Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
Also I am formally disavowing the elections, it's not worth hating half of America. It's not worth hating my fellow citizens any more.
It was none other than the people and corporations who tried to pit us against each other and thought they'd actually get away w/ distracting us from this censorship based power grab.
B/c if this power grab that is now being attempted succeeds, billionaires will decide if you are even *allowed* to participate in society at all just like in china.
I will never allow that for my fellow citizens even if they yell in my face b/c out of misplaced anger.
I Love you America. I love you Canada. I love you Britain. I love you France. Germany. Mexico. And so many more.
Do not come to me with "xyz did so and so!"
Do not come to me with election issues.
Do not come to me with "yes but they did this or said that!"
I will not listen to your anger.
Eat your heart out jack dorsey.
I reject censorship and division entirely. -
I saw this coming when I first heard about China’s social credit system, and seeing what Google was doing with tracking.
The issue is that I don’t see a way to avoid it. People are blind and willfully ignorant because they are mentally lazy. Listening to and obeying propaganda is easier, and so they do just that.
I think this is one of those cases where you’re part of the problem if you’re not part of the solution. Being ignorant is being complicit, and being complicit turns the world into 1984. The worst part: keeping mentally lazy people ignorant is literal child’s play if you control even a fraction of the media: just lie and call everyone else names and say they’re lying. The average lazy will believe you, and will even defend the lies you feed them.
Pretty sure it’s time for a change.
(And I don’t mean of presidency.) -
@Root
Was trying to make sense of it in a broader context, and just kicking my self that I didn't see it sooner.
The basic premise is this: censorship *is* the defining struggle of the the last decade, and the *coming* decade.
And states have *every* reason to manufacture the basis to justify censorship.
You're right, we have to be part of the solution. I wonder if you even realize how god damn right you are. -
@Wisecrack
I think it is naive to think this is a both sides thing. This is a globalists vs the people of the world thing. The republicans didnt want trump the first time around. Many only tolerate trump because he is working with them on policy. Both major parties have been selling out the US to the globalists for decades. Trump is/was standing in the gap. He exposed the garbage that has been going on in the sick sick political world. The bottom feeders that want freedom loving people dead.
The AP is cancer. The ties between the globalists and the politicians is cancer. The major corps that are tied to government for population control are cancer. This shit runs really really really deep. These are the people responsible for 9-11 and every other fucked up world conflict. Cancerous government bureaucrats. Un-elected officials that fuck over every person on the earth with their unaccountable actions. This shit needs to be rooted out and discarded. -
@Demolishun im not doing it man. I'm not doing it.
both sides and both candidates wanted to repeal section 230 safe harbor. you know what that would actually be used for?
unequal application of law.
people tell me boden would be different? oh like obama was with bombing-for-peace?
or trump would be different? oh like how he approved the rat kavanugh who approved of ndaa under bush. some swamp draining.
or barr who dropped prosecution of obama era officials. russigate leading nowhere (never believed in that anyway)
what I'm getting at is nothing changes, because fundementally there is *one* agenda in DC masquarading as two.
im unconvinced that it is anything other than that, and it goes a long way toward explaining draining the swamp by filling it further, as well as each parties lack of real results against one another.
and the reason for that is the same reason for the riots: they want censorship and lockdowns. -
@Wisecrack I agree on the one agenda. I felt like trump was different because initially both sides were attacking him. I will have to think on this.
-
@Demolishun Same.
I do firmly believe he made some things better, and that he was the better choice by far.
But the problem is, as always, increased control, decreased freedoms, and as @Wisecrack pointed out: subjective justice.
To use party terminology, we need libertarian politicians. People who stand for personal freedoms, tiny government, don’t trust people to act without corruption, and want to leave everyone bloody well enough alone — unless they refuse to do the same. The writers of our constitution were libertarians, and it shows in many good ways. -
@Demolishun he did face absolutrly monstrous amounts of pushback and it was the same thing that made a lot of people like him.
Thats dangerous because in that fashion its very easy to *manufacture* consent. You know the old "two guys walk into a bar and pretend to fight" scam right?
I don't think it is unfair to say we should have a reelection. Wirh impartial people watching polling places for shenanigans from the parties. And a moratorium on news broadcast, and doing something about social media censorship as well as anyone trying to slow walk updates for either side or calling it early.
we must have honest free and fair elections. -
I mean, let me ask you something: If the left wins the pop vote, and then the electoral college picks trump, or the courts do, do you think they'll believe it was fair or spend the next 4 years like the last 4, calling it election interference or a rigged election?
And after going through 4 years of putting up with that, you think if the right loses that they wont follow the lefts example? You think they wont do the same thing?
Thats just it. If the left 'loses' they *genuinely* cant know if they were cheated. If their votes dven mattered. And if the right 'loses', same thing.
People were worried our elections were gonna be marred and cast in doubt. But because of events, the truth is *they are already in doubt*.
Theres no way forward now, except both sides fighting and the peaceful tranfer of governance undermined long term. *No one* is going to accept these results on any side.
This entire elections needs scrapped and redone. It is an actual disaster of governance. -
@Wisecrack If we’re redoing the election system, I would strongly push for STV — Single Transferrable Vote.
In practice it’s simple: you have a single vote, but you can mark several preferences in order.
My first preference would be for a libertarian candidate, then probably an independent, and finally a republican.
If my libertarian candidate lost (had the fewest first-preference votes), my vote would switch over to the independent. If somehow they lost, too, my vote would then be for the republican candidate.
This encourages voting for who you actually want to win, not for who you think might win. There’s no trying to guess how everyone else might vote to ensure the lesser evil wins instead of voting for an unpopular candidate who might actually do some good. In the current system, a vote for an unpopular candidate is a wasted vote.
STV also doesn’t discourage voting for an overly-popular candidate in the event of multiple seats, because if that candidate wins, all of their excess vote move to those votes’ next preference and are therefore not wasted votes.
The algo behind determining winners is admittedly more complicated than “x votes wins” and might be too complicated to follow for the average person.
Unrelated, but I also still like the electoral college approach because it gives areas (rather than people) equal say. What works in one part of the country isn’t likely to work as well in another. -
Regardless, however. Votes must be verified and immutable. One vote per person; no more. Once cast, it cannot be changed (not like the current mail in ballot where you can just cross it out and mark another).
The voter must be alive, they must be who they say they are, must be able to prove it, must be a citizen, and really: should be competent as well. But at the very least, present a bloody photo ID, and mark that person’s SSN as having voted so they cannot vote again.
Voting a second/third/etc. time? Stealing/buying ballots? Casting fraudulent votes? Changing votes? Discarding votes? Lying about counts?
This sort of behavior gets you banned in games where it really doesn’t matter — it’s a game. Why is the punishment so less severe (and effective) where it actually does matter? Name and shame, revoke their right to vote, and cart them off to jail. -
@Root really really solid root.
Sounds strange but with all this restless energy now would be a helluva time to get the nation to do a dry run, a straw election or whatever. even if it is just one county per state.
itd be huge and it'd start people *thinking* about what is possible.
also we're supposed to have one represenative for *every* 50,000 people. As it stands its somewhere north of 250,000 people per rep. Imagine using a "small" eveng like that to also elect "represenatives in absentia" or whathave you?
people often overlook the role symbolic gestures take in the formation of non-symbolic events and networks. -
Gotta love this shit where there are more votes than registered voters, 100% of all votes in a lot of districts after a certain day were for a particular candidate, counting machines flip votes, relatives of politicians own the voting machine companies, and mail-in votes without signatures or postmarks are still getting counted — and every single bit of this mysteriously benefits the same senile guy who couldn’t draw crowds of more than a few dozen people.
But there is no history of election fraud? There has always been election fraud! It’s just a lot more brazen now.
It’s all such an obviously corrupt shitshow, and I’m so done.
Can I found my own country now? -
@Root founding your own country requirrles an army.
At this point I'd rather just go back to a monarchy. -
@jeeper I wouldnt gloat too hard considering you guys spent four year claiming election fraud, and especially considering a lot of us and including me were formally on the left.
-
@Wisecrack interference, not fraud. Things foreign powers did to undermine the system and especially things down to target specific voters to not turn out. Not this insane rambling of baseless vote printing that is doing damage to democracy as an ideal worldwide.
They taught you a lot..🙋🙋
Microsoft tech summit... Doesn't need a comment
We should not tolerate censorship.
Beyond all the u.s. hype over elections
(and the division in the west in general), the real story is all the censorship on both sides.
Reasonable voices are quickly banned, while violent voices and loud angry people are amplified.
I broke out of the left-right illusion when
I realized what this was all about. Why
so much fighting in the street was allowed, both
justified and unjustified. Why so much hate
and division and slander, and back and forth
was allowed to be spread.
It's problem, reaction, solution.
The old order of liberal democracy, represented
in the u.s. by the facade of the GOP and DNC,
doesn't know how to handle the free *distributed*
flow of information.
That free-flow of information has caused us to
transition to a *participatory* democracy, where
*networks* are the lever of power, rather than
top down institutions.
Consequently, the power in the *new era* is
to decide, not what the *narrative* is, but
who can even *participate*, in spreading,
ideating, and sharing their opinions on that
narrative, and more broadly, who is even allowed
to participate in society itself.
The u.s. and west wants the chinese model of
control in america. you are part of a network, a
collective, through services and software, and
you can be shut off from *society* itself at
the drop of a pin.
The only way they get that is by creating a crisis,
outright fighting in the streets. Thats why
people keep being released after committing serious
fucking crimes. It's why the DOJ and FBI are
intent on letting both sides people walk.
They want them at each others literal throat,
calling for each other's blood. All so they
can step back and then step in the middle when
the chorus for change cries out loud enough.
And the answer will be
1. regulated tech
2. an end to television media as we know it
3. the ability to shut someone off from any service on a dime
4. new hatespeech laws that will bite *all* sides in the ass.
5. the ability to shape the narrative of society by simply 'pruning' networks as they see fit, limiting the reach of individuals on all sides, who are problematic to
the collective direction.
I was so caught up in the illusion of us-vs-them I didn't
see it before now. This is a monstrous power grab.
And instead of focusing on a farce of election, where the party *organizations* involved are institutional facades for industrialists, we should be focusing on the real issue:
* Failure of law to do its job online, especially failures of slander and libel laws, failures of laws against conspiracy to commit crime or assault
* New laws that offer injunctive relief against censorship, now that tech really is the commons. Because whats worse than someone online whipping up a mob on either side, is
someone who is innocent being *silenced* for disagreeing with something someone in authority said, or for questioning a politician, party, or corporation.
* Very serious felony level laws against doxxing and harassment on all sides, with retroactive application of said laws because theres a lot of people on all sides who won't be satisfied with the outcome until people who are guilty are brought to justice.
rant
censorship
tech