Retrospectively, wasn’t a lot of the space-exploration-based SciFi from the 50s 60s 70s serving the purpose of justifying massive government spendings in big rockets, mainly used to build ICBMs, to justify imperialist policies and the cold war?

were we (the scifi afficionados) the useful idiots of this missile race?

… er… the only thing stopping an AmericaBad-with-a-gun is an AmericaGood-with-a-gun…?

[autofire A]

You and I remembered different things about these emails. I asked if we really had to source and quote them to find out who is right and who is wrong.

There is no “horror” in DNC emails. just evidence of crass corruption and cynicism from Clinton’s campaign.

So wait, are you saying there is nothing significant in the Podesta emails… while at the same time the would have “made Trump elected”? :)

Some of the substance of the emails summarized here: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks.html

• The speech of Clinton at Wall Street is one of the most devastating because she actually lied and used double speech all the way
• The efforts to undermine Sanders are despickable
• Inflating Trump campaign, of all GOP candidates, is both dumb, cynical and short-sighted.

But again that’s only the bits i personally remember from (reading) the emails.

All I said is:

• this was newsworthy and of general interest;
• any journalist like Assange, if given authentic, unaltered material of general interest has a duty to publish them. (that’s called journalism);
• there is no evidence that WikiLeaks knew their source was from RU intel (if it was). It was said many time the organisation functioned in such way that they cannot know the identity of their sources, and anyone who has ever been in the business of source protection would confirm it is a smart principle.

To other fantasy claims that “WL had the GOP emails too but decided not to published them lol” i replied “haha wait what?!” and was presented with meak links about “GOP got ‘hacked’ period” with no trace of email being transmitted to whoever.

Now please go on barking about my nickname, changing topic or whatever.

🥱

(never sayd Podesta was a meanie. i think anyone involved in the DNC or GOP is probably a piece of shit that doesnt deserve my respect, but i think the same of many other political parties in many other countries…)

oh and by any chance, are you from the USofA? that way you have of being right about things by being louder… quite fascinating :)

you’re really funny :)

Wow that agressiveness :))

In that article (first time i heard of GOP being hacked I read

" Comey later added that “there was evidence of hacking directed at state-level organizations, state-level campaigns, and the RNC, but old domains of the RNC, meaning old emails they weren’t using. None of that was released.”

Comey said there was no sign “that the Trump campaign or the current RNC was successfully hacked.” "

So yeah “GOP being hacked” big deal. not “GOP emails were sent to WikiLeaks who decided not to publish it” which is indeed raw made up bullshit.

Also, according to

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370

“Ms Brazile took over at the DNC when its former chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz over hacked emails which revealed the party establishment’s favouritism towards Mrs Clinton.”

I never claimed the DNC undermined Sanders in the primary. That Clinton campaign undermined Sanders, it’s very different…

Do you really want we go and search in the Podesta emails to see who is right here?

What else? Assange caused global warming? Cause the US to let their pants down in Afghanistan? Assange has weapons of mass destructions? What else to justify the unjustifiable, all these violations of international and national rights, violations of human rights, mis-use of the US espionnage act against a non-US citizen and precedent that will affect all journalism? Maybe Assange caused UAPs…

Wait what? what Republicans’ emails? where have you heard that? I followed the case quite closely and never heard they had access to these emails.

So the answer would be: because no source came forward to them offering Republicans’ emails, otherwise they probably would have published them too…

A lot of the activity described in the US Army Warlogs in Afghanistan and Iraq happened under a Republican presidency… the Vaul7 release happened under a Republican presidency, etc. I think that reading WikiLeaks’ history under the ultra-narrow US prism of Republican-Versus-Democrats is a bit of a mistake. Not the entire world can be reduced to one or the other of these two…

Wait.

1/ publishing evidence of the Clinton campaign actively undermining Sanders who was then the natural candidate of the Democrats according to their internal polls (including by using antisemitic slur) + actively boosting Trump campaign because “it’s the only one we can beat” is “throwing the US presidential election to the Republicans”? How this genuine, authenticated information of public interest, published in the New York Times and WaPo is throwing the US elections more than the facts that were being reported?

2/ “worked with Russian intelligence” is absolute nonsense. What is your source on that? The Muller report says the opposite. If anything it is possible (but not proven) that the source may have been from within Russian intel, but a) Assange mentioned several times -way before that episode- that the entire architecture of WL made it impossible for them to actually know their sources, and we have all reasons to believe that (as it would be the smartest thing to do) b) if any journalist gets documents that are authentic and of public interest, regardless of the source, their duty is to publish it. If a Russian intelligence source had provided fake, doctored or otherwise altered material, and they would have been published as such, it would have been a real scandal. In the facts we are still talking of ground-breaking journalism.

I still can’t figure that some people cannot realize that Hillary Clinton did all she could to actually lose this election on her own (this and a fundamentally fucked up electoral system), and are actually finding scapegoats like Assange to avoid looking at this reality in the eyes…

Well it does to some extent, because maybe they’re just the tip of a wider problem, an easy target that lets conveniently 90+% of the hyper-sugar products, super-highly addictive and harmful, available to children…?

wonder how much of this “energy” comes from cafeine and such compared to how much actually comes from plain’ol deadly addictive sugar…

MySpaceX

Well when it is 100% associated with a negative message, constructed in a political way that makes it obvious, then it’s rather different I’d say…

Also what Banksy did was not mainly with the logo, but with the mascot, an antropomorphised character representing the brand and puting it into a human situation…

I understand the alleged funniness in this, and am in favour of all sort of fair-use (and even unfair-use!) of copyrighted, patented and otherwise trademarked material…

My questioning here, is: aren’t we advertising for the golden arches by multiplying them on our own federated servers? In people’s brains which have been filled already with this logo from the day of birth, associating it with sugar+fat tastes that speak to the “hmmm! good” part of the brains… seeing this wouldn’t trigger a “hmmm! good” reaction, you think?

I thought the whole point of the Fediverse was to give ourselves the chance to define our own standards for interacting as society, through experimenting, and discussing, and finding rough consensus, etc…? ;)

I see your point, but yet I don’t give up. Admitting that “the world runs like this” is a self-reinforcing mental block to convince oneself that never will ever change and that there is therefore no point in even trying.

Maybe through discussing these things openly we could raise awareness and build consensus towards onboarding more people with the idea that a corporate brand logo is not just another funny brick to build images with, like the rest, but is something loaded with power, and a history of influence, and often exploitation, etc…? And that one is always serving the interests of this company by re-using their logo in whichever way? (as the cynical PR people say “there is no such thing as bad advertisement”…)

I would somehow react the same if the faces of important historic figures were used trivially, for instance. Even if the purpose is to make people laugh, it is worth reflecting about what images/symbols/powers we propagate…

Sorry for being that party-pooper here :)

It’s not about you as a person, but about this imagery and its (brand) symbolism.

Having any image posted here (even if funny haha, or otherwise), containing logos of Google, Amazon, Apple, Palantir, Coca Cola, etc… would be disturbing to me. I am just wondering if others think this way.

These symbols (brand logos) have been hammered in the brains of each and every inhabitants of this planet, through billions invested in spreading the most low-level messages humans have ever invented (“hmmm!” “i love!” “this is great!” and other brainwashing concepts…). I personally love my spaces to be free from brands, brand names, brand logos, and advertising.

Isn’t this spam, as it displays a notorious brand name logo?

(or is it me being just too sensitive with my allergy to advertisement?)

It may have traces of “Linux” but it’s not GNU/Linux, or any other flavour of Linux that is free-as-freedom.

Having a free software kernel base (heavily patched with proprietary extensions, drivers, blobs etc.) in the middle of a close environment is like saying that one is having “some freedom” within the confined space of a prison cell…

Linux phones r0x! long live to the pinephone and postmarketOS! :)

discrimination doesnt start with “suggesting bad things about a group of people”, it starts by creating such a group of people, and enforcing it, culturally, politically, socially and at every level (including by jokes, memes, etc.). then at some point in history when society will be tense enough and on the verge of collapse, there will always be someone to suggest that this virtual “group of people” is the cause of… you know… everything bad.

but discrimination starts way way earlier. when making “groups of people” based on things they didn’t chose, and that actually shouldn’t matter so much…