Tsumi
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 13,755
Anyone with brains either will quit or has quit Facebook. Wise ones never joined it in the first place.
Or wise ones joined it for the money, and left keeping their brains and money.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Anyone with brains either will quit or has quit Facebook. Wise ones never joined it in the first place.
Just stop using it. Walk away.
Anyone with brains either will quit or has quit Facebook. Wise ones never joined it in the first place.
The unfortunate thing about the wise ones is there are just so few of us around that the masses of stupid are drowning us out 24/7.
I take it none of you have close friends or family abroad or if you do you just don't care to keep updated in their lives or see their new born pictures etc.? Yes, there are other ways to receive this information but it's selfish to make someone go out of their way to send you special e-mails or pictures because you don't like the platform that the majority uses. Like it or not it's here for now and I don't like Failbook either but I'm not going to make my family that's scattered all over do something different because I'm interested in staying up to date in their lives because I care.
I feel like most people that don't do facebook are those that have the ones they care about right in the same house or close by which to I'm jelous or are the ones that really don't give a shit about anyone else regardless to which I pity.
do facebook
If you need Facebook to keep in contact with your family you need to get your head examined. What did you do before Facebook?
Just because it's convenient it doesn't mean it doesn't have a price. A high price.
Well there it is I suppose.
And as for myself, I've been "online" since the 1970s so the people I associate with including family and friends have been online almost as long as I have and we have more useful methods of communicating that have been in place for literally decades now without failing us. Just because you and people like you are (more than likely) relatively new to technology and "social media" doesn't mean I and many many other people find it useful on any levels.
If nothing else, "social media" serves one primary purpose more than anything else: to give the vast majority of stupid people a way to express their stupidity writ large, sadly. No, not everyone using Facebook or social media sites are actually stupid (or at least stupid enough to express it with such services), but that doesn't mean that people using such services just can't seem to realize there's a time to say something useful and a time to honestly shut the fuck up and not type stuff off the top of their heads stream-of-consciousness style which is where most of the problems come from.
Face to face people have an innate sense of "Ok, I better not say that because it'll cause a negative reaction..." whereas - ironically enough - when using "social media" there is no face to face therefore there is no innate sense of cutting oneself off before it's too late and they realize it after they've already submitted the post/tweet/snap/what-the-fuck-ever and once it's out there even for a few seconds it's never going to fully disappear.
Maybe we were not meant to stay in constant contact with every person we have ever known. Maybe our brains can't handle a constant stream of information about events from around the world that we have zero control over. Maybe that's not healthy.
Just saying.
Another lefty who is completely ignorant of history.
The KKK consisted of Democrats, just like the Democrats in West Virginia kept reelecting Robert Byrd to the senate.
Robert C. Byrd, a Democrat, was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter. After leaving the group, Byrd spoke in favor of the Klan during his early political career. Though he claimed to have left the organization in 1943, Byrd wrote a letter in 1946 to the group's Imperial Wizard stating "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."
Before facebook I was too young to keep in touch. What did you do? Snail mail pictures to family far away? Calling is not a problem to keep in touch (just as before) vocally but that's not the format of staying up to date I'm speaking of. Today more people are relocated and spread across a nation more so than back then I think. What is the alternative to share those special moments and video with ALL of your family that all have adopted? Failbook....
Letters, e-mail, phone calls. Special moments were only shared around Christmas and other celebratory times of year. I remember as a child receiving packages from family and family friends that had photos and VHS tapes. It made those special moments feel even more special.Before facebook I was too young to keep in touch. What did you do? Snail mail pictures to family far away? Calling is not a problem to keep in touch (just as before) vocally but that's not the format of staying up to date I'm speaking of. Today more people are relocated and spread across a nation more so than back then I think. What is the alternative to share those special moments and video with ALL of your family that all have adopted? Failbook....
Letters, e-mail, phone calls. Special moments were only shared around Christmas and other celebratory times of year. I remember as a child receiving packages from family and family friends that had photos and VHS tapes. It made those special moments feel even more special.
Just reacting to the headline, due to its clickbaity nature ^_^
I suspect that it is closer to the truth that he sees snail journalism being destroyed, sees that the internet is taking over the role of informing, and now he wants to get first dibs on all those future views.
Fact obsessed? Most of the whack jobs are pushing opinion as news, and can't tolerate anyone who disagrees. Real journalism has been dead awhile now in the mainstream, hell, even the best of them (Fox) still is not that great always. No, a change is definitely coming in here, and I'm all the happier for that.The fact obsessed media is ending, post-truth America is on the rise. A glorious new day is dawning, the idiocracy is upon us!
Is it that the media is telling people what to think, or people only want to hear what they THINK they want to hear?
I find some people are not interested in truth as in, literally, exactly happened. The only "truth" to them are the things that are written solely to conform to their beliefs.
Fact obsessed? Most of the whack jobs are pushing opinion as news, and can't tolerate anyone who disagrees. Real journalism has been dead awhile now in the mainstream, hell, even the best of them (Fox) still is not that great always. No, a change is definitely coming in here, and I'm all the happier for that.
Aren't a lot of folks who were once republicans now democrats, and vice-versa, because the parties back then are not what the parties are today?HISTORICALLY this was the party of the slave owners.
I'm sure it's like those Christians that follow the bible until you call them out on the old testament problems and they claim they don't really follow that part any more. But the second it serves their purpose, old testament all the way!Aren't a lot of folks who were once republicans now democrats, and vice-versa, because the parties back then are not what the parties are today?
Nothing has changed. The black population is now just a slave to the government instead of private citizens. The Democratic Party "owns" 93% of the black adult population in the US.Aren't a lot of folks who were once republicans now democrats, and vice-versa, because the parties back then are not what the parties are today?
Nothing has changed. The black population is now just a slave to the government instead of private citizens. The Democratic Party "owns" 93% of the black adult population in the US.
If this is true why are black people becoming more and more successful, even to the point of becoming president? Or is this all an elaborate cover to throw people off their true intentions? Truly just trying to learn here, not saying you're wrong...Nothing has changed. The black population is now just a slave to the government instead of private citizens. The Democratic Party "owns" 93% of the black adult population in the US.
I take it none of you have close friends or family abroad or if you do you just don't care to keep updated in their lives or see their new born pictures etc.? Yes, there are other ways to receive this information but it's selfish to make someone go out of their way to send you special e-mails or pictures because you don't like the platform that the majority uses. Like it or not it's here for now and I don't like Failbook either but I'm not going to make my family that's scattered all over do something different because I'm interested in staying up to date in their lives because I care.
I feel like most people that don't do facebook are those that have the ones they care about right in the same house or close by which to I'm jelous or are the ones that really don't give a shit about anyone else regardless to which I pity.
Yeah stupid snail Journalism with it's reliable sources, and vetting of information, and fact checking, and professional Journalists, screw that. Onward to the future, we are all reporters now; my racist grandfather who believes that his gardener is stealing his oranges, my friend Eric who believes the earth is hollow and lizard people live inside it, my cousin who thinks that Obamacare is terrible and should be more like the ACA program he gets his health insurance through (I just don't have the heart to tell him they are the same thing), news shouldn't be controlled by the press news is all of us we are all the news welcome to a new tomorrow.
In my post snail refers to the speed, not to the intelligence. Like snail-mail ^_^, but including TV and news websites which are slow compared to the speed of information provided by other internet denizens, simply by virtue of them slightly outnumbering journalists ^_~
Man, you nailed it.
History shows the REAL party of oppression is the Democratic party. HISTORICALLY this was the party of the slave owners. This was the party of the KKK. This was the party that was AGAINST desegregation, this was the party against equal treatment regardless of race under the law.
ALSO, historically the black or negro* population always voted REPUBLICAN because this was the party of the great emancipator Abraham Lincoln; who by the way was murdered by a pro slavery leftist. The changed with LBJ and the "Great Society" of the 60s. Social workers went into Black communities with the message "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you".
The result is you have GENERATIONS enslaved to government largesse and votes for the democratic party bought and paid for with tax dollars. This is ECONOMIC OPPRESSION.
Don't be afraid to call the "fake new" issue what it really is. It is LEFTIST PROPAGANDA. Pure and simple.
*No labels. They are not Africans first and Americans second. They are not born or from Africa. They are pure, red blooded Americans BORN in the USA
A university that hates him, claims it wasn't their students doing it? LOL. And you believe them?That's fake news buddy. The official statement from Berkeley said that it wasn't the left student's protest that it was a separate group the one that was burning shit down and causing chaos. Don't spread fake news. Always read official statements first. Extremist groups do not define neither all of the left nor the right. The KKK does not define the majority of right wingers, just like the masked people in Berkeley do not define the majority of the left. So attributing those fake news to being from the left is like saying that all right wingers are racist neo-nazis because a minority of them are.
Aren't a lot of folks who were once republicans now democrats, and vice-versa, because the parties back then are not what the parties are today?
What happened that cause them to switch around like that?
EDIT: Also, sorry for going off topic, but why is the "Obama is secretly a Muslim" even a thing? Why would it make ANY difference what religious denomination (or lack thereof) Obama belongs to?
Engels was born into a family of some wealth and was pressured into business because of his upbringing. His heart was never really into it, hence why he developed the philosophy and sold his business later on. It was a way for him to pay the bills in other words. Even then, we're talking about ONE factory, so maybe somebody either in upper middle class or lower upper class. Now compare against Zuckerberg, who has spent his entire professional career in the pursuit of money at any cost, is in charge of a large profit-reaping empire, and who is not only upper-upper class, but the sixth richest person on the planet.Perhaps not as safe as you might think... You might look into the relationship of Marx and Engels when you have some time for some pleasure reading...
My point was Zuckerberg is essentially the polar opposite of a Marxist, in philosophy, and in practice. You say it's not safe to assume that a billionaire global corporation owner isn't a Marxist, I really think it is, because being a billionaire who has spent his life controlling capital is the exact opposite of what Marxism is. Marxism didn't exist when Engels was in charge of a company, so there was no previous frame of reference like there is now. While Engels had some wealth, he was born into it, and eventually left it and BECAME a Marxist as time moved on. Zuckerberg has spent his life making more money and wealth more akin to Caesar, not a single-factory business owner. I don't see how the two concepts are compatible when you live your life in the exact opposite fashion of what you claim to be. In the same way I can't be a non-violent protester and fire bomb cop cars, you can't be a Marxist and also a self-made capitalist billionaire. It's one or the other.I didn't make the implication that Zuckerberg was a Marxist. Others did. What I did was imply to a poster that simply because Zuckerberg is a wealthy businessman does not make a 'safe' assumption that he does not have totalitarian leanings (some have said Marxist). Regardless of how he got there, Engels was a wealthy businessman who financed Karl Marx, I believe during the time he was writing The Communist Manifesto and further. Therefore the wealth, occupation and social status of Engels are not really an evidence of his political views. Thus, we really cannot say what Zuckerberg's political views are based solely on his career. It is not really a safe assumption to make, which is the thrust of my disagreement. I personally do not believe that we have Marxists precisely in our time because Communism has largely collapsed due to it's many financial flaws and abuse of liberties. There are however elements of Marxism that are totalitarian that seem to be making a comeback on the left and suppression of speech is one of them. Zuckerberg is clearly leaning in this direction. Even though I wouldn't myself label Zuckerberg a Marxist, I think what you are seeing is people picking up on those totalitarian elements that were shared with Communism.
I have no opinion about Martin Luther King Jr.
My point was Zuckerberg is essentially the polar opposite of a Marxist, in philosophy, and in practice. You say it's not safe to assume that a billionaire global corporation owner isn't a Marxist, I really think it is, because being a billionaire who has spent his life controlling capital is the exact opposite of what Marxism is. Marxism didn't exist when Engels was in charge of a company, so there was no previous frame of reference like there is now. While Engels had some wealth, he was born into it, and eventually left it and BECAME a Marxist as time moved on. Zuckerberg has spent his life making more money and wealth more akin to Caesar, not a single-factory business owner. I don't see how the two concepts are compatible when you live your life in the exact opposite fashion of what you claim to be. In the same way I can't be a non-violent protester and fire bomb cop cars, you can't be a Marxist and also a self-made capitalist billionaire. It's one or the other.
Now if you want to say he has totalitarian leanings, that's entirely fair, but totalitarian control isn't part of Marxist philosophy. Hell, even Lenin only saw that as a means to an end, then Stalin decided that was the end in and of itself. In the same way you have holy rollers who claim to follow the teachings of the bible, but are essentially con-men, in history we've also had totalitarians claiming to be Marxist. Zuckerberg, however, isn't even close. Again, I know of absolutely nothing about his behavior that makes him resemble a Marxist.
I think I get what you're saying, but my point is there are lines that are crossed also. A person's occupation can force them to perform one way, even if their real motivations lie elsewhere, true. This was the case with Engels. For example, a cop might be ordered to break up a protest, even if he personally sympathizes with their cause, but his duty as an officer requires him to shut it down. There are plenty of examples of this sort of thing. My point is Zuckerberg is not just any capitalist, he's one of the most successful capitalists in history. Part of the core of Marxism is that production should be owned by the workers, and there should be no capital owning class ruling over the other. By those metrics, he literally could not be farther from Marxist principles. But hey, is he restructuring Facebook to be owned by the workers? Funding organizations to try and bring about an end to capitalism? In other words, making his massive wealth simply a means to a Marxist end? No? Then he's not a Marxist! I don't think it's much clearer than that and doesn't have to do with absolutism so much as everything about how he has lived his life.I believe there is a flaw in your thinking centered around absolutism.
I wasn't implying it was, but if your spend your life running a business to make as much money as possible and hoard billions, that certainly excludes you from claiming you practice SOME philosophies, Marxism being one of them. Again, I can't say I'm a non-violent protestor if I'm fire bombing cop cars. I CAN say I'm a freedom fighter or a terrorist, or a conscientious objector, something else, take your pick. But some behaviors naturally exclude certain descriptors.I acknowledged already that I do not think we have Marxists precisely today, however, our brand of capitalism leaves a good deal to be desired as well, and when people like Zuckerberg (not only him) begin to use their wealth and power to shape culture, it should be plain and clear that they are moving beyond a purely capitalistic philosophy of life, and it is frankly a misnomer to believe that capitalism attempts to be a life philosophy to start with.
I think there's some misunderstanding here. I'm not saying because he's a capitalist, that's all he can ever think and other dimensions to his personality are impossible. I'm saying, by definition, nothing about him suggests he is Marxist. I could just be ignorant here, but if I am, what exactly is he doing that could be considered Marxist? Totalitarianism in itself is not Marxist. Neither is influencing politics with your money. Plenty of differing philosophies have used those tactics for all kinds of goals. Trying to bring down capitalism, advocating ownership of production by the workers, eradicating economic classes, THAT is Marxist, and I'm simply unaware of anything Zuckerberg has ever done along those lines, on the contrary.There is already an assumption that certain liberties and principles are already in place in a political and social level. I do not have to defend the statement that Zuckerberg is a Marxist because of his totalitarian tendencies any more than I have to accept the defense that Zuckerberg is a capitalist because he owns a successful business since that appears to me to be becoming for him a means to an end for the advancement of his political views (which he has every right to do, but it certainly detracts from the idea that his thinking is purely a development of capitalism).
I don't even know where you thought I did this. Feel free to quote me for clarification. I'm hardly a fan of billionaires running society to their whim.In the same way that I think it is an unsafe or unsound argument to simply place Zuckerberg into the camp of the capitalist in order to represent him as less than threatening to liberty
I think I get what you're saying, but my point is there are lines that are crossed also. A person's occupation can force them to perform one way, even if their real motivations lie elsewhere, true. This was the case with Engels. For example, a cop might be ordered to break up a protest, even if he personally sympathizes with their cause, but his duty as an officer requires him to shut it down. There are plenty of examples of this sort of thing. My point is Zuckerberg is not just any capitalist, he's one of the most successful capitalists in history. Part of the core of Marxism is that production should be owned by the workers, and there should be no capital owning class ruling over the other. By those metrics, he literally could not be farther from Marxist principles. But hey, is he restructuring Facebook to be owned by the workers? Funding organizations to try and bring about an end to capitalism? In other words, making his massive wealth simply a means to a Marxist end? No? Then he's not a Marxist! I don't think it's much clearer than that and doesn't have to do with absolutism so much as everything about how he has lived his life.
I wasn't implying it was, but if your spend your life running a business to make as much money as possible and hoard billions, that certainly excludes you from claiming you practice SOME philosophies, Marxism being one of them. Again, I can't say I'm a non-violent protestor if I'm fire bombing cop cars. I CAN say I'm a freedom fighter or a terrorist, or a conscientious objector, something else, take your pick. But some behaviors naturally exclude certain descriptors.
I think there's some misunderstanding here. I'm not saying because he's a capitalist, that's all he can ever think and other dimensions to his personality are impossible. I'm saying, by definition, nothing about him suggests he is Marxist. I could just be ignorant here, but if I am, what exactly is he doing that could be considered Marxist? Totalitarianism in itself is not Marxist. Neither is influencing politics with your money. Plenty of differing philosophies have used those tactics for all kinds of goals. Trying to bring down capitalism, advocating ownership of production by the workers, eradicating economic classes, THAT is Marxist, and I'm simply unaware of anything Zuckerberg has ever done along those lines, on the contrary.
I don't even know where you thought I did this. Feel free to quote me for clarification. I'm hardly a fan of billionaires running society to their whim.