pratel (Discord ID: 468527348380205056), page 1
Security Advisory: Links in messages may lead to maliciously operated websites that could track your IP address and reveal your identity, or they may contain harmful files. The DiscordLeaks team does not check links and cannot make any statements about the safety of following these links.
Some ways to protect yourself are:
- Do not open files downloaded from links, and do not run any programs that try to download themselves to your computer.
- Use anonymization measures such as Tor Browser or a VPN.
If you are using the Privacy Badger or other privacy extensions, you may need to whitelist Discord and related domains in order for the images to load.
12,589 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/51 | Next
Yeah, if you pay really close attention you can see the cue cards. It's essentially scripted. Playing to see how long they can keep people reading the script because their confused.
The whole thing is an act.
I wanted to know if there's a good place to discuss videos. Youtube comments are pretty much drivel and Discord tends to move a bit fast.
@Ryecast, @Dr.Wol about your thing from yesterday.
Ryecast is right. The reality is that hierarchies always form. A lot of it is just that not all people are equal in ability and ambition and there are people who tend to want to follow and people who want to lead. You put any significant number of people in a group and someone emerges as a de facto leader. When that person gains the ability to force conformity (an inevitability in a group of people with any shared identity and collective problems) you are left with the beginnings of a tyranny.
This is fundamental human nature. It is also is the case that as power concentrates, power corrupts and the formed institutions become vulnerable to subversion and abuse.
Ultimately, we must ask though, when it comes to stateless communism and democratic socialism, what is the difference between production and consumption and how is it allocated. In a capitalist system this is decided with money and ownership of property. If we abolish money and property but instead use 'abstract points' to allocate resources, is that not equivalent to money? What if we use cultural influence? Would the fact that Tim Pool has more influence and a bigger platform for any of use indicate he should have a better say in the distribution of resources? Would these things not form a hierarchy and something akin to money (you could, after all, count something like twitter followers and derive some kind of index of influence)?
"fairly distributed society" is like true stateless society, it's a myth. Democratic socialism falls from the same issues of socialism except that it admits the reality of a state and of money. But conceptually, you run into alot of the same issues when it comes to the allocation of resources (namely, it's very easy to game).
As it is, we should also remember that not all "democracies" are democratic. China has freedom of speech enshrined in it's constitution (and some Chinese will insist they are more free to speak than we are) but I don't think there are any illusions about how effective that guarantee actually is. North Korea is a "Democratic People's Republic" (with elections!) but it's rather totalitarian in practice. Simply creating a democratic superstructure is insufficient to actually guarantee democracy.
That's the danger. It doesn't. That's why I'm concerned of the present political moment. There are forces, especially cultural forces, that believe it doesn't and it shouldn't.
This is most pertinent and obvious if you see the free speech debates at Universities.
The government does have a great deal of power. But it's power confined by convention and popular edict. If the government does too much too fast, there's the threat of rebellion.
The police and military have power because they hold a monopoly on violence and no one wants to get in a shooting war with either. The government leadership hold power as long as they hold the support of key institutions.
Dr. Wol gets it. The state is order. It can be a good force or a bad force.
It depends. What if the CIA said "fuck off Trump" but the US Army responded "no you don't"
That's why it's a balance of power between institutions which hold their own influence and power.
They hold *alot* of pseudo-miiltary power. Particularly if the revolution is localized.
Imagine what you could do if you could dox anyone at will, if you knew what everyone was doing, and had a couple trained assasins and hackers at your disposal.
This is also why people go around proclaiming the 2nd amendment as the "ultimate defense against tyranny."
A large, sudden organized force can violently revoke the monopoly on violence of the state.
Yes. And in tyrannical states, the military is specifically designed so that members cannot defect easily without exposing themselves and or their families to grave danger.
Yeah, the organization element is the big issue. Really, the bigger issue is how easily any potential leadership could be targeted.
But organization springs up quickly given the proper threats. And decentralized organization is actually advantageous in a hypothetical 21st century civil war.
That's what a hypothetical civil war would probably look like, TBH
Unless something cleaved people apart politically in clean lines beforehand.
I think at that point, we can assume the breakdown of order means the destruction of just about everything and extreme bloodshed.
The hypothetical civil war scenario only makes sense with very widespread popular backing.
Honestly, it's so hard to figure out how a new American civil war would end, it's probably better not to speculate.
The most important factors are the kinds of factors that are hard to predict.
It's also the kind of thing that's going to get everyone on here put on a watchlist. Care to change topic?
That's what people *say* but so much is dependent on how it starts.
Did the state cleave cleanly? Are there divisions within states? Is it a set of guerilla actions? Is it more of an open rebellion? Is the rebellion contained to one region? Who is most directly opposing the government? Where is the foreign support?
all these questions can dramatically change the outcome.
One thing that can be said, is that if the US descends into a true civil war, everyone (and I mean everyone, including outside the US) loses. It's an outcome better avoided IMO.
You would think. But human society has a weird way of finding stable regions and holding together.
Humans were built, in some sense, to create societies of one form or another.
If the system wasn't somewhat stable, it would collapse into something stable (barring world-ending or species-ending events)
IDK. I think you can get armed pretty quick if given support.
It feels like there's alot of pushing for something like that, but everyone knows that everyone loses.
I think Tim Pools' video on the possibility was hinting it would probably be more like the bombings of the 70s.
That's not outside the realm of possibility, but it's different than what most people would consider a "civil war"
If that's what you mean, I think I could agree that it would be alot like our second "great depression" in that it's alot of hyperbole.
The media does 2 things in this world
1) pushes a collective narrative that it likes (this isn't as conspiratorial as it sounds, it's a complex interplay of personal biases and a need to create narratives to keep people hooked)
2) pushes sensational stories that prey on people's emotions to get them to buy papers.
Telling everyone there's oncoming catastrophe is #2, which then becomes #1.
I can only see up the where "is now the leader of the FREE world when Trump was elected"
My solution: The rationalist community.
It's almost exclusively leftists (over 60% if memory serves) and almost all the rest is shades of libertarian.
But the less than 5% of reactionaries are vastly over represented in their servers because it's one of the few places where people are committed to having productive debate.
I think everyone is ignorant on something.
It's more an issue that she was taking a position she didn't really understand and she's running (essentially already won) for a position of power where her votes would have very real consequences.
And Israel is a very sensitive topic to alot of people.
I don't think it's a 'safe space' issue as much as it's a decorum issue.
It's like, on a free un-moderated server everyone wants to talk so the dominant position tends to overwhelm opposition.
It would be more effective if it were more like a formal debate with timed positions to avoid keeping people from getting overwhelmed.
Reddit is the worst at this, because then you get ideologically minded down/up voters.
Or when there's a major event and everyone floods to attack the people who would be harmed by the development
I'm sure we all know someone in some friend circle who does this.
Like, I can't say how many messages I got about the 12 Russia indictments. I saw more "ARE YOU READY TO ADMIT YOUR WRONG NOW" posts everywhere (including on fairly 'closed' social media) than I ever did discussing anything about the idictments themselves.
Obviously, that's going to make people feel attacked.
It's a tribalism issue. Everyone is so obsessed with getting extra voters to themselves they've forgotten literally all other concerns.
Eh, let's not go too deep into it. I was trying to use it as an example of taking an event and go after people. It was the most recent thing so that's why I took it.
It's better not to get too deep on a tangent on this kind of thing.
lol. Which server was this? It sounds like someone being a shitlord.
I'd gladly switch to ancap if I got recreational nukes 😃
Eh. Citations make sense. And I can see the argument for just saying "read this book"
It's more an issue if they won't defend the ideas presented in the book or attempt to summarize them.
Alot of these servers have very significant ideas come out of them. But I doubt most people are interested in documenting any of it.
But when you think about it, these are the thoughts by which future generations will have to consider.
Yeah, one issue with ideological arguments though is that we tend to define them by the extremes.
And communities will lay claim to "ideas that work" even if they themselves didn't really come up with the idea in the first place or simply renamed something someone else said.
Yeah, definitions matter. And some people just want to rework them. There's not too much you can really do IMO. I've redefined words myself (heck, I've had days long discussions on what definitions make sense), sometimes you just have to if you want to get a point across.
LIke, I can think of atleast 3 definitions of "conservative" that all make sense and can be hard to distinguish in context (and all mean radically different things)
Oh man. Truth. That's like, a whole branch of philosophy.
But then you'd probably have to flood the dictionary with new entries after just 15 minutes of real conversation.
I've had arguments with friends that lasted hours that came down to which part of a distribution we were thinking about.
Iron out the difference and we would be in complete agreement.
The challenge is knowing when you need to stop and clarify definitions.
That people don't do this more often in formal debate is one of those signs that people aren't really discussing as much as fighting.
Abstract is the only real good way to go for some things.
Since the pragmatics can easily break on tribal boundaries.
But that's the reality of most debate in this world. No one's actually looking to discuss. They're looking to win.
Who cares, he's almost certainly going to retire soon and isn't that much of a factor in anything anymore.
Let's just hope that they don't give other governments any ideas.
Aside, I felt like the Ugandian Knuckles was a real missed opportunity. Had it lasted a bit longer it could have kickstarted the Ugandian film industry into being something more.
But in all seriousness, it only takes one or two major exposures followed by a steady stream of releases to form a media niche.
That investment wasn't even being purchased as much as just outsourcing.
Maybe. Uganda would have a favorable exchange rate on US dollars. A reasonable indiegogo could be a huge spark in Uganda.
DBZ (really Pokemon) is the point it started to go mainstream.
Bravestarr, He-Man (and the other really campy cartoons of the 80s) were often animated overseas in Japan to save money.
But then they took their skills and started making their own stuff.
And it took off (because it did things western cartoons wouldn't).
But the history of how the US outsourced production to Japan and it led to the creation of the anime industry is interesting in it's own way.
If only for the irony that many Japanese companies are now outsourcing to Korea.
Anime has a huge problem where most of it is just not that good.
The decline of the import filter kinda hurt western perceptions, IMO.
Oh geez. I remember being curious about both of those. Until I watched one episode apiece.
Bleach was just a bunch of cutaways of different charcters saying one line a piece for half an hour. It must have been a fairly late season. They had alot of characters.
I can back up Shin Sekai Yori. It's a good choice.
Alot of people say it was good. But I never got it.
I was watching the episodes out of order though, so that may have had an effect.
What. some of us watched this stuff on Adult Swim back in the day.
I mean, I watched Casshern sins out of order and got most of it.
You can watch most superhero anime out of order and enjoy it.
*monogatari might even be more amusing out of order.
Abstract isn't really enough to make it out-of-order watchable though.
Actually, isn't it filmed not in chronological order already?
GiTS: SAC can be a little slow at times and lacks the atmosphere. But it's still good (possibly better) on it's own merits
GiTS: Arise is relatively lacking, but a nice entry if you can avoid spending lots of money to see it.
Rumor is that in the original manga she takes a body based off a "westerner" anyways.
Not only was it a dumb thing to get hung up on to start with, it may have been accurate to the original source.
Which would have made it go from banal to simply incorrect.
Yeah, the whole point of GiTS is human versus machine anyway.
And when they do they get criticized for making it.
I remember as a kid in school we were basically raised to idolize the yuppies and hippies of the 60s liberation movements.
So now the young want to make their liberation movement and are instead punching at phantoms.
The one nearest me requires all students in the arts and sciences to take a class in race, gender or oppression. And it's an ivy (not Brown)
What? I know the new graduates these days are ignorant of history, but opposed to WWII docs? I don't buy it.
That's just dumb. Either real life has eaten the onion or you guys are pulling legs here.
@JULZIFICATOR ...That's sadly very plausible in my experience.
I just wanted to figure out what caused the rise of Trump and made some Facebook posts. Now no one follows me anymore.
OMG. That's insane. Even the part where no one can decide if it's sexist or not.
Yeah, reading primary sources should be the assumption.
And that means reading stuff that may be detestable.
China, I'm told, has created whole Female-only spaces (like: cities).
And then I'm told they decided to push traditionalism recently and the government trying to push women into the home.
Don't have good sources on either of those (take it with a grain of salt) but that's the rumor if anyone wants to confirm.
You wouldn't want creepy guys looking for intercourse with a bunch of nude women.
LOL. That's actually kinda funny. Who comes up with these things? "women can't park so we're not going to let them park here" "woman parks there and takes a picture"
I will say I see alot of new drivers. They...probably shouldn't park in a space like that.
You have to have some low-speed practice to park reliably.
and if you aren't you'll find out pretty quick and probably make sure you don't make that mistake again.
I'm not looking forward to the demise of cars.
I like the freedom of just leaving.
And fixing and maintaining them is a nice distraction on the weekends.
That's actually scary. Imagine what a motivated third party could do tot he neural net before you reformatted your mind?
*sigh* does Mother Jones still claim to be the paper for the journalists?
Does anyone care about spelling in forums anymore? I still remember when intentional misspelling was a meme.
In other news, I had some videos queued up and saw Tim's video on Minds. Is anyone on it and have an opinion?
It's too dangerous for major issues in my opinion.
Too easy to potentially manipulate.
And if there's anything of value at stake, interested parties WILL find a way to compromise the process.
At the very least, in person voting is a small barrier to some forms of manipulation.
You could make a similar argument for voting by mail, but that's got a bit more control involved because ballots are usually mailed by the sec. of state, which helps limit potential abuse.
Personally, I think most US elections are too easy to vote in already. And there are districts where the number of registered votes exceeds the number of residents already.
One proposal I've seen is to mandate that electronic voting machines require physical tickets as a record.
And when the potential to manipulate elections presents itself, people will manipulate them. Heck, 4Chan manipulates online polls just because it can.
SSN would be very easy to compromise, IMO. In the US we don't have government IDs beyond that either.
I've seen government security. I wouldn't trust it to get a ballot to everyone who needs it and still be robust enough to not be compromised by some intelligence service somewhere.
If it's cards you could easily start by intercepting the cards or reverse engineering the numbers.
You might make an argument if you had RSA tokens or something.
But I've seen enough stuff get compromised I wouldn't trust 300 mil RSA tokens to be a workable defense against a determined opponent.
And you match the numbers to the records. Yeah, but how are you making the numbers.
There's going to inevitably be a pattern (the people who run these things tend to be lazy)
It doesn't even have to be 100% decoded, just enough to flip a couple strategic locations.
If you talk with people in digital security they'll tell you to assume you've been compromised from the start.
And you have to keep things simple enough non-technical people can figure it out.
And credit card information gets leaked all the time from various hacker collectives and rogue agents.
Maybe. But what's the difference between that and electronic voting machines?
If they're connected over the normal internet, that's an entry point. Otherwise there's no obvious advantage to an e-voting booth. You'd still have to show up in person.
I would trust E voting for groups that are fundamentally online and have low stakes. Say, if Tim wanted to have a poll on this server to decide a topic for a future video or something.
But when things start to really matter, when intelligence services get interested...sometimes backwards is better.
Even if you aren't a hostile power, imagine the potential for a couple rogue employees at Google to manipulate elections in their favor to get a favorable regulatory environment and make a profit.
And a company like Google (or whomever is making the website) would certainly have the capapbilty
You trace digital, but it's somewhat imperfect. It's impractical to assume you'd be able to verify 300mil votes.
Sure. But suppose it's 100mil. That's still alot.
I think we need to distinguish verify and "verify"
I mean, ensuring the entire path hasn't been tampered with.
that some huawei switch somewhere hasn't had a diversion through China.
That someone hasn't altered the hashes and stamps and rerouted things.
Not "verify" in the sense that you're checking who's on the record. That's conceptually simple, hard in practice.
I will say that if you require everyone to have a phone the politicos will immediately go up in arms about poor people not being represented. Or old people.
Alot of that for local elections is that people just don't think much is at stake.
The country has nationalized and local politics just aren't seen as important for most people.
It's really a case of the decline of local authority than anything.
And there's usually not big fireworks issues and you're easily shown to look like a fool if you don't know what's going on.
Yah, I'm of the stance the decline of local politics is a real tragedy. It would solve alot of problems, IMO
30% is going to be about the fraction for any given side.
30-30-30-10 is a surprisingly common ratio, actually.
I think most things in politics break along those lines. 30 pro, 30 against, 30 just want to be left alone, 10 actually decide the result.
To be completely cynical though. We hear about how people vote for candidates "because s/he looks better" Would we really want to try and push more people who don't want to be bothered into voting?
Not inconcievable. TX Republicans put it on their platform.
IDK, can you spin it to show you're an international asset when it comes to doing business with France?
I wouldn't necessarily sit though. We seem to be in an era of separatist movements. Scotland, Britain, Catalan. This could be the point when something like that happens.
Heck, #calexit was trending for a bit. And state of Jefferson is effectively on the ballot.
Interesting. Would this part of Quebec be close enough to secede from Quebec and join a larger english-speaking contingent?
Yeah, you'd get crushed. Probably just relocated or something.
Wait, so you get multiple alternatives to "fuck"
I'm getting ideas...
Hold on a sec. Wouldn't the most defined sense of people with poor social skill be autists?
If so: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/my-life-aspergers/201409/religion-and-autism-are-they-together-or-apart
Pointless copypasta someone made up to make fun of someone or something.
Is there some context to this weird quote.
I mean, the next comment immediately calls it out for not making sense and looks to be the same person who pinned it.
I guess he just thought it was funny or something.
I think that's a core facet of someone like Peterson. He doesn't want to be duped into saying something that gets him in hot water.
And I think it's because he thinks in a very deep detailed way.
But I've never really followed him that much, so I'm mostly just guessing.
I liked it. I think it showed a key fundamental issue in the modern age.
We had the old timer with detailed thoughts who is careful to examine truth and we had the young star who is fundamentally out to score points and embarrass people.
12,589 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/51 | Next