4 ms·

Now that they basically consider journalism to be terrorism, if I subscribe to The Guardian am I "funding terrorism"? I've gone from angry, to completely and u

Now that they basically consider journalism to be terrorism, if I subscribe to The Guardian am I "funding terrorism"? I've gone from angry, to completely and utterly 'defeated'. I think I agree with Groklaw where the only way to win, is not to play. Get off the net and go bush. Take up golf (I hate golf). No idea. It's like being back in school being beaten up by the bullies for being a geek, no words can make it stop, nothing I say or do will make a difference.

kamjam 13y ago
I wonder if you will make it onto a(nother) watch list, in much the same way as anyone making a donation to Wikileaks?
hahainternet 13y ago
> Now that they basically consider journalism to be terrorism, if I subscribe to The Guardian am I "funding terrorism"? Jesus christ could we cut down on the hyperbole a LITTLE?
- enko 13y ago
  I know you think you're being very clever, with your disingenuous "A LITTLE", but ironically it really is only a little hyperbole in the grandparent comment. For fuck's sake, partners of journalists in the UK are being intimidated by the government. If I was the journalist I'd be very hesitant to travel at all. This is in bloody england, remember, the progenitor of everything we think about when we think "the west". Open your eyes. Look how far things have come. This is not about LOLPOINTS™ on the internet, this is actually getting pretty damn real, and people are worried.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    If you think that equating journalism with terrorism is only slight hyperbole then you have no place in reasonable discussion. It is excessive hyperbole that helps nobody and serves only to polarise discussions. In reality the statements so far indicate that they stopped Miranda in order to determine if he was carrying information likely to be of use to terrorists. This seems to be an illegitimate use of the powers, which we'll find out soon. That is a reasonable take on the matters, not 'JOURNALISM NOW IS TERRORISM!!!!!'
    - enko 13y ago
      I can't tell if you're arguing against me, or the UK government - you know, the ones who detained the partner of a journalist using anti-terrorism law. That is where this connection was made. Of course I think their actions are outrageous and unreasonable. In the light of them, however, hypothesising that supporting The Guardian financially may be construed by those in power as financing terrorism is mere extrapolation.
      - hahainternet 13y ago
        > In the light of them, however, hypothesising that supporting The Guardian financially may be construed by those in power as financing terrorism is mere extrapolation. No, it's hyperbole. It's unsupported nonsense.
        enko 13y ago
        > No, it's hyperbole. It's unsupported nonsense. Do you think repeating yourself makes you right? It does not. You've not earned any kind of right to dismiss the matter with statements like that. I actually looked at the age of your account before replying because I thought you were a troll. Unfortunately it looks like those suspicions were well-founded. 822 days - wow, you bided your time.
        hahainternet 13y ago
        > Do you think repeating yourself makes you right? It does not. You've not earned any kind of right to dismiss the matter with that kind of language. You are not the arbiter of discussion. > I actually looked at the age of your account before replying because I suspected you to be a troll. Unfortunately it looks like those suspicious were well-founded. 822 days old - wow, you bided your time. Ironically I was just discussing how irrational conspiracy theorists use contradictory information to confirm their existing beliefs. Thank you for providing me with a perfect example.
        enko 13y ago

kamjam 13y ago

I wonder if you will make it onto a(nother) watch list, in much the same way as anyone making a donation to Wikileaks?

hahainternet 13y ago

> Now that they basically consider journalism to be terrorism, if I subscribe to The Guardian am I "funding terrorism"? Jesus christ could we cut down on the hyperbole a LITTLE?

enko 13y ago
I know you think you're being very clever, with your disingenuous "A LITTLE", but ironically it really is only a little hyperbole in the grandparent comment. For fuck's sake, partners of journalists in the UK are being intimidated by the government. If I was the journalist I'd be very hesitant to travel at all. This is in bloody england, remember, the progenitor of everything we think about when we think "the west". Open your eyes. Look how far things have come. This is not about LOLPOINTS™ on the internet, this is actually getting pretty damn real, and people are worried.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  If you think that equating journalism with terrorism is only slight hyperbole then you have no place in reasonable discussion. It is excessive hyperbole that helps nobody and serves only to polarise discussions. In reality the statements so far indicate that they stopped Miranda in order to determine if he was carrying information likely to be of use to terrorists. This seems to be an illegitimate use of the powers, which we'll find out soon. That is a reasonable take on the matters, not 'JOURNALISM NOW IS TERRORISM!!!!!'
  - enko 13y ago
    I can't tell if you're arguing against me, or the UK government - you know, the ones who detained the partner of a journalist using anti-terrorism law. That is where this connection was made. Of course I think their actions are outrageous and unreasonable. In the light of them, however, hypothesising that supporting The Guardian financially may be construed by those in power as financing terrorism is mere extrapolation.
    - hahainternet 13y ago
      > In the light of them, however, hypothesising that supporting The Guardian financially may be construed by those in power as financing terrorism is mere extrapolation. No, it's hyperbole. It's unsupported nonsense.
      - enko 13y ago
        > No, it's hyperbole. It's unsupported nonsense. Do you think repeating yourself makes you right? It does not. You've not earned any kind of right to dismiss the matter with statements like that. I actually looked at the age of your account before replying because I thought you were a troll. Unfortunately it looks like those suspicions were well-founded. 822 days - wow, you bided your time.
        hahainternet 13y ago
        > Do you think repeating yourself makes you right? It does not. You've not earned any kind of right to dismiss the matter with that kind of language. You are not the arbiter of discussion. > I actually looked at the age of your account before replying because I suspected you to be a troll. Unfortunately it looks like those suspicious were well-founded. 822 days old - wow, you bided your time. Ironically I was just discussing how irrational conspiracy theorists use contradictory information to confirm their existing beliefs. Thank you for providing me with a perfect example.
        enko 13y ago