Malej_Pstros

Sweet thread on reddit mapping best findings so far: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4ucxpy/the_dnc_is_a_terrible_group_juiciest_leaks_so_far/ Pastebin backup: http://pastebin.com/4cHYTxXb

Stumbled upon this emotional video, it's extremely intense. Things seem to be escalating very quickly here in Europe, every day there are more and more people speaking out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omRK9k36gS4

This is disgusting. Given the unintentional cringe from the way he's trying to spin it: The Ugly Yes, unfortunately there was some ugly. With the recent awareness of codes of conduct and with the increase in gender diversity there is bound to be more visibility as victims come forward rather than remaining hidden. ... and then, with a supposedly straight face, follows it by "A guy invited two girls for a relax session, possibly meant sex. They refused. End of story", I'd say it's just all bullshit. He's obviously trying to make a drama out of nothing. I don't know anything about the guy, but I think this is pretty common sense: If he had anything serious to report on in this context, he wouldn't dilute it with this stuff. Like if somebody got seriously groped, he wouldn't be demeaning it by equating it with nonsense like this. A guy takes a girl shopping outside of the con area. Is that how you grope people these days? Or is it the time when you make a potentially unwelcome advance. On a big conference with presumably crowds of drunk people every night. Gimme a break. You grab her hand, you have sinned against the almighty vagina. You ask verbally, you have sinned against the almighty vagina. Woman make man feel bad. Man feel guilty and sorry and man easily manipulated by woman. Woman attract sympathy. Woman like that.

No, sorry, we can't get along. Everyone is responsible for being moral, including his responsibility for maintaining a solid moral code. Religious people bypass this responsibility by unquestionably accepting the moral code of their religious doctrine. In simple words they're saying "No, I shouldn't be held responsible for being aware of what is right and what's wrong. God has decided for me". Luckily enough, the current christian interpretation of "god's will" still lets us coexist very peacefully and often enjoyably. But allowing your religion to interfere with your sense of morality will always be inherently immoral.

Hello iOWNme, I am happy that you are willing to put the time and effort into making anarchist videos. But I think this particular video is a misstep. May I ask who was this video intended for, whether statists or other anarchists? The problem I see with it is that (even if it was intended for anarchists) if a statist, or even worse a patriot/nationalist watches it, he doesn't bring anything positive out of it. As stated above, everyone claims to be worshiping virtue and morality. Basically you're saying two things: that you're peaceful, followed by telling him that you burn his beloved flag and spit on "the great America". I mean, how could a statist see you as peaceful, when you're attacking his core believes and his statist deity himself? This video will produce quite an emotional reaction with most of them, and those emotions are not gonna be positive. I believe this video widens the gap instead of connecting with the statist viewers - and what's worse, you make it on behalf of anarchism. We just can't win the fight by attacking the opposing camp.

Oh, my bad, for some reason I thought you used the world voluntarily. But it's not really an issue here, as I was saying exactly that they may be willing, but they're not doing so voluntarily. So it's not really a "the sheep litimize it by trusting a sociopath with their money" scenario, which I felt you were trying to put forward. If you only meant taking significantly less than you've paid on your taxes through your life, then it's a no-brainer. The question I find very interesting is what is the correlation between the ammount you take out and the total tax revenue. Also you should check whether your maxim could be consistently universalized without self-destructing. Given he has not always been on welfare, and he still has to pay a lot of taxes (idk the US tax code, but stuff like property tax, VAT, gas tax and others), how is it more your money than his own? 1. I would add one premise to that: Unless it undermines the thief's ability to payback and thus preventing the victim from getting his cash back. But that's never the case with governent. They seize as much as they can get away with, next they pay for basic functionality, pay for marketing (your welfare, etc), and cash out the rest. So as long as you know somebody's gonna spend the stolen money, I don't see a victim of the re-steal. Extra points for using it on something other than killing people. (edit: a reference to what government does with the money, not indicating it would be also acceptable if you'd use it for immoral purposes) I'm think you're misinrpreting this. It doesn't matter, if your purpose is better or worse if neither of them is strictly immoral. There is no victim of a theft of stolen money. How does it sound bad for you to take away the initial thief's ability to spend it (he cannot make any legitimate claims on it!)? As always with ethics, its not the the "later actions" that counts, but the maxim, which can include spending it on something good How did you make the leap from "less bad than stealing to do evil" to "ok"?

Something tells me that if you can't afford the wedding, you shouldn't be marrying in the first place. And I sincerely think that asking for 15k is just pathetic. You could just set up a small beach ceremony, but you rather beg for 14k more so you can waste it within a day on something you don't need. It might be interesting to survey married couples (like 5 years after the wedding or something) if they would trade in their 15k wedding memories (replacing them with those of a 1k ceremony) for 14k cash on hand... well, the memories would have obviously already had brought them a lot of pleasant feelings in the past and it's likely that their potency would already be nearly exhausted, but the idea should be really clear: What percentage of couples with 15k weddings this the one-day dunk of 14k was worth more than keeping the money? Would some of you guys refuse this opportunity to re-think your wedding approach (or an analogical one with respect to the cost of your wedding)? I may (and probably am) be missing something as I'm not married (and although by the age of 21 I can't really be sure about what the future will bring, as of now I am strongly opposed to the idea of ever getting married and have been for about the past 5 years), but I'm convinced that shipping this money to Stef or donating to a charity of my choice would make me feel much better than a dozen of expensive cakes, hiring a big band and getting to see thousands of flowers for one day. Thoughts?

Github pages are amazing for static pages, but unfortunately it doesn't allow you to run any kind of server code (although you can use front end javascript, which gives you some functionality back, as you can for example take the content of your contact form, push it to apache you set up on some obscure free-hosted third level foreign domain and mail it from there), you probably have to say goodbye to any kind of a database (unless you're willing to commit some serious bestiality on the way). You also have to keep your source code public, which is probably none-issue for your purpose. But if you don't need anything besides html+css+js, it's absolutely wonderful. It works exceptionally well when developing in cloud 9 using Jekyll (the ultimate tool for generating static pages).

Exactly. What would even be the single advantage of opensourcing your inventrion rather than supplying the whole world with your sweet private energy? I am not sure how much money would we need to buy all the politicans in the world, but I am god damn certain that the world needs a heckloads of energy.

How is that? Shouldn't you be sitting pretty as long as you use a trustworthy node to enter the network?

I have to disagree. Yes, video games are probably not a good idea with stef-tier philosophy, but don't really assume that's what you would be aiming for, is it? Athene's audience, for example, choses light philosophy with casual gameplay (often even performed by somebody else, for ex. one of the viewers) on the background over full-focus gaming any day of the week. Here is an example of his nice vid:

I happen to have about 7 months left on my Bluehost plan for an unlimited number of websites. Given your post count, I'm willing to share it with you if you don't need it for anything sensitive (it's fine by you that I also have an access to the account).

I don't believe anyone can give you a definite answer on this one and neither will I, but let's break it down a bit: 1. The fact that you're lying to your government has no moral consequences whatsoever 2. The fact that there are other people doing it is also completely irrelevant for determining whether it's ethical 3. Yes, you definitely don't owe the state anything 4. Let's give a big thought to your use of the world "voluntarily", as to me it seems to be the broken core of your rationale: I am talking about the US here, since it's probably the only non-straight-up-publicly-facist country where you can hear this from a significant part of the population (well, definetly the only one I know of) It is very important right at the beginning to at least try defining the meaning of "paying taxes voluntarily". This should simply mean "paying them as a direct result of a conscious decision, in the absence of coercion". As long as you don't actually get to chose whether you want to pay them, the voluntary payment of taxes is simply impossible and claiming so is about as absurd as triumphantly announcing to your friend that you have finally decided to become subject to gravity and thus tend to fall down when there's nothing beneath you! But I know many people still like to claim that they pay taxes voluntarily. What I believe they are trying to say is that "they would decide to pay taxes even if they wouldn't be violently forced to do so". The really crazy thing about that is that this still doesn't make much sense. You simply cannot say you would decide to do something unless specifying what would you decide to do that over... and there is no narrative to what does a "society with voluntary taxes" look like. So the only possible interpretation seems to be that all those people are actually saying that all other things constant - and thus them still being entitled to the whole "class-B-citizen government-service package" regardless of their decision - they would still decide to give the government, without directly getting anything back, just for the team (and being aware of that if the gubbernment doesn't collect enough cash, he would also get no "goodies" from, just like all the other). Now if that's really the case, the level of awkwardness and absurdity of this whole "I pay taxes voluntarily" thing is just way over the top. I mean... I believe that Warren Buffet would gladly pay his taxes every time and since he's running for president, so would Donald Trump (in the 2015 tax year). And yes, when I think about it, I can imagine that people who pay $50 in taxes every year while receiving $5000 in welfare might also "proudly" give up on their fidy - If you can somehow convince yourself that these fifty bucks make you entitled to all those gubberment monies (because hey, you've paid your fair share! And yes, you happen to be the one netting big time, so what? You play along the rules and so should all others. And of course you're absolutely sure you would feel just as enthusiastically about the whole social safety net even if you'd belong into the 40% tax bracket - because then you would be more fortunate and could easily afford paying your "fair share". It's all about the greater good for the society) or maybe even trick yourself into feeling almost as satisfied as if you would have earned the money yourself (after all you did kind of earn it, by playing the "poor people get free money, if you're rich and don't like to play, you're a sociopathic dick, I swear I'm not in for the money" game), instead of having to deal with a more appropriate emotional reaction (and god, there's obviously nothing wrong about being heavily dependent on welfare, but for any decent or at least humble human being it must be extremely emotionally difficult to handle and accept the reality that, for example, you were not able to provide even for your, and most likely your children's, basic needs and it was only because somebody else, who you've never even met, had to "give" you his own money, that you were able to avoid major starvation. That all this time you were perhaps just one little step away from living in hazardous or even inhumane conditions. And that if the next, or any other, time the rich guy isn't there to save your arse, you are done.) the chances are that (unless you're a person of extreme self-honesty) your subconsciousness is gonna do the job for you. <- I don't have an actual proof of that so please feel free to disagree or even better disprove. My judgement is based on my empathy, the intensity of the social pressure to classify taxes and government as just, the natural human tendency to avoid extreme guilt trips by dummy-blaming and the extreme rarity at which most people (especially very poor) encounter any theory/belief/argument questioning the mainstream narrative. But I have, and have a strong feeling that it's not only me, almost always heard this cliche from a person neither too rich nor too poor not to care for the money. But rather from people, for whom dodging all sorts of taxes (including those with fancy deceptive names) would result in straight up doubling (or close to doubling) their income. I mean... it's rather obvious that most of the times people say this, what they're really doing is trying to sell a replica of their internalized dogma (one that is being imposed in an extremely aggressive manner, one that upon adoption grants anyone the right to publicly pet himself on the back and brag about how people like him make for an excellent example of how a good American should take personal sacrifices to the government with joy, because he always knows that what seems to be a short-run loss is but a tiny price for "living in the best country in the world" / "all the services America has done to him" / "being able to take a part in something as amazing as this country" etc. And anyone, who publicly shows his disagreement gets automatically classified a tier-2 human, one that does not understand how important it is to loyally serve his country and thus has to accept being singled out from the group - not because anyone would impose that role on him, but simply because a true American's devotion to the country is a mission of such importance that those brave enough to devote their heart of it must always always come first for it is the best for America.) as a virtue. What really shocks me though is the fact that these people never ever got to realize how ridiculous, fake and straight up self-degrading they sound to anyone who takes a minute to actually contemplate the meaning of those words rather than mindlessly rushing to join the "true American hero public masturbation club". A society where a vast majority of people believe that what a living bush allegedly told an an-alphabet several thousands years ago is about the most relevant source for understanding morality out there, has somehow also reached a strong consensus on that it is immoral to pay the government less money than it demands: To be fair, 90% sounds just way too high to be real. But it should be safe to say that if Americans see paying taxes as their moral responsability and thus BINDING, the federal government could at any day just stop enforcing taxes (removing all forms of punishment for those who don't pay them) and it would still keep getting the checks from at least 80% of the people (which unfortunately doesn't mean it would be raising 80% of today's revenue, since rich people are probably much more likely to be OK with dodging taxes). If anyone could open a Walmart where everything is ~10% cheaper as it would not pay WAT, only a small fraction of Americans would actually ever go there - and I believe that they would have to deal with heavy ostracism, just like those who claim they would stop paying taxes if they got the chance to. Unless of course many Americans would claim to hold moral positions without being internally bound by them. Each time somebody proudly claims his strong commitment to paying his taxes, he could be just really saying this: That's because Americans in general have a very strong commitment to ethics. We are a very virtuous nation, that's why they would never miss a paycheck for the government, no matter whether enforced or not. The enormous social pressure put on anyone questioning the public dogmas/taboos (like that one bears a moral responsibility for killing innocent brown people even though he had a funny costume on and somebody else told him to do it, or that "pick your horse among two political parties that act almost identically when elected and stick with it in better or worse, regardless of how many times they screw us over" is an absolutely idiotic way to approach politics) is a direct result of the nation's deep repulsion by immorality. The last thing that could ever happen to us is the majority losing a capability of making even some of the most basic moral judgments entirely by one's own, independently on the mainstream narrative. Because after all everybody is responsible for maintaining his own moral compass as precise and as just as he can, for each of us feels bound by his responsibility for the consequences of his moral judgments. And let me tell you this: There is no chance whatsoever that by actually facing the tax-paying decision, many would actually for the first time start seriously contemplating the consequences of each option, as opposed to all of the prior choices on this seemingly surreal and irrelevant topic, where it has been made always absolutely clear that choosing one option will result in the crowd's acceptance and approval, while picking the other one would result in others singling one out, openly disrespecting him for not fulfilling their standards of morality and possibly some of them even getting so carried away by his ego/power trip to seriously damaging ones relationships with the group. It should be more than obvious that for the vast majority of people within one of the world's hardest working and consumption-oriented economy would ever ditch a "moral belief" he has never actually consciously formed, but rather unquestionably accepted under peer pressure, just to double his income. But what more, it is scientifically proven that after the first people not only publicly speak up their mind over not paying taxes, but actually DO IT, their close ones won't suddenly appear under huge pressure of any kind. Because it would be absolutely irrelevant that this time there is no space for any scare or bully-him-into-my-position "you're a horrible person, but if you say you changed your mind and join my club, we'll be friends again" tactics (as our society and neither I would ever subject to something as low as using emotional blackmailing to force anyone into chosing whichever option makes me the least dissonant about the way I blindly accepted a strong belief and now am holding it without being able to actually justify it) and the believer would now have to decide whether he really wants to double on a position he has so far most likely only held for convenience, but now would require to morally condemn a close one. Would you even believe that some people seriously think nobody would actually chose to hold a very strong unjustified position once the result of doing so would switch from "strong social approval + saving me from getting bullied" to "work twice as hard for the same reward + Being one of the very few people hating on the majority for reasons I cannot explain"? Well, to wrap it up: - Nobody is paying taxes voluntarily as it is impossible by definition for as long as taxes get enforced. - You may perhaps believe that there are people who would pay taxes even without the gun at their head, but I really cannot see how could you ever know for sure, let alone rely on it into such an extent to derive moral implications from it - Even people claiming they would keep paying for your welfare despite suddenly not having to have probably never even seriously considered the whole issue and you simply couldn't even enforce that once taxation would become voluntary, let alone force into giving you their consent with paying them in the present - Voluntary tax payers simply can't exist in a government that forces people to buy services they don't want - And finally: Once you would give people the option to chose what they want to fund, it's not very likely that people would chose to turn to the government in order to give you cash if you need to fake your way to reach it in the current system. Your only option would be to try tricking taxpayers into giving you the cash by lying to them directly, but this would beyond any doubt be a classical example of FRAUD, which is strictly unethical So my conclusion is more than clear from the list above: If your rationale is that people pay taxes voluntarily, I would argue you have an absolutely terrible rationale! That doe sn't mean that what you're doing is either right or wrong, it simply means that you probably haven't really put much thought into justifying your position