Home » CHIT-CHAT » Off Topic Discussions » A really eff'd up world :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #307794]
|
Sat, 21 July 2012 00:38  
|
|
 Doc Croc |
 |
Messages:91
Registered:September 2003
Location: VT |
|
|
How can it be called the worst Batman ever, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was in one, and... I'd like to point out that aside from war and religious conflict, the only mass shooting in the civilized world of Europe was the sick bastard who killed all of those kids in Norway. Aside from that it's all here, 44 minutes, columbine, the theater, the school shootings... Please bear with me, I am trying to type while listening to a very racist relative. I am not sure that Americans are more outspoken than the rest of the world, I just think that people make the mistake of listening to the b*llsh*t that many of us spew. 
Report message to a moderator
|
Corporal 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #307841]
|
Sat, 21 July 2012 14:44
|
|
| Crador |
 |
Messages:28
Registered:June 2012 |
|
|
Getting attention is only one of many possible reasons for such act. Main point is "possibility" of one to perform such act, since he have no serious troubles in getting tools for it.
Think of it as about a price USA citizens have to pay for a right to freely buy personal weapons. And no matter how tradegy that thing was, comparing to millions people who CAN buy weapons and CAN defend themselves in times of need - it is a reasonable price, IMHO.
And if one would stop being "loudly sensible on public" and being blind, he would understand that there are thousands more people diening daily from many different reasons, like car crashes, environmental and technogenic catastrophes, fires, doctor mistakes, AIDS, etc, etc, and those 12 deaths does't worth a cent to mention.
P.A. Shame on on those, who tries to get attention using that trategy. "Video response on that shootout". Pffft.
[Updated on: Sat, 21 July 2012 14:47] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #307950]
|
Mon, 23 July 2012 03:41
|
|
| usrbid |
 |
Messages:1502
Registered:December 2008 |
|
|
Crador@Dieter. Yes, i understand, he is your buddy and i am probably hurting your feelings putting my personal shame on your buddy. Sorry, but it won't kill him not to use someone death to be a bit more known on the webz. There is nothing i could learn from video except that guy is very self-righteous and assured he knows THE TRUTH.
Nutnfancy has 1,105 videos on Noobtube. I am sure he didn't need someone's death to become better known on the Interweb.
The video is also 30 minute long, and I believe you only get more than the default 10 minutes if you already established yourself on Noobtube, but I am not super sure about it.
From watching this specific video I didn't get the feeling that Nutnfancy came across as self-righteous nor that he claims he knows "the truth".
Looks like three missed opportunities to me.
This Nutnfancy guy is known because he was one of the first people who coined the term "sheepdog".
My intent with the video was not to talk about this Nutnfancy guy, I am not buddies with him, and I hate his gear reviews because he talks way too much.
I wanted to start a discussion around "who is responsible for the shooting", because different cultures bring different view points, and through the collaboration everyone can find something to learn.
I did not anticipate the dominant negative attitude. While people are entitled to their opinion, most of what was said wasn't really all that useful, it only made the speaker feel better for a short time.
Edit: Thanks for your answer Crador, still waiting for other to reply. Interesting point from you that FA bring freedome *without* responsibility.
[Updated on: Mon, 23 July 2012 10:45] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #307971]
|
Mon, 23 July 2012 13:33
|
|
| Shanga |
 |
Messages:3475
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia |
|
|
Give a nutcase a car and he'll run over 10 innocent people. You can ban cars, of course. You can even prosecute his driving instructor. Will that stop the next nutcase? Nope.
Same with guns.
The root of the evil is somewhere else and unless our societies take a deep look within and search for what's fucked up with the "modern man", nothing will be fixed.
What brings extremists from normality to their killing spree? What makes a suicide bomber from a normal person? The answer and solutions are far harder to find than pointing the finger and I am afraid our leaders and authorities are the least interested in finding the truth. Because the cause of evil stands closer to them than it stands closer to me or you.
We've been educated that 1+2=3. We grow up and find out that in real world, that only applies to the common man. And sometimes 1+2=1 and sometimes 1+2=4. It all depends how much power and influence and money you got. If you got a strong hold over your brain and life hasn't fucked you up too much, you learn to live and adapt. If you don't you shoot/blow shit up.
Look back in your history books and learn from there. Democracy as a society model has expired, as any other model have in the past. It has been twisted and corrupted by our leaders, as they've twisted and corrupted all other systems. Actually, blaming "our leaders" is stupid, they're not an alien race. It's all of us, as a species, the Home Sapiens, who can't resist not to steal, lie, deceit and kill. The myth of the "honest ruler" is just a myth. Power corrupts.
Now, do I have a solution? No, time has. These kind of solutions come out of blood and misery, not from one man. Sadly we're here only to witness the death of democracy in our own lifetime.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #307985]
|
Mon, 23 July 2012 17:39
|
|
| Khor1255 |
|
Messages:1815
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ |
|
|
Sam_HotteKhor1255Then you have no faith in democracy.
Not in the current US style democracy nor the one you proposed, true. So, elected officials leading by merit only does not appeal to you? I wonder what might?
Sam_HotteQuote:By the way, self financing would also be out. This includes any gathering that might be constrewd as a fund/support raiser.
How does a unknown newbie manage to get popularity (getting known at least to all potential voters) if he may not "advertise" himself nor being "advertised" by others? Oh come on. We hardly live in a vacuum. There will always be nominees, some good, some bad. The current system only really promotes those who are the best financed. And this financing comes with major strings attached.
Initially the candidates would likely come from existing professional politicians but I think these would be weeded out pretty quickly if they really had to answer to their constituancy.
Don't you?
Sam_HotteQuote:That might work on a very small election
Come on, this was a picture, a figurative description using simplification and exaggeration as means of explanation ...
Deeper meaning is, that also sometimes unpopular (at least at short terms) things have to be done and that a populist (demagogue) is something ill connoted in my book. People aren't as stupid as you think they are. Everyone knows that sometimes tough decisions have to be made.
Sam_HotteOn a more obvious level, popularity is not only gained by political achievements, so this could result in a popular movie star who married into a popular family becoming gouvernator ...  That's right. They could come from all walks of life. That is what democracy is supposed to be all about. Not some eleitist 'professional' circle jerk.
Sam_HotteOr think of Nazism or Stalinism: Their ideas were quite popular in their times and (some of) the representatives were charismatic enough to easily win a just popularity controlled democracy. And then they dismantled all checks and balances (of which there really weren't many to begin with) to retain despotic control.
You really think such a thing would be possible in - say - the US?
Sam_HotteI don't think the solution is to be found in the way of financing things but rather in spreading power without getting lost in bureaucracy and such. As long as big business is in control of elections they will never allow any kind of shift in power. There is no magic 'manifesto' that is going to deliver the world from greedy thugs who just want to hold on to their power.
I really have to tell you this?
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #307989]
|
Mon, 23 July 2012 18:25
|
|
| Crador |
|
Messages:28
Registered:June 2012 |
|
|
How did we came to democracy fundamentals here? 
TL/TR: @Dieter, about FA and stuff.
Firearms, cars, baseball bat, hammer, knife, fists and legs - those are mere "tools". They differ in amount of damage you can inflict before facing consequences. Since none of tools brings you any inner rules (person does not grow up if he just pick up pistol, does't becomes responsible citizen just by sitting in a car) - they bring a freedom without responsibility, you agree? A freedom of advantage over another person, who does't have that same tool. A freedom to kill, to rob, to rape, etc.
For example, that shooter would't just kill 12 and wound 40+ people, if every of them would be armed, right? 1-2 and then he would be shot down.
Outer rules, like LAW, does't limit your freedom to kill crowd, it limit your freedom to live after. Dead people does't care about "after".
In Russia FA's are banned. We don't have such thing as those "shootings". At all. In Russia car drivers have increased responsibility for everything happening with their car. If you hit a pedestrian with you car - you are guilty in ANY case. Even if that pedestrian jumped on your car. We have very thin line between self-defence and murder. If a guy punch you to fance with his fist and you hit his head with a hammer - you are guilty murderer. Even if you were defending.
"There are lots of ways to kill a crowd" - Firearms, gives most chances to evade any responsibility, inflicting most damage. Easiness of getting them in USA brings us to accident we are discussing. Unlike firearms, other "tools" have peaceful use, be it car or hammer. FA's are here only to shoot someone.
You can't kill a crowd with hammer. You'll be taken down by some passing guys, ex-military, or martial arts pro or anything. You'll face consequences fast.
You can't kill a crowd with car. Most part of crowd will evade you. Some will remember your car number. You'll face consequences fast.
You need serious knowledge in chemistry and/or physics to make your own bomb and a normal mind to use it in order to kill the crowd. Or take risk buying it on "black market".
With firearms in USA, you just buy SMG, wear black clothes with hood, and shoot as much people, as you have ammo. Then just leave.
Don't take me wrong. I would gladly accept life in a country with free FA market. Armed nation - strong nation. And those 12 deaths, comparing to overall nation counts and to daily deaths from other reasons - very low risk to pay for turning yourself into defended human, not just sheep.
[Updated on: Mon, 23 July 2012 18:42] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #307991]
|
Mon, 23 July 2012 19:06
|
|
| Sam Hotte |
|
Messages:1960
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany |
|
|
Khor1255So, elected officials leading by merit only does not appeal to you?
You didn't say "merit" but "popularity", which is not quite identical. And as long as you do not change anything except financing the applicants for the job may still be driven by greed for power, money or whatever. So preventing lobbying - i would very welcome this (just in case you might got me wrong there) - is just a step in right direction, a piece in the puzzle of a solution.
Quote:Sam_HotteHow does a unknown newbie manage to get popularity (getting known at least to all potential voters) if he may not "advertise" himself nor being "advertised" by others? Oh come on. We hardly live in a vacuum. There will always be nominees, some good, some bad. The current system only really promotes those who are the best financed. And this financing comes with major strings attached.
Initially the candidates would likely come from existing professional politicians but I think these would be weeded out pretty quickly if they really had to answer to their constituancy.
Don't you?
I don't think so. Why should they? Your proposal doesn't change anything about how they had to answer to their constituancy. They got elected, they got their piece from the cake. And they will get this piece next time probably again because they are still embedded in the network that keeps them popular. And to become a nominee a newbie would still have to please the network, not the people, if he cannot draw his poularity from somewhere else.
Quote:Sam_HotteOn a more obvious level, popularity is not only gained by political achievements, so this could result in a popular movie star who married into a popular family becoming gouvernator ... That's right. They could come from all walks of life. That is what democracy is supposed to be all about. Not some eleitist 'professional' circle jerk.
So in your system the popular and hence best paid candidates still come from the Kennedys, Bushs and so on out there. Not too much of a difference, IMHO.
Quote:Sam_HotteOr think of Nazism or Stalinism: Their ideas were quite popular in their times and (some of) the representatives were charismatic enough to easily win a just popularity controlled democracy. And then they dismantled all checks and balances (of which there really weren't many to begin with) to retain despotic control.
You really think such a thing would be possible in - say - the US?
I do not know enough abut the details of US constitution to judge this, honestly. But i'd think a presidential democracy is more vulnerable to this than other modells.
Quote:Sam_HotteI don't think the solution is to be found in the way of financing things but rather in spreading power without getting lost in bureaucracy and such. As long as big business is in control of elections they will never allow any kind of shift in power. There is no magic 'manifesto' that is going to deliver the world from greedy thugs who just want to hold on to their power.
And as long as big business is in control of elections, they will never allow any kind cutting their money's influence either. hence whether it would be "your" system or "mine" - the starting point is getting rid of big busines' control. So that has to be first step of any solution, making any solution to consist of at least two tasks, rendering even "your" solution not as easy as you tried to make it sound.
OTOH if we assumed we could get rid of the grip of big business - then why not do it right afterwards and change not only funding but also distribution of power and other things that might come to clever minds ... ?
Quote:I really have to tell you this?
Remarks like this quite dampens my interest in discussion a lot as they show the other part is not really interested in discussing but rather stating "i am right and you are dumb!" ...
Hence i propose agree2disagree & EOD.
PS: Just in case you were seriously interested in this matter, take a look into countries where funding of politicians etc. is conducted differently and see, if this results in a better democracy (in your book). Could be a good indicator if public funding could be the final solution or just a small step towards it ...
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #307995]
|
Mon, 23 July 2012 19:50
|
|
| Khor1255 |
|
Messages:1815
Registered:August 2003
Location: Pleasantville, NJ |
|
|
Sam_HotteKhor1255So, elected officials leading by merit only does not appeal to you?
You didn't say "merit" but "popularity", which is not quite identical. And as long as you do not change anything except financing the applicants for the job may still be driven by greed for power, money or whatever. So preventing lobbying - i would very welcome this (just in case you might got me wrong there) - is just a step in right direction, a piece in the puzzle of a solution. It is the single most corrupting and mediocraty inducing part of the equation so I think a rather large step in the right direction. But you are right, it is no guarantee for perpetual excellence. But then, nothing is. Is it?
Sam_HotteI don't think so. Why should they? Your proposal doesn't change anything about how they had to answer to their constituancy. They got elected, they got their piece from the cake. And they will get this piece next time probably again because they are still embedded in the network that keeps them popular. And to become a nominee a newbie would still have to please the network, not the people, if he cannot draw his poularity from somewhere else. I think you misunderstand me. There is no network ultimately. It is all decided by multiple primary elections based on who actually has a plan that appeals to people. True, some morons are going to vote simply based on visceral things but in a democracy even fools get a vote. I think the majority of people who bothered to vote in multiple primaries would be of a different sort than your average lazy minded voter of today.
[quote=Sam_Hotte]So in your system the popular and hence best paid candidates still come from the Kennedys, Bushs and so on out there. Not too much of a difference, IMHO.{/quote]In election time their popularity is solely up to individual voters. That is remarkably different than the way we do it in the states. Nominees would have to be chosen through popular vote (no elctoral colleges or district majorities to manipulate). Money for elections would be limited to primary results ONLY. No private endorsements allowed.
Sam_HotteI do not know enough abut the details of US constitution to judge this, honestly. But i'd think a presidential democracy is more vulnerable to this than other modells. Our original system had some pretty good checks and balances in place to guard against any individual attaining too much power. We have at least that many checks and balances written into the system today. The real difference being that our politicians have developed a cliqueish mentality that shields them from the real world consequences. A big part of an all out solution would be to remove this disconnect from the reality of the law that governs us all. But even now our system is hardly vulnerable to being usurped by anything than what it already has been: big money.
Sam_HotteAnd as long as big business is in control of elections, they will never allow any kind cutting their money's influence either. hence whether it would be "your" system or "mine" - the starting point is getting rid of big busines' control. So that has to be first step of any solution, making any solution to consist of at least two tasks, rendering even "your" solution not as easy as you tried to make it sound. Sorry, I though the sarcasm was layed on pretty thick when I said it would be easy. Let me assure you that I am well aware how near impossible this would be to do.
But we can dream can't we?
Sam_HotteOTOH if we assumed we could get rid of the grip of big business - then why not do it right afterwards and change not only funding but also distribution of power and other things that might come to clever minds ... ? Oh yeah, that should be the very first thing adressed to make sure it never gets this bad again.
Sam_HotteRemarks like this quite dampens my interest in discussion a lot as they show the other part is not really interested in discussing but rather stating "i am right and you are dumb!" ...
Hence i propose agree2disagree & EOD. Yeah, sorry. That was uncalled for.
Sam_HottePS: Just in case you were seriously interested in this matter, take a look into countries where funding of politicians etc. is conducted differently and see, if this results in a better democracy (in your book). Could be a good indicator if public funding could be the final solution or just a small step towards it ... I have most of my knowledge about my own country's system. As such I've seen time and again how big money influence takes good ideas and waters them down into ineffectual components of the status quo. A lot more other than just campaign finance would have to ber adressed but nothing of any relevance could ever be achieved so long as those with enough money are allowed to buy and sell world governments at will.
In short, campaign finance is not the do all panacea but rather THE necessary first step if anything of any relevance is to be done. As long as the system benefits the richest of the rich they have no desire to change it. Even if it means everyone else lives like a peasant.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #308004]
|
Mon, 23 July 2012 22:44
|
|
| Sam Hotte |
|
Messages:1960
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany |
|
|
Just have look into the old world: there are countries where not the one is elected who can put the most money in his campaign or were campaigns are publicly funded (like every x% votes you got, the party gets something out of a tax funded purse or similar.
This does in no way prevent that there can establish an political caste disconnected from reality and being bribed by big business and such.
So from my PoV the step might be a basic and necessary one for the US, but it's still very small and will change probably nothing without collateral measures.
[Updated on: Mon, 23 July 2012 22:45] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #308014]
|
Tue, 24 July 2012 05:39
|
|
| usrbid |
|
Messages:1502
Registered:December 2008 |
|
|
Ah, that's more like the discussion I was looking for, thank you guys for contributing.
Crador... Firearms, cars, baseball bat, hammer, knife, fists and legs - those are mere "tools". They differ in amount of damage you can inflict before facing consequences.
(...)
You can't kill a crowd with hammer. You'll be taken down by some passing guys, ex-military, or martial arts pro or anything. You'll face consequences fast.
(...)
Since none of tools brings you any inner rules (person does not grow up if he just pick up pistol, does't becomes responsible citizen just by sitting in a car) - they bring a freedom without responsibility, you agree? ...
At the very moment when someone uses a firearm without thinking it is easy - in this sense freedom without responibility - however you have to admit that the "without thinking" is really very temporary, almost like a child acting without thinking.
However there is always an "after", the only difference is that a child (depending on how young it is) may not have the ability to realize what it did while an adult does.
To answer your question, instead of going for the temporary easy approach to giving in to your anger, shouldn't the adult have the ability to anticipate the result of their action making the statement of "freedome without responsibility" incorrect?
Changing the topic, do you guys remember that guy trying to hijack a plane *after* 9/11? We didn't really hear that much in the media about it because he was badly injured by the passengers and was admited to intensive care.
The problem was that the mob in the airplane was at some point going too far, they should have stopped after the threat was over, but they kept beating the hijacker, and the prosecutor didn't want to make a big deal out of it because after 9/11 it was understandable that people may overreact.
Now to my question, at what point should the people at the theater have turned against the attacker, after the first victim was shot, after the 3rd, the 5th, the 10th, the 15th, the 25th...?
To give you some background, I actually talked to one of the survivors (over Skype), his name is Chris I believe, he said the dude came in through an emergency exit, was dressed up in tacticool gear wearing a gas mask with a "rifle" on his shoulder (I believe it was the shotgun).
He just stood there and looked and everyone believed he was part of the show. Then he threw a "gas grenade" of some sort, some lady got hit by it and started coughing. He then fired into the air. At this point people still believed it was part of the show.
Then he lowered his "rifle", shot and injured the first person, at this point people could see blood and the victim in definite discomfort. Most just looked in disbelieve, probably hoping the victim was still part of the show.
Then the attacker continued firing into the rows of seats with more and more people screaming in anguish, blood everywhere. At this point the movie patrons panicked and everyone started running.
Maybe this panic prevented people from collectively going against the attacker, maybe passengers on an airplane had a more clear understanding of "us against them", I feel this is hard to judge, what do you guys think?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #308019]
|
Tue, 24 July 2012 08:45
|
|
| Crador |
|
Messages:28
Registered:June 2012 |
|
|
@Sam Hotte. Well yes, you CAN kill a crowd with just anything. Like fire. Let's ban fire! Heh. It's just require much more effort and brings much more risk, then FA's. Examples you'v brought are not very good, especially that Russia Army one. Army is a place, where FA's are not banned, obviously But my main point was ignored, as it always happens on the internet. About FA's not having any use except hurting people, so you can't compare banning cars and banning FA's.
On the other hand, banning stuff gone too far in Russia. Another "side" of medal. Since 1st jan 2012 in Russia all medicine containing Codein was banned (limited for strict in-hospital use), because some people was using it to make "home-made" drugs. Those were good and strong painkillers. So now, if you get teeth pain, you'll have to wait 'till monday morning, then wait in hospital for doctor to give you reciepe and only then you will be relieved from pain. Meh.
@Dieter. I think appearance of armed person is exactly good time for starting running/evading or turning against him. All that "surprise action" crap around movie premiers seems pretty stupid thing to me. It's like screaming "Wolfs!" while there are no wolfs, and when they come - noone listens to you anymore. Such "surprises", acted incidents with good ending, diminishing people healthy self-preservation instinct. So after a few, you could see shooting on streets and waste time trying to unerstad - is that serious. Few seconds, that makes you dead.
[Updated on: Tue, 24 July 2012 12:27] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #308034]
|
Tue, 24 July 2012 14:54
|
|
| Sam Hotte |
|
Messages:1960
Registered:March 2009
Location: Middle of Germany |
|
|
DieterHowever there is always an "after", the only difference is that a child (depending on how young it is) may not have the ability to realize what it did while an adult does.
Should. There are enough adults not realizing, be it for mental defects or out of some kind of belief "This was a good deed; it's justified by [whatever]".
Quote:Now to my question, at what point should the people at the theater have turned against the attacker, after the first victim was shot, after the 3rd, the 5th, the 10th, the 15th, the 25th...?
OC after the first one. But naturally this is the armchair decision's answer. On a more general approach "emergency assistance" to the threatened citizens should take place at this moment were it is possible to stop the imminent threat by whatever needs with as little danger to the helper himself as possible.
So, if Gus Tarballs had been present in the cinema, armed, he shall gun the attacker down at once.
Quote:Maybe this panic prevented people from collectively going against the attacker, maybe passengers on an airplane had a more clear understanding of "us against them", I feel this is hard to judge, what do you guys think?
I think you cannot compare this particular situations. In the cinema you can escape the whole situation and danger if you manage to flee the location unharmed. In the plane, thinking of 9/11 you seem to know that you're dead anyway if the hijacker proceeds (even if not being shot directly yourself, the plane will crash and end your life as well) and you can never ever escape this situation. And in a plane the Hijacker on his side is limited in movement and combat options, more than the shooter in cinema.
So this is not quite comparable, IMNSHO.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant Major
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #308235]
|
Fri, 27 July 2012 16:12
|
|
| Shanga |
|
Messages:3475
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia |
|
|
I think the recent history proved that if someone is bent on mass-murder, there's little anyone can do to PREVENT him from doing so. Guns or no guns. Pulling a gun on innocent people takes a lot more than driving a truck full of fertilizers into a parking lot and watching the massacre from a distance. In terms of mass-murdering it's actually a weak tool, creepy as it sounds.
But I didn't want to go into a debate about what's best for mass-murders. I just wanted to point out that the way modern society is built, it's bound to breed insanity.
There's a class of oligarchs in almost every country who control politicians and media. These guys are so smart, they identified almost all means and methods they can control your freedom. Maybe the few things that are left somewhat free are your living room (but not when your TV is on) and the internet. But you all know they try. ACTA, SOPA and all those are the final assaults on the last barriers to complete power. They failed now but that won't stop them from trying again.
They have basically unlimited financial resources. Basically a small cliche controls more wealth than entire world population, you and me, can ever dream to hold, produce or gain. And whoever has so much wealth hasn't gained it by growing potato crops, trust me. And they won't go out peacefully either.
My working inside media gave me an insight that gives me chills when I think of it. I can't speak for all countries, but similarities from what you post are striking. Speaking for what I know, the "normal citizen", the "voter" is kept wrapped up in a web of lies deeper than even Matrix creators could've imagined.
If this thing was a dragon, media would be its mouth, politicians its claws and the dark powers its brain. And you and me, its food. That's about how much power ordinary citizens have.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: A really eff'd up world :/[message #308253]
|
Fri, 27 July 2012 21:02
|
|
| Shanga |
|
Messages:3475
Registered:January 2000
Location: Danubia |
|
|
To steal and lie in the name of many.
The more people trust your lies, the more powerful you are and the more you can steal. And the more you can steal, the more people you can lie to.
That's the quintessence of the modern politics. The vicious circle they craft.
It's scary because you see, these people do not exploit us for money. I mean they're fine with making billions and trillions off us, selling packaged b/s and thin air. But money they have enough. What they're scared of is YOU having money. You know, a human who's well educated, had a decent job, no debt, a nice family, might some day develop a conscience and want to have an say in how things are run. God forbid, we might even develop a taste for controlling our own life.
As Khor said, neutered populations are so docile.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Jun 12 02:30:27 GMT+3 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01745 seconds
|
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
