Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1703
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GW Hayduke

  1. Your positions and narratives are unsupported. I'm helping you out by letting you know that this (along with the doha and Fauci stuff) is the result of the information you choose to consume. You have the ability to change your information diet. It is hard and takes effort but is required in order to be a responsible citizen in today's US
  2. I'm saying the root cause of your unsupported narratives is your information diet.
  3. It is. It can be used for right-wing revenge porn just as much as left-wing revenge porn. The trick is to understand that and limit consumption to a small group of trusted users.
  4. One that is likely amplified by an inability to properly manage your information diet. There is a reason why you have accepted that all the generals wanted to use Bagram, that the taliban broke their promises in the DOHA, that Fauci went behind Trump's back to restart GOF research, or that Fauci's emails show he was the father of covid. That reason has to do with your information diet and inability to properly regulate the media you choose to consume. For example, the daily mail should be removed from your diet - along with anything on twitter until you are able to properly use it.
  5. Consider whether the daily mail along with anything on twitter is something you need in your information diet. Just because you see something on twitter that fits your world view, doesn't mean you should consume it or pass it on.
  6. If the Taliban can have M4's why can't we? Hell we paid for those. A sizable portion of our population is already too much like the taliban
  7. What the hell? So they can have a pipeline to Germany. But, can't sell us ammo? Ass backwards Banning imports of ammo from an adversary shouldn’t be equated to an ally receiving a pipeline and increased energy capacity
  8. I get it. You think that is evidence showing the taliban broke the conditions in the DOHA. It isn’t.
  9. Yeah, no. That isn’t verification that the taliban violated conditions of the Doha. Read the summary of the UN document you linked. Either you are an idiot or acting in bad faith.
  10. No, you didn’t verify that the Taliban broke the terms of the DOHA agreement.
  11. When presented with information disproving a position, you should revise your position. To not do so, it makes you look like an idiot or someone acting in bad faith.
  12. Hahaha. Why is it Baby Yaga is always the biggest clown in these threads? He states a position. When asked to show evidence to support that position, he provides evidence that doesn’t support the position. Others provide evidence countering Baby Yaga’s position. Baby Yaga doubles down with evidence that doesn’t support his position. Rinse and repeat.
  13. First they take away my child porn and next they’ll take my guns and political opinion!!!?!
  14. Yes, dumbass, I used hyperbole to emphasize the following point: is such a dangerous cession of privacy justified by the threat to society posed by the existence of child porn? It is only a “dangerous cessation of privacy” when using hyperbole, extremism, exaggeration and slippery slope. I get it. Tell us again that you aren’t a pedophile. You aren’t a pedophile, but you are concerned that there may be some mistakenly on your iCloud account?
  15. Sometimes people use hyperbole, extremism, and exaggeration to make shitty points such as folks on here equating the topic to home searches by cops, vehicle searches by cops, Chinese facial recognition monitoring, or auto mechanic searches. I'm actually most shocked that folks have been able to freely keep their child porn stored on the icloud and have seemingly used icloud to transmit between parties. Like, how the fuck have we gone this far without addressing it?
  16. That would be the sacrifice of all privacy. We have the 4th amendment which protects against unreasonable search and seizure by the government. The subject of this thread is about the scanning of icloud pics for pedophilia. How is that the sacrifice of all privacy? That is a question I posed to MaybeACoordinator. Clearly it isn't. There is clearly use of hyperbole and exaggeration in expressing the consequences of this topic. I'm am pointing out the hyperbole through rhetorical questions. The mechanic doesn't need a warrant, just like Apple doesn't need a warrant. My point is that this is not the "complete loss of all privacy" as presented by some of the smooth brain folks like MaybeACoordinator.
  17. If there was a child bound in the trunk of my car, then I would expect the mechanic to notify the authorities. I don't have illegal or suspicious items in my car, just like I don't have child porn stored on my phone. So again, why do folks feel like the scanning of icloud pics for pedophilia to be the sacrifice of all privacy?
  18. Are folks under the impression this is going to allow me to look at your personal files? Is that why some feel this is giving up all of their personal privacy? This isn’t the pasting of personal files onto the internet for anyone to access. This won’t allow just anyone to access your personal shit. This is an algorithm scanning data for evidence of illegal images, then Apple reviewing those images, and giving suspect images to authorities.
  19. Why do you think the scanning of your icloud pics for evidence of pedophilia as sacrificing all rights to privacy?
  20. Are you referring to Trump’s campaign manager providing internal polling data to a russian operative, Russia operating troll farms to sway US opinions using social media, trump asking Russia to find Hillary’s emails, Russia hacking DNC emails, Trump’s advisor collaborating with Wikileaks on the timing of the public release or Russian hacked emails, or the meeting at trump tower between three senior members of Trump’s campaign and a Russian attorney to get documents to incriminate hillary?
  21. You may want to reflect on why you hold this opinion. Many people share this opinion due to decades of right-wing media propaganda exposure.
  22. It isn't putting my head in the sand by acknowledging the article was just he said, she said, unsubstantiated rumors that could written about any politician. I mean there was zero substance. Literally, nothing of substance happened. It is just unnamed people saying things. This is like middle school politics.
  23. That article was lame. Typical politico. This is not the "second time she's had a real messy team behind her" or a "legitimate red flag." This is a bunch of he said, she said, unsubstantiated rumors. A similar article could be written about any politician in office. Anyone who factors this article into their decision making process concerning support for a presidential candidate, should take a pause.
  24. Yeah. The left aren't immune from regurgitating dumb twitter takes. Ideally, we on the left would be less susceptible to dumb twitter takes.
×
×
  • Create New...