Good? Terrible litmus tests like this work both ways. She thinks she's protecting herself, but it's the bloke who's truly winning out in this situation by "missing out" on someone who would so eagerly use mass market media as a litmus test. To suggest he's dodging a bullet is beyond an understatement.
I still remember how pissed off he got with it. Good memories.
Don't forget that Joshintosh is also a trust fund kiddie. There's a near 100% chance that he buys views for his own ego.
Because she had narcissism to top it all off. She wouldn't accept being second fiddle, let alone being some faceless compliance officer.
I disagree. And like I said, we're now entering the stage of splitting hairs about who is or isn't a normie or just how much of a normie someone may or may not be based on the idea they had a level of online safety consciousness. I stand by my statement that the first lot of normies were conscious of basic online safety. From there you can say that they weren't normies, or they weren't as normie as the normies that came in the late 00's, but I will still say that they were normie.
Yes. I am. Because the point I'm making is that the early normies were conscious of online safety, and then they weren't.
Not really. I'd say a lot of this started to change in the late 00's, and there were plenty on the internet in the early 00's that knew about basic online safety. We can argue and split hairs that those people were less normie than most other normies, but at the end of the day the common belief was to be cautious on the internet. Now you're considered somewhat of a freak for not sharing everything.
But they used to. It was once upon a time considered normal behaviour to not give your information to everyone you possibly could.
Myspace well predates Facebook. FB might have helped further popularise the trend, but it wasn't the first, and I would argue not even the leading force. Maybe the largest, but not the leading. I'd put that blame at marketing firms that need and utilise user data for their services that corporations thrive off.
When did people forget to not attach their names to these accounts? Seriously, what in the fuck?
Don't get me wrong, this shit is insanely tyrannical, but once upon a time it was status quo to never put your personal information out there. Now everyone fucking does it and is baffled when it ends up being used against them.
Of course it was never about the environment. That's why so many of these activists had stocks in these "green" companies. If it was about the environment, returns would never be a consideration and it would have been donated, not invested.
mafia style capitalism
lol. lmao even.
capitalist Russia
The irony of you critiquing OP for using Nazi incorrectly and then ending on that.
Huh. I'm usually someone who doesn't play games on hard by default, but decided to play Eternal on Hard from the start and found it to be a bit on the easy side. There were a few times I got stuck on a section and would die a few times, but nothing too much I felt. Even did all the trials and stuff to unlock the Unmaykr.
Dunno what the DLC is like though. Didn't feel like grabbing it.
Remember, nearly all of those "it's a private company" crap was about companies that take (at minimum) tens of thousands in grants and tax breaks from the government. Twitter in years gone by has gotten hundreds of thousands from governments. The idea that these are private companies while profiteering off public funds is nothing but another in the many lies that leftists and statists produce.
And leftists will once again cheer as corporations get taxpayer money.
Leftists love bailouts. Never let one tell you otherwise.
Can't even fucking do ventriloquism.
But to answer the question, because abusive people always seek positions of power to exert over others. Other such professions that are attractive to those that love to abuse include cops, surgeons, therapists, etc. And while teachers are somewhat unique to these kinds of abusers, that's because of their preferred targets are the ones that truly cannot push back against them.
I'm sure it was done with the best intention possible
This is an irrelevancy. Their intentions, best or otherwise, mean jack fucking shit to their good or evil of their actions. Most people always have the best intentions. It doesn't stop them from transgressing against others, and having access to power doesn't change that.
Corruption of this nature survives because most people just... aren't aware of it.
I disagree. I think more people are definitely aware of it, but they don't care because they don't have to directly deal with it. They don't fully understand how that corruption impacts them directly. They think it impacts other things like office politics and not the real world and therefore their lives. It's another case of being short sighted, not on being uninformed.
If the only issue was informing the people, then these problems wouldn't exist too much. The issue is getting people to understand enough to see how it impacts them. It's apathy that's the challenge.
Also, something that was shitty can still become more corrupted. It's not mutually exclusive.
This is true, but there is the implication, and statists will use that implication to try and make arguments for reformation over abolition.
people tend to assume that a certain level of corruption is baked into the cake to begin with
But can you call it corruption if that was how it was originally designed? What was corrupted if it was always there?
For something to have been corrupted, it must have tainted something that was once considered to be pure in some fashion. If these institutions were always impure through having it "baked into the cake", it was never really corrupted, that's simply how it was made from the very start. The description of being corrupt inherently relies upon the notion that it's not meant to be that way, and that it was once not that way at all but instead pure in some fashion.
It's a misnomer. To call these institutions corrupt gives them the benefit that the only issue is how they've been misused, and not the fact that anyone using these institutions will inevitably be using the very same powers and abuses as before with little more than a self-appointed rationalisation of "legitimacy". The reality is that these institutions have always been festering cesspools, and they'll never be anything else, no matter who is in charge in any given hypothetical.
Anyone who earnestly complains about this and NEEDS some sort of media fix because they're fundamentally broken as people need to be repeated beaten over the head with any number of classics. There's plenty of media over the past century to keep you going for years.
The issue isn't diversity, it's corruption and greed.
I want to ask a question in earnest to anyone who wants to answer this: How can you in good conscience truly suggest that this is "corruption" when these institutions were never pure in the first place?
These institutions need to be abolished in totality. They cannot be "fixed", for they were never broken. The idea they can be reformed when the foundation is so utterly rooted in control is myopic at best and delusional at worst.
"No, I'm not a Christian and I have nothing but contempt for your backwards religious beliefs. So yeah, this argument wouldn't work on me, but if I use it on you, you'll do what I want"
- Leftists, every fucking time.
You're assuming there is in fact a true position beyond mealy-mouthed statism.
"Yes, this organisation operates outside of the law and abuses people on the regular and that makes them evil............ but if My Team™ were in control of all this power, it would suddenly make them good and reformed!"
It's the hallmark distinction of a statist: they rarely (if ever) want to do away with power when it's used for evil, merely "reform" it by putting their people in charge and continuing the status quo.
You're not entirely wrong, except the problem isn't Christians. It's nanny state mentalities.
There will always be shitty people of all stripes. Christian, atheist, man, woman, right, left. And people can get into all sorts of "well X person wasn't a Real™ Y Demographic" all they want, but it's just True Scotsman crap. So what's the solution? Eliminate all groups except your tiny sliver? Nah. Stop giving power to others. Stop letting others have power over you in any aspect of your life. People at large let some politician decide stupid shit like where they can and cannot build a garage on their property and then get up in arms when it's suggested they can also control what media you consume. The nanny state and all its over-reach has long been established. It's not been sudden. It's always been used against you in nearly every way possible. Now another group are trying (and succeeding) in using that power against you.
Statism is the issue. Cunts will always exist. Stop giving them opportunities to exert power over you. Let them fuck themselves up and no-one else. You will never control the state. You will never hold onto it indefinitely. You might build Rome, but it will eventually fall. It's the way of statism, and it always will be.