examples of radicals trying to change society, true.

My point is that big revolutions in communications favor the spread of radical ideas. The last one before this was Gutenberg's printing press, which caused the Reformation and two centuries of religious wars, but this digital communications revolution now has FAR more widespread impact all over the world. Radicals who understand this can have a disproportionate effect on society, and they are doing just that.

Are you saying that you approve of the cause of some radicals but disapprove of some others?

My apologies if I misunderstood what you were trying to convey. I agree that the internet is a revolutionary communication tool on a par with printing press. It has proven that it can foment revolutions with the Arab Spring.

But in order to actually make a revolution work you need more than just communications and some dedicated radicals. You need a cause that resonates with ordinary people. Religion plays a factor as you noted but it was basic rights violations that brought about the Arab Spring. Many of the causes I listed in my prior post only resonate within a group of like minded people and will never rise to the level of a revolution because ordinary people just don't care enough about those issues.

So the internet is really a clearing house for ideas and opinions. As far as being able to pick winners and losers I think that you can see that more clearly if you look at the crowd funding web sites. What works is what resonates. Some radical(s) can bang their personal conviction drum 24*7 for years on end and no one will respond because it doesn't matter one iota to the vast majority who hear and see it.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't see how anyone can consider the founders as radical. That is silly. They came here to escape tyranny and England decided it was going to bully them anyway. They pretty much followed the settlers to harass them with taxes and to claim America. The founders, et al, were protecting themselves against tyranny from a monarchy. They were trying to take over and force unfair taxes and laws upon the people. That is more like self defense, IMO. That is MUCH different from what is going on today in some Muslim countries. They are the ones who want to oppress people with their Sharia laws. They aren't fighting a war against tyranny . . . they are trying to make tyranny.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't see how anyone can consider the founders as radical. That is silly. They came here to escape tyranny and England decided it was going to bully them anyway. They pretty much followed the settlers to harass them with taxes and to claim America. The founders, et al, were protecting themselves against tyranny from a monarchy. They were trying to take over and force unfair taxes and laws upon the people. That is more like self defense, IMO. That is MUCH different from what is going on today in some Muslim countries. They are the ones who want to oppress people with their Sharia laws. They aren't fighting a war against tyranny . . . they are trying to make tyranny.

To tyrants (aka. authoritarians) radicals are anyone that is for liberty from their tyranny or for another group of tyrants other than their own particular group of tyrants.