|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 1, 2016 18:55:32 GMT -5
I don't have it, but I'll say that competition is a wonderful thing. They built their success off of Sim City's failure and good timing. Now you're telling me they allow their buyers to compete against them too by modding??? :D FeelsGoodMan all around.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 1, 2016 18:51:17 GMT -5
Old media is dyinggggggggggggg TV is dyinggggggggggggg YAY
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 25, 2016 23:57:30 GMT -5
I'm guessing lots of Sanders supporters don't really care about 'socialism'. I'm guessing lots of Trump supporters don't really care about Trump's ad-hoc-ness. I'm guessing a lot of their fans just really, really want to shake up the establishment and throw a wrench in the political machine. In the event that one of them gets a primary nomination, they'll get a significant portion of the votes from the other's failed campaign. In the event that they both get the primary nomination, well, it'll be one of the more interesting elections. People are mad, and the common person recognizes the economy is in the toilet right now (recession-level service-sector CPI, horrible manufacturing / CPI, the continuing death of the petrodollar, the weakening against foreign currencies, extremely low labour force participation, full time jobs down, part time jobs up, constant inflation, started the year at .7 'growth', junk bond markets way down, stocks still way down, lots of stocks obliterated, lots of stocks down 50% or more. Literally all the data says "WE ARE IN A RECESSION" and now the Fed makes claims of "data dependency," trying to bide time, doing nothing. Don't give me that self-fulfilling prophecy animal spirits crap, because all that's been coming out of the Fed and the talking heads on Fox Business / CNBC / any major news publication is that the consumer is really confident (inflation makes consumers inherently unconfident, uh?) and that the economy sure looks great with that recent rate hike (which immediately went away)). Hillary represents 'more of the same' riding on the back of Obama's 'I inherited a bad economy and fixed it.' If these bubbles fully pop during this political season, I guarantee you there's an incredibly, incredibly small chance that she'll get elected in the face of the perceived anti-establishment Trump.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 17, 2016 16:15:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 17, 2016 16:15:28 GMT -5
the organizations / people exercising control seem to be exercising it in a fashion which denotes military-level authority. It may seem like it was to you, but it objectively wasn't. The only one playing word games is you, because you're trying to redefine martial law so that anything the federal government does, if it involves force, is martial law. It's not, the FBI is a Law Enforcement agency, the Oregon State police are a law enforcement agency, the local police are a law enforcement agency. A group of people broke the law and were armed and dangerous, the appropriate law enforcement agencies responded to the threat and most of the people eventually surrendered, only one died, because he was reaching for a gun and you can see video evidence he was trying to reach for something. So, pretty much the exact opposite of martial law. But if you are inherently anti government to begin with, it may seem like a military "level authority" because to you the government is wrong by default. Not at all. My argument is one from degrees, the reductio ad absurdum doesn't work. The degree of paramilitary presence is sufficient to claim it as de facto as opposed to de jure martial law.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 17, 2016 11:49:45 GMT -5
De FactoMartial Law The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory. Put your bias aside and look at the facts. This means ignoring the 'right-leaning' (I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by this label. We probably mean different definitions of 'right wing'.) rhetoric that often accompanies the only publications willing to talk about witness reports and investigative journalism. But, let me ask you this, what sort of evidence would you accept? Does it have to be video or photographic? How about multiple accounts by independent journalists or eye witnesses all attesting to the same thing? Of course your definition of a "right wing publication" is different because even if it is blatantly defending a right wing violent militia you don't call it right wing. You proved your flawed idea of what's an acceptable publication from the sources you have provided in your previous posts. Show me a real source (as in the kind of source that at the very least has the decency to correct itself when it publishes incorrect info) saying that Burns Oregon is now under martial law. All the sources I found were the kind that say stuff like "I wouldn't do what Bundy's group did because I'm not as brave as Bundy". There is no "martial law" going on in the case of Burns Oregon. There is just a government rightfully taking back what was their property in the first place and arresting violent militiamen who have broken the law. Someone earlier in the thread provided a good example of corrupt, overreaching US government with the passing of CISA and they provided a real source. If I wanted to look up about Edward Snowden's leaks I could easily find numerous real sources that explain the leaks. Don't pretend I have no idea what a real source is. You've misunderstood me, sir, and you conduct this argument without the good faith I'm according to you. I was being entirely serious and concealing no intention when I asked my question. I mean it when I asked you what sort of evidence would convince you, what authorities you put your faith in, and so on. I'll post where I got the information from now, but, please answer that part irrespective of particular objections (preferably before you read the links) to the articles. I'd like your general policy on the thing. Then, if you have the will / time, demonstrate how the publications I point out do not fit into the categories that befit honest journalism. dianersite.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/theres-something-strange-happening-here/www.intellihub.com/massive-number-heavily-armed-paramilitary-forces-operating-in-and-around-burns-oregon/www.intellihub.com/martial-law-burns-oregon-feds-terrorize-local-citizens-check-points-random-searches-guns-head/video.beforeitsnews.com/mercenaries-in-burns-declare-martial-law_e9a2d6aed.htmlworld-war.beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/02/martial-law-in-burns-oregon-3302652.htmlKeep in mind that I might not believe every detail of these links, nor did I thoroughly check them all, just corroborating things. If I'm not mistaken, they all typically site a few YT videos, that one blogging journalist, intellihub, and eyewitness reports. I usually define 'right wing' as establishment neoconservatism and 'left wing' as establishment progressivism. If I say we mean different things, I try to invite you to explain what you mean by it, but you seem to be more interested in slamming me. I also believe you're brandishing labels in a manner that distracts from critical analysis and encourages thinking in buzzwords, pre-established paradigms, basically discouraging critical thought, and demonstrates an unwillingness to change one's views. Under my definition of 'right wing,' however, it's readily seen that they would hate and revile militias and rebels just as much as the 'left wing.' De FactoMartial Law The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory. Put your bias aside and look at the facts. This means ignoring the 'right-leaning' (I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by this label. We probably mean different definitions of 'right wing'.) rhetoric that often accompanies the only publications willing to talk about witness reports and investigative journalism. But, let me ask you this, what sort of evidence would you accept? Does it have to be video or photographic? How about multiple accounts by independent journalists or eye witnesses all attesting to the same thing? Even by that definition, it's still not martial law. The FBI isn't part of the military and it was federal land. They also weren't exercising control, they were cooperating with local police forces, because everyone was trying to prevent Waco 2.0 I think the first part of your post is a little bit of equivocation and word games. While I agree that it is not officially the military (lots of the paramilitary forces weren't even marked), the organizations / people exercising control seem to be exercising it in a fashion which denotes military-level authority.
|
|
|
Movies
Feb 17, 2016 11:32:56 GMT -5
Post by jaedrik on Feb 17, 2016 11:32:56 GMT -5
Also the F-35 Lightning is hot garbage. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. Over budget sure, not garbage. Also The Revenant was fantastic. warisboring.com/articles/the-f-35-is-still-horribly-broken/Keep in mind, my earlier language is old (october something) and indicates hyperbole.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 15, 2016 11:59:34 GMT -5
Defending ??? Please review the text of my post. And, sir, you'll find that I'd be totally consistent, without double standard, in my opinions and presentation if BLM activists were occupying a building. Attacking me avails you nothing. You assume much and know little. You claimed that Burns, Oregon is now under martial law because the federal government has finally stepped in and done something about the Bundy's and their miltia. A quick search shows that the only sources saying such a thing are right wing sources that would rather defend the militia than approve of the federal government doing its job. De FactoMartial Law The exercise of government and control by military authorities over the civilian population of a designated territory. Put your bias aside and look at the facts. This means ignoring the 'right-leaning' (I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by this label. We probably mean different definitions of 'right wing'.) rhetoric that often accompanies the only publications willing to talk about witness reports and investigative journalism. But, let me ask you this, what sort of evidence would you accept? Does it have to be video or photographic? How about multiple accounts by independent journalists or eye witnesses all attesting to the same thing?
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 14, 2016 14:30:43 GMT -5
Somehow I'm not surprised that Jaedrik is now defending a militia that illegally occupied a federal building for nearly a month, kept threatening violence while doing so (and made those threats while armed) and kept harassing locals when the law enforcement wouldn't do jack to deter their occupation, all over some inconvenient grazing regulations. I wonder what Jaedrik would be saying if it were BLM activists occupying the building? Defending ??? Please review the text of my post. And, sir, you'll find that I'd be totally consistent, without double standard, in my opinions and presentation if BLM activists were occupying a building. Attacking me avails you nothing. You assume much and know little.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 13, 2016 23:05:36 GMT -5
Here's a joke from Walter Block. There were three prisoners in the Soviet Union's gulag, and, as prisoners are wont to do, they compared notices as to why they're there. The first guy said "I got to work early and they accused me of brown-nosing." The other guy said "I got to work late and they accused me of cheating the state out of my labour services." The third guy said "I got to work every day exactly on time and they accused me of owning a western wristwatch." Walter: I once told this to a bunch of anti-trust lawyers and economists and got uproarious laughter. Now I told the second part of the joke, and I said: There were three people in jail for anti-trust violations, and, like prisoners do, they compared notes. The one guy said "I charged too high a price and they accused me of profiteering." The second guy said "I charged too low a price and they accused me of cutthroat competition." And the third guy said "I charged the same price as everyone else, and they accused me of collusion." Walter: Dead silence, nobody was laughing.
In other news, Burns, Oregon is under de facto martial law, and there's mercenaries and paramilitary swarming the place.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 13, 2016 23:05:10 GMT -5
Oh boy, I did it. Made a post that didn't fit the American-centric Presidential Election 2016 thread, opened the door for politics general instead.
Middle East is a mess, as always.
Let me break it down for you. It'll help me sort the thing out in my own head, too.
Turkey, a NATO nation, is set to invade Syria, has already started artillery campaigns against many in the first group I'll mention below, and plunge us into WW3 in accord with article 5 of NATO. That won't happen, though, since article 5 deals with defense and Turkey is the aggressor.
But, let's step back.
These are the sides (probably? All these names are getting me confused). Most members are escalating.
1. Russia + Iranian troops (Shi'ah) + Assad's Syrian Arab Army (Shi'ah), with Iraqi militia (Shi'ah. Kurdish? The Badr Brigade as an Iranian arm, Kata’ib Hezbollah, and the League of the Righteous, lots of people previously backed by the U.S. to fight ISIS) +(?) Kurdish YPG... VS 2. ISIS (Sunni, U.S.-Israel proxy army) + 3. CIA backed Free Syrian Army ('rebels,' mercenaries, Sunni), and now + Turkey (Sunni), AND + Arab League (Sunni Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, all mobilizing material and troops to support Turkey). Remember, Sunni (orthodox) dogma says that Shi'ah (schismatic) is apostasy and punishable by death. There's obvious theological background here, but there's obvious political motivation as well. Saudi military is a pushover, so is Turkey, they're gonna get absolutely rekt by the Russians, Hezbollah, Assad's forces, etc. They're going to want to try and pull NATO into this, which is hopefully unlikely.
Doo doo's probably gonna get real soon (14th-16th I predict). inb4 the false flags too It should be a convenient distraction from domestic issues and failed monetary policy anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 13, 2016 0:08:29 GMT -5
Predictions.
Economic disaster soon. Federal Reserve will cut rates, launch Quantitative Easing 4. Regardless of what they do, it'll still be a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 4, 2016 22:22:47 GMT -5
But, this is a different issue. One that I will concede.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 4, 2016 15:07:18 GMT -5
yeeaaahhh sorry. its not even anything personal its just how these things tend to go and the same reason i bailed on that gg discussion again. Its a glorified game if posting shit and yelling WHAT ABOUT THIS. and it takes so much time to check the validity and quality of shit that i just cant keep my patience. If i really wanted to take the time to sift through it all then id be looking at them on my own time anyway (i dont even follow forums for stuff i align with either because its subject to the same problems; reddit and most social media has a huge problem where a lot of attention is granted to something just because it's easy to chew and it can actually take quite a bit of effort to validate them). Im not even saying i handle it particularly well either but thats all the more reason to not get started in the first place. theres not enough time in life to entertain everything i come across so when something repeatedly drives me up the wall then im not going to keep giving it chances. Thanks. I forgot this. I checked the link. Not very convincing, especially because many of then had nothing to do with vaccines or autism. ??? Reading many of abstracts and looking up the scientists leads me to the opposite conclusion. Your word against mine? We see what we want to see? Even if many of the papers don't support it directly, many do, it should go to show that the issue is far more complex and in dispute than the mainstream would suggest. At the very least, I think we can agree that issues like this are highly politicized and have financial interest groups involved. Bernie deserved that win. Lolololol Isn't that from The Big Question where this fitness guy looks at that fat lady with "r u srs m8"? Well--when I say deserved, I mean as much as a democracy can make someone deserve to tyrannize the minority. Friends, why is it that, the more I find out the more radical, extreme, and tubular I become? Perhaps it's a blind trust in what information I find? Perhaps I have some disorder which makes me want to be special or different or noticed? Perhaps I want to feel smarter than everyone else? Perhaps I'm honest in my desire to know the truth, and what I know is true? Perhaps I'm just a foxtrotting idiot? Why do the most 'radical' politicians (Bernie, Ron) seem to be the most genuine about their beliefs? Is it just the nature of 'moderate' beliefs to make their representatives seem middling? I'd advance because most people hide behind some degree of falsehood, and they can't shake the cognitive dissonance with reality, or reality opposes them in some way. The more consistent someone seems in their beliefs, the more harmony and honesty of the mind and character they seem to have. Either way, I think we need more "idealists" and less "pragmatists" (who are just idealists of the utilitarian bent).
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 4, 2016 13:28:17 GMT -5
Jaedrik i learned to stop clicking any of the shit you post months ago This is a doo doopost. Oh, man the Foxtrot up. You think I give a doo doo? I do. Because I care about you. Doo dooing on me like this only frustrates everyone involved and can result in a circlejerk putdown echo chamber. Could you be more pretentious? Probably. Be open minded or something like that instead, or don't say anything. Please. Edit: huh no autocensor
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 4, 2016 12:53:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 4, 2016 11:39:36 GMT -5
here i thought jews controlled the worlds money o l d m o n e y Rothschild Rockefeller Goldman Sachs Soros IMF FEDERAL RESERVE (PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS) BANK OF JAPAN EU BANK ALL OF THEM ARE J E W S (more accurately they would be participants in Rabbinical Phariseeism, if I actually believed the hoopla) Man I've been spending too much time on /r/conspiracy lately :KappaFace:
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 4, 2016 11:35:14 GMT -5
Iowa cuckuses more like. Bernie deserved that win. Bullshit coin tosses, fraud / questionable behavior by vote counters etc., and delegates crap. Well, at least we have the corruption of the political system shoved in their faces now. The more people that see the dishonesty of the whole thing, the more people fight back. We need more Ron Pauls and Bernie Sanderses. They should be the type of men (honest people) to win elections.
|
|
|
D&D
Feb 3, 2016 13:17:33 GMT -5
Post by jaedrik on Feb 3, 2016 13:17:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 1, 2016 11:57:58 GMT -5
People act like trademarks are this big thing, they're not. I really hope you're right. Edit: and I hope "big thing" is qualified. To me, it would be a big thing if people couldn't use the label "React." That's slapping down competition with the threat of violence.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 31, 2016 18:48:28 GMT -5
I don't see anywhere where that is, and if it is trademarked it's not a registered trademark, so it's weaksauce. Also the fact that they're trademarking "react". www.tmfile.com/mark/?q=866893643??? Did you miss this part, or did he change the link, or isn't it accurate?
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 30, 2016 3:14:34 GMT -5
Insofar as "opening it up for everyone" constitutes having a legal monopoly over the format of a show, it becomes detrimental to the proclaimed goals. Their well-seeming rhetoric, then, has to be taken for ignorance or PR speak.
If their words, "We do not own the idea of reaction videos nor would we shut down anyone making reaction based content." can be trusted, then there's nothing to worry. But that hardly matters.
If it CAN be weaponized in ANY way to legally take down or hinder competition (like trademarking), then it's better to not have it at all so that the temptation is never there (tempting people to do bad things is bad and shouldn't be institutionalized). Seals of approval can be granted without legal monopolies. The things they put forward as positives for everyone: "This is also a way to create a community on YouTube of like minded producers and fans who want to work together, and benefit from the guidance and resources that we can provide around the specific FBE shows that we are making available through the React World program." can be done without a legal monopoly. Competition MUST be allowed to proceed unimpinged by legal concerns. That fraudulent companies which defame the reputation of another pop up is a societal tragedy, yes, in no way is it permissible that they be shut down on legal grounds, since that would be a greater tragedy. #1. a good reputation isn't a right, it is earned, #2. consumers would want to be informed if they wanted to keep their people straight and go to the 'right' places for high quality content, #3. the initiation of force against people who use words or labels in ways that they don't like (which is ultimately what it boils down to) is morally incoherent from the standpoint of a natural law and, categorically, cannot have positive effects on a society since it violates said natural laws. Ultimately, it has to be solved through peaceable, sociable, civil, cultural means which don't rely upon the threat of violence.
Top it all off, trademarking (at least like this) is against common sense, as Mega64 and penguinz0 humorously prove :D
"In fact, that shit goes way back to the 80s." When it's us taking other peoples' ideas, we justify it. When other people take our ideas, we villify it. Loss / risk aversion complex 2 stronk.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 29, 2016 12:34:59 GMT -5
Germany and Cologne - Politics makes strange bedfellows. SJWs, generally, are silent or positive on the issue if Islam, which they should be the most vehemently opposed to of all world religions if their own agendas are to be taken honestly. Those that do speak out are policed out by the movement--we can't be racist against Arabs and we have to be open to our Islamic brothers and sisters. It's stunning to see such an unforgiving, loud, and vitriolic group of activists saying next to nothing on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 29, 2016 11:09:42 GMT -5
but the lot who actually adhere to GG's ideals just ignores it. Which is an absolutely terrible idea. The reputation that the group has as a bunch of girl-hating manchildren completely undermine any meaningful goals they have. I wont deny or disagree that people overplay the sexism thing or that there are trolls or attention-seekers that egg that on, but the other issue is that there are people who use the group as an excuse to push that agenda themselves; and it has allowed that reputation to be maintained even after the movement branched into different names and was taken out of the spotlight. When it comes down to it, most people consider sexism to be a bigger deal than videogame journalism. The broader stance against censorship in general is better but again most people dont care when its for the sake of political correctness (which there definitely has been outrage over from what ive seen on reddit at least). Ignoring or accepting the negative reputation of the group instead of trying to distance itself from it turns the movement into a glorified whinebox whose only impact on the media comes from people trying to make bank off of pandering to them. When i say gamergate is dead i dont mean that nobodys trying anymore, i mean that i dont think theres a chance they can accomplish anything anymore. I would argue that there's no practical way to actually push back against the "they are sexist" narrative, not because they're sexist obviously. The dominant narrative will remain "they're sexist" even if all the figureheads came out and said "we're terribly sorry for what some of the people who do stuff in our name said, please ignore them, they're not us." And, in fact, after countless accusations, we have condemned actually sexist people in general countless times. We've gotten tired of being accused of something we're not, and we know it won't go away. Systemic, institutional patriarchy? No; systemic, institutional spin and narrative control. We've even seen that apologizing doesn't work. Give them an inch, and they want unreasonable miles. It doesn't help that "censor the internet" is a huge part of the SJW's narrative, and attempting to enforce their ideals onto a movement which is ostensibly opposed to them means they've won in many senses. Bottom line, there's no practical way to police that behaviour, and it would be a waste of effort to try. You're wrong to say that people have given up and aren't trying in a broader sense, then. Mr. Meteokur, Drunken Peasants, whoever, and all those other YouTube wannabes are still pushing content and gaining views. People are getting no-platformed and bullied out by the SJWs--recently, Dawkins--and we're finally seeing headway by having debates in universities with Milo's recent touring, and speaking of Milo he's still hot on it, and has directly been the cause of an executive shakeup at Twitter. And, if we want to take it to a societal level, the amount of people who self-identify as 'feminists' has been decreasing over the years. Donald Trump's (stupid) popularity is enough to say that people have a growing distaste for political correctness and all sorts of isms we've had to pay platitudes to over the years. No more. If they want to believe I'm sexist because I identify with a movement, I don't need to shout at them that I'm not any more, they're the ones at fault and not me.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 29, 2016 10:49:34 GMT -5
His first words colour his advice too: "Toughen up." The implication is "if you can't toughen up, then it would be in your best interest to turn it off."
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 28, 2016 13:55:01 GMT -5
WataMote / It's Not My Fault That I'm Not Popular is great series. Making people cringe in self-awareness and identifying with the main character as a doo doo-y person, now that's what I call art.
|
|
|
Music
Jan 28, 2016 13:52:45 GMT -5
Post by jaedrik on Jan 28, 2016 13:52:45 GMT -5
The Normie Song
FeelsGoodMan
WATAMOTE best series.
EDIT Two great ones I forgot
Consouls came out with another Final Fantasy cover, and it's mellow as heck. If you want to chill, check it out:
Snare brushes tho
More music I've come across thanks to SaltyBet: Remember, ALWAYS BET SWORD
That sort of elevator Muzak / Wii Shop vibe. The image of a high-class office building with pleasant potted plants, beige carpet, cream walls, non-fluorescent lights, and white blinds to a private office and ultimately to the blue-grey city sky blocked by an adjacent blue-grey skyscraper, flashed into my mind too.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 28, 2016 13:51:00 GMT -5
Are you still going on about this? It's my life now. It's who I am. I sexually identify...
|
|
|
Pokemon
Jan 28, 2016 13:02:26 GMT -5
Post by jaedrik on Jan 28, 2016 13:02:26 GMT -5
lol Pokken at EVO
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Jan 28, 2016 12:54:40 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/09/08/how-copyright-is-killing-your-favorite-memes/?tid=ss_twm e m e s Also, sort of back to tie in with the GamerGate thing, Milo Yiannopoulos is my hero. annnnnd Another one for the Copyright discussion: And my favorite quote from such that serves as a bit tl;dw for you to attack <3 "I invented nothing new. I simply assembled the discoveries of other men behind whom were centuries of work. Had I worked fifty or ten or even five years before, I would have failed. So it is with every new thing. Progress happens when all the factors that make for it are ready, and then it is inevitable. To teach that comparatively few men are responsible for the greatest forward steps of mankind is the worst sort of nonsense." - Henry Ford
|
|