I've watched probably 20 videos about WALLSTREETBETS + GAMESTOP + ROBINHOOD and here are my top 3,
#1
#2
#3
THE SQUEEZE IS NOT OVER
AND SILVER IS NOW GETTING SQUEEZED
WHY DOES THIS MATTER??
The "news" is trying to spin this as the small-fish MANIPULATING THE MARKET.
BASICALLY, TALKING ABOUT STOCKS YOU LIKE IS NOW ON THE VERGE OF BECOMING ILLEGAL.
BASICALLY, TALKING ABOUT STUFF YOU LIKE IS NOW ON THE VERGE OF BECOMING ILLEGAL.
Forget about "obscenity" and "conspiracy" and "medical misinformation" and "copyright" and "insurrection",
FREE-SPEECH IS DISAPPEARING BEFORE OUR EYES.
FREE-SPEECH IS DISAPPEARING BEFORE OUR EYES.
FREE-SPEECH IS DISAPPEARING BEFORE OUR EYES.
THE SQUEEZE IS NOT OVER
FUCK AMAZON
FUCK GOOGLE
FUCK FACEBOOK
FUCK TWITTER
FUCK REDDIT
Human "creativity" is (EITHER) caused by previous influences (OR) indistinguishable from random
WILL cannot be random
FREE action cannot be caused by previous influences
FREE is incompatible with WILL
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
In effect, this is somewhat true. Though, I wouldn't necessarily characterize them as "rights" in this context given that, as you pointed out, they can be taken away. "Legal privileges" would be more apropos. With that said, my arguments will always be in service to the "ideals" or rights. If we conform or concede the ideal in order to be, as I often see in response, "more practical," then there is no point to rights.
It's simply contracting with mobsters for temporary periods of survival.
SEARCH ROKU TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH YOUTUBE FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH LBRY.TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH ROKU TV FOR "GROKALL"
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
"I spent $40 in BTC to send my friend $20..."
Great store of value though.
To facilitate this transaction, you paid 0.00003601 BTC ($2.21 USD) in network fees.
TODAY
did you know the transaction fees drop to zero if you hold it in the same wallet for over a year?
no I didn't know that. I seem to still be paying fees even from older than a year wallets. Do you have to do something to set that?
Oh, right the fees are further reduced if your transaction is at least 1 full coin.
Older coins get priority automatically over newer coins which translates to reduced fees.
For example, I once swept a ton of dust out of my wallet and manually set the fee to zero. It took about a week to confirm, but I wasn't charged anything.
Also, you can complete fractional coin transactions of the fresh stuff using a trusted third party for less than 1.5% in fees.
I am more clumsy in listening to English than reading English. It's hard to understand your great video, but I'll try.
Let me know which one you're having trouble with and I'll try to summarize.
Thank you for your kind help! Well, I will have to study English first.😄
thank you for sharing the video, Happy Valentine's Day
Really amazing videos by @logiczombie
I'll watch a few later... thanks.
Good contents ☺️☺️☺️
HIVE!D
BITCOIN WILL DESTROY THE BANKS.
AMEN!
and a womanBuy Silver!
Destroy JP Morgan TODAY!
Unfortunately the futures market already has a cash clause (if silver is "out of stock", you must accept cash).
So it doesn't matter how much silver we buy.
REPORTING AN ALLEGED CRIME IS LIBELOUS SLANDER AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL
REPORTING AN ALLEGED CRIME IS SLANDER AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL
This sentence reads somewhat illogically.
I think you mean that anyone who reports a crime that is not actually a crime should be penalized for doing so, right?
Apart from the fact that everything except direct assault and observed theft is difficult to recognise as a "crime", I would have more to say about this:
If something is "illegal", then it is such before the law, isn't it? So if it is illegal before the rule of law, then it must be punished or at least penalised by the rule of law, correct? But if I demand that the rule of law should act on my behalf (because I don't feel like it, don't have the time and am otherwise busy), then I agree that the rule of law should not only make full use of its legislative, executive and judicial powers but also expand them further, because I am not the only one calling for the law. With me, many millions of others - I say this because of my gift for expressing statistical frequency ;-). I have been in the world for fifty years and have an internal counter ticking whenever I hear, read or see someone calling for a law. I think this demand is probably one of the most I have ever heard and my statistical meter howls a little every time I hear it :))
That all being said, I too would not want anyone to accuse me of a crime I did not commit. In fact, such things probably only happen where people go berserk or come under a dictatorial regime. Then the call for the law helps even less, because everyone has long since become insecure or frightened anyway. Then a crime report no longer has the character of such a report, then it rather resembles obedience or another kind of adaptation to a regime.
You make some very good points as usual.
What I'm trying to explore here is the most prominent objection to free-speech which is people complaining about libel and slander.
Would we really want to live in a world where nobody was allowed to speak "untruth"?
Would we really want to live in a world where every statement was required to be a demonstrable fact?
I'm just a messenger ;)
There is something to that, but each case wants to be considered on its own merits. There is no need for a law against it, though. The defamation that we give off eventually falls back on us. People make defamatory speeches, no matter if a law forbids it. They can't be stopped and probably, as I see it at the moment, laws against something make people break them all the more. By their very nature, prohibitions challenge resistance; after all, people want to test whether the arm of the law really reaches them or what can be done about it.
... people constantly want a law for this or that, for the simple reason that they want others to make it easy for them to see their wishes fulfilled. But the moment such law is exercised to their own detriment, some may wish to put the genie back in the bottle.
Probably not.
Talking about truth or untruth is often counterproductive. The word "truth" is used inflationarily. And talking is probably also overrated:) I can only talk to someone in a direct relationship, but not about someone with whom I have nothing to do and whom I have no opportunity to reach. The only effective method for me is that of spontaneous artistry in dealing with situations I encounter. Neither pity nor anger helps me. Pity is perhaps even the sharper edge ...
I'd rather stop talking :)
Such desire for evidence speaks volumes about how much confidence someone has in their experience, observation and self-respect. The more evidence I cite from sources, the more such evidence is cited from the other point of view, and so it can be stated that everyone is prepared to believe only their own found (or invented) evidence anyway, but finds doubt disturbing. The "expertism" that is so widespread nowadays is characteristic of wanting to be beyond doubt. While everyone argues about what is proven or unproven, life just goes on its way and cares little.
In my experience, calling for the end of the world has not stopped the world from continuing to exist. If you ask me, it depends on whether I have a fundamentally positive or negative worldview. I have found, in many arguments with my mother, that her hate speech was basically insignificant, because her words were not followed by actions that caused too much harm. She could spray a lot of venom, but if you met her with enough patience and kindness, she usually stopped. Sometimes, however, it only helped to walk away and let her cook on her own.
Unfortunately hate becomes dangerous when people in power take advantage of it by taking action against what they hate or fear. They can infect whole nations and what we observe right now, "the whole world".
Thanks, but I am not able to hear the spoken words clearly. If I'd be a native speaker, it would probably be no problem, but I am not an English native. So I cannot give you an answer. Sorry.
Thanks for the note.
It's basically a conversation about how freedom of speech is freedom to lie.
And the only "fix" for this "problem" is NOT legal restrictions of freedom of speech, but rather simply educating the public about what an ad hominem attack is.
The examples raised were mostly regarding public accusations of unverifiable heinous and atrocious crimes.
These accusations are often so shocking that people react instinctively to reject the person who is accused, regardless of any actual evidence.
This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as "the liar's dividend".
If people follow you for REWARD then you have mercenaries.
If people follow you for fear of PUNISHMENT then you have slaves.
If people follow you because they want to EMULATE you then you have zealots.
Thank god, I have no followers :) lol
Don't I count?
:) of course, you do. I was joking in my mind about the term "follower".
It's called "affirming the consequent" or "motivated reasoning" or "poisoning the well".
(IFF) NIHILISM = NOT-THEISM (AND)
(IFF) NIHILISM = UNACCEPTABLE AND MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS (THEN) THEISM = TRUE
THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE (TINA).
Unfortunately, even if we accept this without any scrutiny whatsoever, we're still completely lost.
WHAT DOES YOUR GOD WANT ME TO DO?
YOU WILL NEVER WIN THE GAME IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE RULES
YOU WILL NEVER WIN THE GAME IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE RULES