Miscellaneous > The Lounge

Let's Fight Microsoft

<< < (4/17) > >>

Laukev7:
For that matter, we probably did sound 'radical' to the businesspeople who read the Forbes article that classified Microsuck in a list of 'corporate hate sites'.

BTW, welcome to Microsuck! I fully support your campaign against the Bush regime. And socialism doesn't sound radical to me either! :thumbup:

DavidB:

--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I think the death penalty should have no place in any modern civilized country.
--- End quote ---

The United States isn't a modern civilized country.

piratePenguin:

--- Quote from: DavidB ---That's a gray area. I agree with you to a point. That is, I'm well aware that my ideas and means of expressing them appear "radical" to many people. But let's define radical.

In common usage, I believe it has two meanings:

1) Weird or bizarre.

2) Anything outside the norm.

It's certainly not my intent to appear weird or bizarre. On the contrary, I go out of my way to embrace logic and ethics. But consider the second definition. Imagine an indvidual who preaches brotherly love and world peace. Would he be considered radical?

If he lived in Nazi Germany, the answer would be YES, because peace and goodwill were not the norm in Adolph Hitler's Germany.

I find myself in a simliar predicament. There's nothing more stupid than the average U.S. citizen, whose brain has been pulverized by a lifetime of the most sophisticated propaganda in world history, sensory overload (video games, a complex society, etc.) and terminal apathy.

I'm fascinated by the "socialism" - in the broadest sense of the word. But if I inserted the word "socialism" in a campaign statement, I'd instantly be branded a radical, even here in liberal Seattle. The problem is that Americans have been brainwashed into believing that socialism is - well, radical. They've been brainwashed into believing that anyone who wants to hold corrupt corporations (e.g. Microsoft) accountable is a socialist - in the strictest sense of the word.

In summary, I really don't know how to communicate to the sheeple, and I don't apologize for not knowing how. If you know of anyone who's doing a better job, please let me know.

But I'm certainly not going to practice business as usual and talk about the usual one or two insipid issues while kissing babies and praising voters for their intelligence when they're really dumber than ashtrays.

In some respects, I run futuristic campaigns. My statements may appear radical now, but I think they'll sound more sensible as more and more people get screwed by corporate America. I also know that things will never change until the general public changes its attitude. Voting as usual will only continue business as usual.
--- End quote ---
Still, the image of George Bush and the swastika is a bit silly because, well, America and Nazi Germany are not even similar. You could keep it if you believed that they are similar however, and stood by that.

I have no problem with the one of the twin-towers and Bush laughing, at least it makes sense.

DavidB:

--- Quote from: Laukev7 ---For that matter, we probably did sound 'radical' to the businesspeople who read the Forbes article that classified Microsuck in a list of 'corporate hate sites'.

BTW, welcome to Microsuck! I fully support your campaign against the Bush regime. And socialism doesn't sound radical to me either! :thumbup:
--- End quote ---

Exactly. Many people would consider a name like "Microsuck" childish at best.

Again, this is a gray area; name calling can be both good or bad. On the negative side, it can make the name caller look bad. But, on the positive side, it can also slime the target - and if your target is corrupt, go for it?

Frankly, what weapons do we have besides words? Moreover, I've never been able to figure out why we should stop name calling when it works so well for Republicans. They're the masters of combat politics, and I think it's stupid to not give them a taste of their own medicine.

However, I think name calling should generally be accurate. I make certain that my target is corrupt before I start slinging mud, and I don't call them any specific names that aren't accurate. For example, I'd be reluctant to call Bill Gates a racist because I don't know if he is or not (though he appears to exploit racism).

Of course, words like "pig" and "media whore" can't always be categorized as accurate or not; they're just simple names that can be applied to just about anyone who's corrupt - one size fits all.

Aloone_Jonez:
The UK isn't either but I think we're more civilized without the death penalty.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page