No, I think you're the victim of Poe's Law, not its perpetrator.
No, I think you're the victim of Poe's Law, not its perpetrator.
If not being heartless is being a leftist, then I'm leftist. Letting children die so you can become even more filthy rich is just pure evil.
This is a drug that costs less than ten bucks to manufacture that stops children from dying a horrible death from a severe allergy. Charging six hundred bucks for it is beyond criminal and wel into Evil with a capital E. Satanically evil.
If taxes are punishment then the rich need their taxes tripled after all the unpunished evil they've done so far this century. The poor are being punished enough - by the rich. If having to pay for roads and bridges is punishment, then having to pay for food and water is, too.
As a Christian, I have no problem with taxes (Mark 12:17). Of course, if you worship mammon rather than God, taxes would indeed be punishment.
But Palmer Luckey is bankrolling an entity which is dedicated to (making money from) derailing intelligent discourse. Even if it's legal to be a dick, it's still being a dick.
And Clinton has an entire Super PAC which does nothing but, but you're worried about a single individual who dropped $10k? Yes, you really are stupid.
Oh come on now, just because they push bullshit social justice outrage culture bullshit doesn't mean they're bad right? Oh who am I kidding. It's that type of bullshit, along with the click-bait bullshit against people like Tim Hunt(note that in this case, she was a shitty person who created controversy to bolster her name), Brendan Eich(engaging in wrong-think), etc., that let's these shitty organizations keep functioning. We're also seeing it with Palmer Luckey as well, and the SJW media going after his girlfriend for daring to have opinions and views that don't adhere to the groupthink that these shitty people support.
And yes, if you support this type of SJW-witch-hunting bullshit mentality, you are a shitty person. No, you are not on the right side of history.
The "political message" was spamming social media via bots to upload and upvote images. It's not the contents so much as the delivery method that's a proble.m
Keep in mind that the media has been planning to do this to the guy for the last 6mo. If you believe the shit in this article, then you're simply falling for the narrative that they're painting for you. And your critical thinking skills are terribly lacking.
This is about ethics and transparency in tech news reporting, so of course there will be outrage all around.
Welcome to gamergate? Maybe welcome to techgate? With that, I'm sure that people will be coming out of the wood work to label you a harasser of women, a sexist/misogynist/rapist/racist and a few other things now. Can't have accountability after all, that clique needs to be protected.
What's the story? Shitty person engaged in unethical conduct with no disclosure. Also Vox Media investigates self, finds no conflict of interest or did anything wrong. And legally, they're required to now add disclaimers stating as such.
Gotta remember this is
Then I'm sure you're lining right up to stop using any gizmodo(univision) products right? After their open attacks against his GF for daring to have a different opinion, which has resulted in open harassment(by the social justice clique) and by the idealistic supporters who's viewpoints you espouse on a regular basis.
If you actually are intolerant of intolerance then I'm sure that works fine. Oddly, you seem to be perfectly tolerant of people being attacked when it's a view point that is 180deg., from your own. You've shown that over the last two years.
Why do you support people who use paid trolling to push their goals? Would you be ok if every other post on Slashdot was a non-disclosed ad because that's the type of thing you just said you'd support.
I'm sure you're lining right up to not vote for Clinton then. After all the super pac that supports her, the "correct the record" bunch, which has her support as well. And has paid millions for trolls in order to push her goals and attack people.
There's been a rise in the term "regressive left" for a while. And for good reason, the left(especially progressives and the social justice clique) have been at the forefront of anti-democratic beliefs for quite a while(see the big push on free speech zones, safe spaces, no-platforming, violent protests against individuals, anti-individualist choices, etc). And unlike the right, that cast and purged their crazies out, the left is still embracing theirs and parroting their views. In many cases, I'm going to guess that it's because they're afraid of being labeled "racists/sexists/homophobes/misogynists/etc" that the regressive left has been using to attack anyone who doesn't share their insular worldview.
Anyone who's been paying attention to tech culture or gaming culture will notice it. The regressive left is against free expression, they only want their view points, their ideals, and their versions of vidya. And are willing to throw hissyfits over any of this. They have no qualms about actually harassing people, they'll run ops to do it(see con leaks), and all the rest of the nasty shit that they claim those on the right do. Which some people have figured out is pure projection on their part.
Twitter has a tainted brand already. When they decided to implement the 1984ish named "safety and trust council" which is made up of all left-wing groups, some of which hold extremist views(other groups which engage in harassment of wrong-think targets) and then started banning or suspending people for wrong think, they started driving people to competing services.
he has eluded [sic] to the beating of ejected protesters as being acceptable several times on film
His opponents are all about violence. They openly advocate it. Trump's rally in Chicago had to be cancelled, because of the threats of violence. A US President better be ready to respond to violent threats with overwhelming violence of our own. The era of apologizing and paying off the little bullies is over.
Now, has Donald Trump used violence in personal matters? Evidently not...
So i guess i have to change the question... are you a fucking nazi, fucking stupid, or just a fucking liar.
All three, pal, all three. Deplorable me...
Normally political advertising is clearly labeled.
Maybe, it should be — but any attempts to legally require such labeling, would violate the First Amendment.
"Mr. Spock succumbs to a powerful mating urge and nearly kills Captain Kirk." -- TV Guide, describing the Star Trek episode _Amok_Time_