yeah that’s on me I only searched “pedo”

idk im at like 7 months an the only time i was able to ctrl f “pedo” in your history was when you were talking about trump (which, fair) and then again about 4chan pedophiles (which, again).

I’m sorry, I’m reading back over that message and it came off at least twice as harsh as was intended. My fury should be directed towards others and it accidentally spilled onto you. I came at you a little sideways and I regret the tone.

There is, of course, value in hearing the lies from the horse’s mouth

access journalism? where you get some jerk in a chair and lob softballs to retain “access” to them? that thing? thats whats valuable? maintaining access to the people who you know for a fact are lying to you so that you can lob softballs is the valuable thing.

access journalism a bastard child: spawn of the unholy union of the media’s profit motive and the accessed’s desire to legitimize their message (you are invited to recall the message being legitimized in this case).

the government has means of sending its own messages. uncritical ‘stenographizing’ of those messages is indistinguishable from endorsement of them. if the media is being pressed into serving as propaganda outlets for the state, that should be the story, not “the white house said…” and clearly they still have some power to say these things remaining because here is tech dirt saying it.

telling someone the weather is dry when its actually wet because you want to deceive them into not carrying an umbrella has negative truth value.

a journalist doesnt prescribe, they describe. they describe the truth (which often includes reporting who is lying about what) as best they can. thats what makes them a journalist instead of an opinion-columnist. they document, record, critically analyze, and publicly journal their findings.

the only thing carrying disinformation-water for a tyrant serves as a “launching point” for is a career in propaganda.

buddy, theres a whole range of ages between 0 and 16, and i use that number 0 advisedly.

I tried the local credit union, same shit different name.

[citation needed]

i feel like if 23 29 people cant tell what you mean it might just be you arent communicating well

see i still have no idea what youre talking about is the thing about that

I dont suppose you’d care to express an actual thought at all?

I like this explained reasoning better.

While I tend to agree that the possibility exists (motive, means and opportunity align); are you suggesting that the absence of evidence here is a reason to believe the speculation?

If the rules are “You gotta pay for the book” and they don’t pay for the book, they broke the rules, that’s what I consider cheating. I don’t necessarily agree with the rule, I disagree with cheating. This is, of course, relative, as truth and morality in general are.

“How are we supposed to win the race if we can’t cheat?!”

They said this about the rise of fission, electricity, steam power, computers. The extra production was either captured by capitalists, or simply didnt materialze. What’s different this time?

No, if you want to see that era of global prosperity, you need to address a lot of deep, fundamental issues that humanity has trouble even acknowledging let alone actually acting toward fixing. edit: Though, stopping fascism would be a necessary first step.

I don’t think what you describe is meaningful action either.

Do I understand that you agree the proposed “blackout” is symbolic, and that you wish there were something more meaningful being proposed; or are you defending the blackout as meaningful itself? Do you agree with the criticism of the blackout’s being symbolic, but want to go along with it despite its lack of meaning (or perhaps better stated, lack of effect)?

For my part, I’d be much more pleased with the idea of the blackout if I could be convinced that it would have useful results, and would generally be in favor of so-called “meaningful action.” This blackout wouldn’t effect me either way since I’ve already given up amazon and google stuff almost entirely except what I need for work. I just need to know what the meaningful next step would be.

It sounds like a call to avoid symbolic action and take meaningful action instead, to me.

He’s out of line, but he’s right.

I’m gonna leave it here for tonight, SMCF. It’s been nice chatting.

Do you mean violent statements are not true statements? If a person says, “I’m gonna break your legs because you didn’t pay me,” is that statement untrue because it is violent? Or perhaps do you mean that violence and truth are independent of one another, that violence is a quality of actions and truth is a quality of statements, that they are not inclusive of each other in that way? Or should I take the surface-level interpretation and say that truth is not compatible with violence- that being violent negates truth in some way and being truthful prevents violence?