whatevsbro

12 ms·

31.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
It's fucked up in a morbidly fascinating way how everyone here is just going through the technical details of how this particular variety of oppression works, instead of seeing the oppression itself. What's going on is that a gov
32.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> And how is this any different to Google ? It isn't, they're both raping their users' privacy for money, and that is why Oculus selling to Facebook is disgusting. Facebook will only use it for more privacy-raping, since
33.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> The other alternative is if the Supreme court rules spying is unconstitutional but then they are just ignored by the Executive branch Is there any doubt that mass surveillance is "unconstitutional"? Do you think the people or
34.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> The advocates of freedom need to reject this tactic and push this issue to the Supreme court where it belongs. You see what's going on, but reason a bit further. The Supreme Court is part of the same government that's in the
35.
Why I'm burning my last bridge with Obama (youtube.com)
1 points by whatevsbro 13y ago|0 comments
36.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> unless the karma bar is either raised or a lot of malcontents are culled, consensus on controversial topics is likely to be impossible Well _of course_ consensus on controversial topics is impossible. That's kind of what makes the
37.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
Do you realize that the more rich people leave, the fewer rich people there'll be left to plunder? That, in turn, means that the remaining rich people would have to be taxed even harder to compensate for some of them leaving, which wou
38.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
.. and other(?) Aspies, such as myself.
39.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
This seems timely in light of the new "pending comments" system. What it boils down to, is comments being censored by default , until they're possibly uncensored by group-think. As if the community needed a narrower focus
40.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> Generally, the aim is to redistribute wealth from the 'rich'. What if they leave? Should people be punished for being rich?
41.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
Summary: Censorship by group-think. Unharmonious comments will just never be seen.
42.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> They do still say they're subject, which I guess is something Nope, it's meaningless. What else are they going to say? "It's exactly what it looks like! We just don't give a fuck about you or your rights, and
43.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
>> This website is protected and guaranteed secure by a 100% hacker free security guarantee. This guarantee ensures that this website was scanned and deemed free from of any phishing scams, exploits, or malware that could infect you
44.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
>> By the end of round three I was starting to feel like an abusive jerk and was about to give up and be fake nice instead. Feel like an abusive jerk? -She is one. She's behaving like one of those Chinese "Tiger Moms&quo
45.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> ORLY? "There are reasons why people aren't paid $100 for flipping burgers." OK. I didn't know what you were referring to. Either way, my claim was that there are (good) reasons why people aren't paid $100&#x2
46.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> Otherwise all that Hope & Change sloganeering will be empty rhetoric. But not yet? We've seen the full first term, and the destruction of the nation's economy and everyone's civil liberties, but umm.. we can't t
47.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> 1: Strawman. The issue isn't "make a mint doing unskilled labor", it's "be paid enough to survive". I never said anything about "making a mint" flipping burgers, so .. "strawman" right
48.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
No, the minimum wage prices unskilled workers out of jobs , and thus, reduces competition from those whose compensation - which is based on their productivity - already exceeds the minimum wage. There are reasons why people aren't pai
49.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> Of course hyperinflation would be a concern at the $100 trillion level. If it wasn't harmful to hand out "free money" to everyone, then they could actually do it at the $100 trillion level. The difference is in the degre
50.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
Wow. I think they're not kidding! Yeah, let's all just sit back and receive fiat currency from the skies! I'm sure it will work out just fine, because um.. aggregate demand magic ! Why not just print and hand out 100 trillio
51.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> If you think they are doing something good in this case, I recommend not complaining in discussions about this case. I don't think they're doing anything good. If they were actually good, they wouldn't be eagerly shittin
52.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
The correct answer was "Hipster beard", then. > In the nearly six hours I spent in court on two separate dates, I saw around a hundred people plead guilty and pay fines for a variety of different petty offenses This is plea-bar
53.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
Ah, Google. Defending the first amendment, while shitting all over our privacy! Such heroes!
54.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
Getting out of harm's way is a wise choice. Don't count on getting asylum though. Your destination would depend on how much money you've got saved up, of course. But if you want to live cheaply, Vietnam might be a good option
55.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
I'll try to keep this brief, in case you won't respond again. And yeah, this is getting too taxing on my time too :p > For one thing, I might want to control the laptop you paid for, so it's clearly leaving something imp
56.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> It is not the case that a government wields absolute power. I don't believe it's the case that there is no way to keep a government in check. Tell that to the people of every tyrannical regime in the history of mankind . Per
57.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> Trying again... If your demand for the return of your laptop includes a threat, is it extortion? I say no, because it is not legitimately mine to keep, but that admits the possibility that there may be other reasons something might not
58.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> I am specifically not talking about the NSA Right, and there was no reason to think I thought you were. > As for GCHQ oversight: it'd need to be a conspiracy spanning government (all parties); judiciary; etc Yeah, it seems unim
59.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
> The over iew and scrutiny failed and failed hard - i have no idea why anyone thought it was acceptable to gather webcam data. You know, maybe they're not that concerned with decency when setting up a police state. In fact, maybe t
60.
by whatevsbro 13y ago
Yep, I guess we should continue here, instead of the buried thread.

More ›