Customize

Anonymous Targets Koch Bros with #OpWisconsin

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Feb 26, 2011.

  1. It
    It's a bad decision. There is more canon-based reasoning for going after Fox News. If people want to expose their involvement in some activities, that is fine. Actually attacking organizations they support because they champion views you disagree with is what the people Anonymous destroys do.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. grebe Member

    Zimbardo's work is interesting but flawed. Like most group data, it's a piss poor predictor of how any given individual will behave. And you should be aware that the guys in the Stanford Prison experiment weren't representative of the general population in norther Cal at the time.

    Why do you say "when the government favors one group over another..." instead of "when SquishU-likeaBug, Inc., favors one group over another..."?
    • Like Like x 2
  3. grebe Member

    Eh I dunno. The Kochs spend a lot of money spreading bullshit and making Americans dumber, provoking my thirst for lulz and justice.

    On the other hand, nobody caught Mr. Koch red handed, as he was not actually involved in this particular brouhaha. Thus my thirst for justice is eclipsed by my interest in juicy dox.

    One more point in Mr. Koch's favor: Rockyj's last Anon press release was such a demotivational wall-of-text that my eyes glazed over before digesting even the first sentence.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Anonymous Member

    Unions make the worst over-processed cake. trufax
  5. truth

    Rockyj, regardless of whether I agree with you or not, you could really use a copy editor to help you with conciseness.
  6. Anonymous Member


    "Leave no Child Behind" has way more to do with the horrible state of many schools than unions. Public schools have taken big financial hits which have resulted in older books, reduced supplies, teachers having to pay their own printing cots for learning materials, increased class sizes, mainstreaming kids (to save money on special ed teachers, not to help the kids) who take away teacher time from the entire class, and on and on.

    With NCLB, teachers are pressured to teach ONLY what will help kids pass the test rather than teaching thinking skills and other things like geography. Schools LOSE money when they don't achieve results under the NCLB testing (which makes it even harder to improve) and poorer school districts with a higher amount of non-English speaking students and children in bad home environments get no leeway. So it is an ever crappening circle.

    It really is hard to compare school scores from a time when ALL children were not able or required to attend school. The time period this graphic is from still had a large child work force, for example. I bet the class sizes were smaller too. And some comparisons are made with Catholic or other private schools at the present time. I went to a Catholic for 2 years while in elementary school. It was good. No doubt about it. But it was also self selecting. Students there had PARENTS who cared about education and the schools could refuse students it did not want. Public schools don't always have this option. Private schools also tend to have a smaller administrative force. This saves on costs. This is something I am for. Too many administrators, not enough teachers.

    Again...none of this is Union related. Except for helping to end child labor.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. futureshock Member

    I wonder why Governor Walker saw fit to victimize the teachers union in particular?
  8. Zak McKracken Member

    And if Anonymous does it, it makes us look bad.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Anonymous Member

    The Kochfertiliser web page is currently being targeted.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. adhocrat Member

    As someone living in San jose at the time, age 20, I can speak with some knowledge about the zeitgeist of the Bay Area.

    The students chosen were mostly long haired, which in 1971 was still a political statement, not a fashion statement. So all the pictures of the students looked like me at the time, long hair, mustaches, liberal, even socialist. The lesson learned form the prison experiment is that anyone of us chosen to be a guard would have acted in the same way.

    That's from Zimbardo's book. It describes how the prisoners felt, It also describes me after being caught up in the scientology dynamic.

    Yikes.

    The three reactions were seen in the Stanford Prison Experiment as well as Abu Ghraib. I'm doing this from memory: First group would show some small kindness towards some of the prisoners. One group would be automatons, neither cruel nor kind, while the third group was cruel. These types were seen in the SPE and Abu Ghraib.
    What was rare was for the guard to say this was not good, to point out the cruelty to someone who could stop it. And in the case at Abu Ghraib, when people did tell their bosses, nothing was done. That sends a serious message that what is happening is condoned.

    The only flaw in the SPE was that Zimbardo held two posts, Warden of the Prison, and experimenter. His Warden role, which he got into as much as the guards and prisoners did their roles, overrode his good judgement and it wasn't until he girl friend pointed out the horrors, he was blind.
    What I took away from it is that any of us, put into that bad barrel, have a high likelihood of becoming a bad apple. And hubris about personal invulnerability makes it more likely of being caught up. I had certainly been able to see through all the cult crap I got in the 60s and 70s. So I thought I was immune.

    Silly rabbit. trix are for me.

    As for the squishing, I am saying that the government has no business in business. A big company wouldn't have the power to squish you like a bug if the government wasn't in bed with that company. Or at least it would be less likely to happen, since in a fair and just (I know, I know, but let's assume, at least for the end of the sentence) society, anyone engaging in force or fraud would be stopped. And since that essentially is the government's only mandate, it would be easier for them. They wouldn't be distracted by trying to run government, business and our private lives.
    I say the problem isn't left versus right but statism versus liberty. And statism is in power and advancing.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Anonymous Member

  12. No, they said "If they want to be in that filthy building, fuck it. Let 'em."
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Anonymous Member


    OH and don't forget the high cost of text books. You want to know WHY text books cost so much? We have national education standards (meaning what things must be taught/covered in a text book (for instance a science book must cover xyz) but then we have STATE standards. Texas, the largest state drives (through THEIR standards) much of what is NOT included in textbooks...so look at it this way (for example) you have LA demanding that evolution be excluded from the science books that they purchase and creationism included...this means a separate book for each state and the core material must conform to Texas. RELIGIONS are killing education in this country. Can you imagine how much it costs a textbook publisher to conform not only to National Standards, but to the standards of 50 states? ONE author writes the main body of the text, countless other authors must write state conforming text and features and then the printing...I could go on.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Not true. Governments and unions have not always been adversaries. After all, FDR sent National Guard troops to protect peaceably protesting union members. The rest? Socialism has paid for almost everybody ITT's education through graduation from high school or the equivalent. Socialism also pays for the firefighters that save lives everyday, the cops who save lives when they're not violating our rights, the CDC and other health agencies that protect the public from pandemics, and other services we take for granted. One could say there has to be a balance. I agree, with the caveat that the balance has shifted way too far in favor of businesses at the expense of the people. Roll back the income taxes to 1992 levels, and maybe cushion the working class a bit more. There. No more deficit.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. adhocrat Member

    You're giving a Procrustean definition of the word socialism. Paying taxes for police and firefighters is not socialism.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. grebe Member

    You're making a distinction between police power and the power of wealth. I'd say that real power means being above the law, so the distinction is moot.

    When libertarians say they want a smaller government, they usually want deregulation, or less cops, basically. I hate this idea because I'm up to my ears in con artists right now and I really want them to GTFO.

    The entire "government" verses "corporation" distinction is fail, IMHO. Think about the work to be done and who can do it most efficiency. Sometimes competition increases efficiency, so take bids from corporations; sometimes it decreases efficiency, so create one regulated public industry.

    Bottom line: Protect the people from too much power in the hands of too few, whether those few are public servants or corporate directors.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Anonymous Member


    I agree 100% that religious interfernce is fucking with education and the cost of textbooks.

    But in this new digital age, text book manufacturers have a greater ability to alter texts for different state needs. They will still charge an arm and a leg as if they have to manually alter bits of metal text on a printing press...but it is all digital now. Maybe they can send it to the scilon printing press in Commerce so the low wage SO could print it...might save some dough.
  18. ftfy. In the end, force always enters the equation, whether it be force used against you or force used in your defense.
  19. adhocrat Member

    my point is that voluntary is better than using force. I don't expect to see a world of sweetness and light. But I can see many more places where the government can quit using force and let people work it out. That's the basis of our common law, people working out their differences.
  20. Anonymous Member

    It surrounds and penetrates us

    It binds the galaxy together
    • Like Like x 2
  21. How so? The government is taking money from one individual and giving it to another, in a manner that will likely never or only rarely benefit the individual from whom the money is being taken.
    • Like Like x 2
  22. 1957 Member

    You lose. What happened is that everyone went upstairs while the Union cleaners cleaned the downstairs. Then everyone went downstairs to eat pizza sent from all around the world while the Union cleaners cleaned up the upstairs. And Union cleaners ate pizza too!
  23. uncoerced Member

    Didja know the name sounds like coke, not cock? I've been saying cock in my head every single time I read the name, no wonder I had so much cake last night.

    It's coke! BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
  24. grebe Member

    Sure, having a few choices seems better than having only one choice. I would interpret "force" as having only one choice. Governments can limit a person's options, but so can private corporations.

    Reminds me, last summer I went looking for a lawn chair. I went to Home Depot, Walmart, Ace, and Loews. Same crappy shit from China everywhere. Choice = 1. Thank you, corpocracy.
    • Like Like x 2
  25. I agree. Voluntary is always better than using force, but sometimes, force is necessary. If people were better than what we are, I would have few problems with your ideology, because the robber-barons of today's corporations wouldn't need government to tell them that shipping jobs overseas is bad, or that not paying their people a living wage is bad.

    The only law that is inviolable is entropy. Welcome to America approaching its ground state.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. adhocrat Member

    I read this and realize that your grasp of economics is weak. Free voluntary trade is an enormous contributor to a rising standard of living.

    Read about comparative and absolute advantage to see why trades works for everyone.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. lulzgasm Member

    Nah! That just makes you a libertarian.
    • Like Like x 1
  28. It's not so much a function of my economics literacy, but rather, a function of how ignoble I recognize humanity has the potential to be. Most people are good and noble, but most being noble isn't good enough, by itself, to have a functioning society. Force used to prevent the abuse of others, or to punish those who abuse others, will always be necessary. We've seen revolutions that started with people holding hands and cooperating, being good to one another, and having such promise, only to turn to shit because the baser instincts of man come to the fore.
    • Like Like x 1
  29. adhocrat Member

    Do you understand that free trade improves the quality of life for everyone? That is the point of trade, to improve our lot.

    Libertarianism is an attempt, no matter how crude and ineffective, to make a society where our baser instincts are channeled into socially acceptable behaviors. IMHO, all other political ideologies want to change man's nature. Libertarian thinking is the only one that accepts us as we are and attempts to create a place where we can play together is some form of harmony.

    I say the opposite of war is not peace, the opposite of war is trade.
  30. And when people can't afford the goods being offered in trade because they're not being paid a living wage or have lost everything due to fraud that occurred while the regulators were absent or looking the other way, what then? How does trade fix that problem?
  31. adhocrat Member

    If by power you mean being above the law, then yes, power is very very bad. But power per se is neutral. It's how it is used that matters. By redefining the word you take all possible rebuttal away since I can't know what you mean by a word. Power to me is a neutral concept. It's all in the use.

    Uh, are you saying a stable society is not a benefit to me? I don't want criminals stealing my hubcaps and having police means it will be less likely. It is a good that benefits all and is paid by all. That is not socialism. We pay for our water, food, shelter, transportation. Paying for this protection is the reason governments are formed in the first place.

    God, I hate when that happens

    The free market is our best guarantor that we won't have only one supplier of any given item.

    As I said before, please do some study on basic economics to understand why what you are saying makes no sense. It is the government policies, not business, that is the driving force behind ALL that you have mentioned as being bad. So why not direct that energy to the agency that is denying your freedom rather than the straw dog they want you to chase?

    (Is that a mixed metaphor? God, I hated grammar class at the time)

    First, a living wage has no meaning. Sorry, it is simply a catchphrase. In point of fact, virtually all economists agree that the minimum wage drives up unemployment in precisely the areas the minimum wage is designed to help. In their brilliance, our government designed a plan that hurts the very people it is supposed to help. How is that a good thing?

    As for fraud, do you understand that the government isn't the only way to regulate? In fact, right here on WWP we have found a way to help regulate the world by putting our opinion out there along with putting our bodies on the line. It is looking more and more like Chanology with accomplish its goal. That sort of focus could be brought to an industry, to government, to our medical care, to any consumer good.

    When the government regulates, the put a lower level of acceptable service, But that all too often means that is the upper level of service that will be provided. It doesn't pay to innovate in a regulated environment.
  32. Anonymous Member

    LOL-fucking-LOL! You are a naive idealist, ain't you! The point of free trade is for those who have it to make even more money. A true libertarian should know that (read John Galt's long borrrrring speech if you don't believe me!)
  33. Anonymous Member

    Rule of Acquisition #35, dude.
    http://www.sjtrek.com/trek/rules/
  34. adhocrat Member

    Uh, I did read the speech. As you say, boring. But it is not idealism to point to 200 hundred years of rising standard of living due solely by capitalism. You say I'm an idealist. If so, that makes you a cynic of the worst sort, one who bitches but has nothing else to offer.

    And if that is what you took away from Atlas Shrugged, then I suggest reading it again, without your ideological blinders on. Then look at more mature libertarian thinking, then get back to me. As I mentioned earlier, libertarians are the only ones who accept people as they are and don't want to change people into some ideal state of humanness. i'm content to be Homo sapiens, not Homo novus.
  35. grebe Member

    No I don't mean power=being above the law. I mean that there's a point where someone has so much money or political control that they're effectively above the law. How many billionaires have had to do time?

    The "government ruins everything" branding makes it very hard for me to talk to libertarians. I need to know specifically what it is about government that is a problem or I get lost. If the answer is something really general like "they have the guns," that doesn't help, as lots of big companies have kick-ass guns.

    In my view, governments are corporations that maximize economies of scale while a fee market maximizes the economies of competition. There are situations in which one type of efficiency matters more than the other type. There's no a priori evil in either structure.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. adhocrat Member

    Sure, if I was Ferengi. Last I looked I was H. sap.
    For humans, War is the health of the State.

    I gave this example in another thread, but I'll repeat it here: Virtually all economists agree that minimum wage laws create higher unemployment, especially in the demographic that most needs the work, namely poor people. So our government creates a law that hurts the very people it is said to help. How does that make the least sense? If the government wanted poor people working they wouldn't throw barriers in the way of working.
    And I keep saying I am not against government, I am saying government is the most dangerous tool we have and it needs to be watched constantly.

    And there probably have been some very rich people who go to jail for their criminal acts. That is something nearly unheard of in history until democracies came along. So there is hope for people yet.

    And again, government is not a corporation. And I don't quite get your point in your last paragraph, about government and economies of scale, versus economies of competition. Is that unique to you, or is this something else?

    And, I'll throw this out there. The basic libertarian principle is the Nonaggression Principle: No one can initiate the use of force or fraud. All else flows from that.
  37. grebe Member

    Discussion regarding the relationship between minimum wage laws and what is best for the working poor is likely fraught with peril in a place like this.

    What is that, a postulate? Does it work on cats as well?
  38. Zak McKracken Member

    Enforced (lol) nonaggression.

    It occurs to me that castrating the males might be a good first step toward the Libertarian ideal.
  39. adhocrat Member

    Actually, it means an armed society is a polite society
    • Like Like x 1
  40. grebe Member

    You know what else creates higher unemployment? Widespread rioting in the streets.

    Any perturbation of the system will cause transient scarcities until goods and services get moved around to accommodate the change.

    It's up to us, the people, to define a minimum standards for things like housing, wages, etc. If we set the minimums too low, we'll have malnourished children, crime, and riots. If we set it too high, we'll have a dead economy where working hard seems pointless.

    Communities have always done this minimum standard thing, because it sucks to watch others starve even if they are douchebags who will never amount to anything. One exception to this might be the Inuit who long ago developed a ditch n run custom for dealing with their useless faggots.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins