I feel like the world would be a better place if everyone who is involved in the decision making process for the peace prize was removed from that authority, and they just started giving the award to the local "good samaritan" in random, incredibly poor places that meet a threshold level of peacefulness. If it was known globally that being a nice person in a peaceful, poor place could get you a million dollars...
You got the job because you're a girl. You kept it because you're competent. It's annoying how women refuse to acknowledge their gender opens certain doors for them. I want to work as a bartender, which means more than half of the places I apply will never even look at my resume because I'm not a girl.
I'm all for giving disadvantaged people a chance over advantaged ones, but it's offensive when you pretend "Oh no, the odds are totally even!" No. They're not. You're lying to protect your ego.
"Piracy is wrong" morally sure, but economically I don't know. It's a complicated question, and without actual numbers the arguments for or against are totally meaningless.
What happens to stolen bicycles? Seriously, what happens to them? This article doesn't begin to address the question within the first paragraph, and if they can't format their article properly I can't justify spending time reading it.
As a counterargument, if one is able to get past their own internal paranoia about why other people are doing the things listed here, the information laid out is quite good for what makes a bad poster bad, how to avoid them, and how to not be a bad poster.
You could argue that this stuff shouldn't be framed in the conspiracy theory idea, but then it wouldn't have gotten as much attention, which could start a discussion about the most direct way to present this information, but then if you don't give it some controversy how is it going to get the necessary exposure for people to read and listen? You might have a better manual, but if nobody reads it, it's useless.
On that note, who else wants to try writing a better manual than these guys? Is it even worth it? After all, the most important thing is to get people thinking on the right track, and stuff like this is at least a step in the right direction.
The point that's being made is that it's not that hard to disrupt a functioning online community, so you wouldn't even need an army. You could probably do it with a staff of a dozen or less, and honestly looking at how places like reddit and slashdot have transformed over the years I really wouldn't be surprised if there was at least some influence by government agencies(how do those same 5 military propaganda images keep getting to the front page? I'd also be curious to see how those getting to the frontpage compares to recruitment needs for the military. Not saying that it's a conspiracy, but it would be an interesting thing to examine). The tone of those places has changed, and any intelligent, valid criticism of the status quo is consistently ignored and rallied against. I don't know if it's just because people are by and large impulsive and unable to handle criticism, or because of a conspiracy, but the former lends itself to control by the latter.
It would be a bit naive to rule it out completely, but it would be pretty silly to say for certain that it's a conspiracy.
Setting paranoia about you being one of them aside, and asking you to set aside your kneejerk reaction to being against this being posted, would you care to elaborate? I've never seen this before and it seems quite interesting.
I think it's okay to opt out of fighting. Too much of the narrative in places like this refuse to acknowledge that it's also fine to live without trying to rub up against something the whole time. There's nothing wrong with not having big ambitions, and there's nothing wrong with the people who don't have them, either.
The greatest human disease on the Internet is pride. It infects every corner and can culminate in the decline of great communities. Ally Sheedy can't hear you.