Submitted via IRC for BoyceMagooglyMonkey
After removing all duplicate and fake comments filed with the Federal Communications Commission last year, a Stanford researcher has found that 99.7 percent[pdf] of public comments—about 800,000 in all—were pro-net neutrality."With the fog of fraud and spam lifted from the comment corpus, lawmakers and their staff, journalists, interested citizens and policymakers can use these reports to better understand what Americans actually said about the repeal of net neutrality protections and why 800,000 Americans went further than just signing a petition for a redress of grievances by actually putting their concerns in their own words," Ryan Singel, a media and strategy fellow at Stanford University, wrote in a blog post Monday.
After removing all duplicate and fake comments filed with the Federal Communications Commission last year, a Stanford researcher has found that 99.7 percent[pdf] of public comments—about 800,000 in all—were pro-net neutrality.
"With the fog of fraud and spam lifted from the comment corpus, lawmakers and their staff, journalists, interested citizens and policymakers can use these reports to better understand what Americans actually said about the repeal of net neutrality protections and why 800,000 Americans went further than just signing a petition for a redress of grievances by actually putting their concerns in their own words," Ryan Singel, a media and strategy fellow at Stanford University, wrote in a blog post Monday.
Heroes. Mythical figures that rescue the oppressed from their oppressors. Being the embodiment of humanity's desire for justice and fairness, many would say that true heroes do not exist. They would say that, and they would be wrong. True heroes, you see, do exist.
There was a woman. She was a rather attractive woman and was minding her own business out in a public place. However, something was off about her; it was something that indicated that she was in dire trouble. If only there was a hero there to rescue this poor woman from the danger she was in! If only...
Never fear, Jefferson was there! Jefferson used his superhuman observational abilities to discern the true nature of the woman's problems. In no time at all, the hero had managed to see past the woman's carefree facade, and set out to rescue her from her predicament. Jefferson pounced on the woman, ripped off her clothes, and began violating her.
Yes, the woman was in danger. She was in danger because she was not pregnant; a woman not being actively utilized was a true tragedy. Thus, Jefferson violated her to solve her problem. The hero's fists rained down upon the woman's face and body as he thrusted into her, marking her very being with black and blue. From there, it did not take long for Jefferson to shoot his Miracle Seed into her receptacle, simultaneously fertilizing her and saving her from her tragic state.
Phenomenal. The many onlookers present could not believe what they had witnessed! It was a heroic act that could only have been executed by a true, legendary hero! A thunderous applause followed, which Jefferson humbly accepted. Now, what of the woman? What became of her? She would later give birth and lead a happy, healthy life.
Just kidding. Not satisfied with just that, Jefferson would imprison her, force her to give birth several more times, and then bash her brains out with his Mighty Mallet once he grew tired of her. This majestic, heroic act - as well as many others involving women and children - earned the legendary figure even more well-deserved fame and praise. In fact, people became so enamored by this man and his many heroic deeds that they would cry whenever he graced them with his presence. Such was his heroism.
So, do heroes exist? Some would answer, "No." But, those sad, ignorant people simply had not heard of Jefferson.
One man, One vote.Pai was the man, he had the vote.
No amount of comments from non-Verizon entities could change the result.
Meanwhile, women get to vote just because they have lived 18 years.
Meanwhile, women voters take the majority of welfare benefits.
Equal rights? I think not.
And that, my friend, is why your Democracy is shite.
In the US, Men have to "agree" to forced military duty before they get the privilege to vote.
Yeah, we've all see Starship Troopers.
Felony => You cannot vote.
Women don't suffer this warped logic.
It's preposterous that HALF of the goddamn population doesn't face this terror, and yet has the same vote on whether we go to war, or whether we spend more on welfare, etc.
Democracy is a STUPID idea.
How about we just abolish the Selective Service and strip the government of its ability to draft people under any circumstances? That would end this inequality as well.
Now, let's talk about the imbalance in welfare.
People who take should not have a say about how much people should give.
bit of autism going on w/ you, and I'm betting a whole lot of ugly in the face and either fat or toothpick below the face. it makes me feel actual pleasure knowing how shitty your life is.
Your post might have been halfway reasonable up until that final line. The entire idea of democracy is to be thrown away on the basis of the draft, a thing that hasn't been used in 46 years?
And, y'know, your reposting it over and over because you refuse to admit that people may not agree with you. Repeatedly reposting is really just begging people to keep modding it down as spam.
If you censor a perfectly legitimate comment, then it's going to be reposted. That's the deal.
Democracy gives an equal voice to unequal people.
We have a better system: Capitalism. That's why Democracy should be thrown out—not only is there a better system, but Democracy is in conflict with that better system.
1) How is it censorship if everybody can still read it? By default it just collapses the comment so you have to expand it.
2) Since when have democracy and capitalism been mutually-exclusive systems? You capitalism nuts seem to think that capitalism is only ever 100% pure, or it doesn't exist, from the way you go on about it. In the real world there's this thing we call "compromising."
I didn't write "Comment Below Threshold". If you substitute that for my words, then you get a repost.
Democracy is a system for allocating resources. Capitalism is a system for allocating resources. This is a conflict.
If you're logged in and in the right mode (not sure whether it varies per mode), it still puts the subject line instead of "Comment Below Threshold."
So in your estimation, has there ever been a capitalist country in the real world? If yes, which?
It's not a "country" thing.
Capitalism is not something that is confined to a naive notion like borders. It pervades all productive activity—organizing flows of resources in ways that people cannot even comprehend or control, and inducing the cooperation of even the most embittered foes (often without their knowledge); this was termed the "Invisible Hand" before men came up with the term Evolution by Variation and Selection.
Capitalism even underpins the continued existence of explicitly anti-capitalist regimes, such as the old USSR, China, or even North Korea; if it weren't for the "black" markets, everything would have fallen apart much more quickly under the feckless churning of their would-be "Intelligent" Designers.
It's not Big Government or the Regulatory Nanny State that makes capitalism work; rather, it's capitalism that allows those parasitic organizations to grow so big by feasting on the massive gains in productivity.
A person who wants to consider himself a member of Civilized society must admit, audibly, to himself and to others, that the goal (perhaps fulfilled in the far-flung future) should be the eradication of this parasite, which is merely a vestigial growth born in humanity's ancient, authoritarian pre-history.
In the US, Men have to "agree" to forced military duty before they get the privilege to vote.Meanwhile, women get to vote just because they have lived 18 years.
In the US, Men have to "agree" to forced military duty before they get the privilege to vote.Meanwhile, women get to vote just because they have lived 18 years.
Um ... bullshit? Oh, wait ... nope, still bullshit.
In the US, Men voters pay the majority of tax monies.Meanwhile, women voters take the majority of welfare benefits.
I find it interesting that you classify corporations as female. For your statement to be true - which it isn't - all the corporate welfare would have to go to "female" companies.
Let's see what Uncle Sam fucking himself says [sss.gov]:
Penalties for Failing to RegisterFailing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the Act is subject to the same penalties.If a man fails to register, or provides Selective Service with evidence that he is exempt from the registration requirement, after receiving Selective Service reminder and/or compliance mailings, his name is referred to the Department of Justice for possible investigation and prosecution for his failure to register as required by the Act. For clarification, if a man is exempt from registering with the Selective Service System, his name is not forwarded to the Department of Justice. The federal law stipulates that names are to be submitted to the Department of Justice annually.The more immediate penalty is if a man fails to register before turning 26 years old, even if he is not tried or prosecuted, he may find that some doors are permanently closed.NOTE: Some states have added additional penalties for those who fail to register. See STATE LEGISLATION.
Penalties for Failing to Register
Failing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the Act is subject to the same penalties.
If a man fails to register, or provides Selective Service with evidence that he is exempt from the registration requirement, after receiving Selective Service reminder and/or compliance mailings, his name is referred to the Department of Justice for possible investigation and prosecution for his failure to register as required by the Act. For clarification, if a man is exempt from registering with the Selective Service System, his name is not forwarded to the Department of Justice. The federal law stipulates that names are to be submitted to the Department of Justice annually.
The more immediate penalty is if a man fails to register before turning 26 years old, even if he is not tried or prosecuted, he may find that some doors are permanently closed.
NOTE: Some states have added additional penalties for those who fail to register. See STATE LEGISLATION.
And here I was expecting something closer to "Oh! oh! Yeaaaah oooooh"
I don't get your worthless joke.
Well im not gonna clue you in, self awareness is earned not handed out on a silver platter. Now go get a job!
Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called.- Heinlein
The Selective Service registration form states that failure to register is a felony punishable by up to five years imprisonment or a $250,000 fine. In practice, no one has been prosecuted for failure to comply with draft registration since 1986, in part because prosecutions of draft resisters proved counter-productive for the government, and in part because of the difficulty of proving that noncompliance with the law was "knowing and wilful". In interviews published in U.S. News & World Report in May 2016, current and former Selective Service System officials said that in 1988, the Department of Justice and Selective Service agreed to suspend any further prosecutions of nonregistrants. Many men do not register at all, register late, or change addresses without notifying the Selective Service System. Even in the absence of prosecution, however, failure to register may lead to other consequences. Registration is a requirement for employment by the federal government and some states, as well as for receiving some state benefits such as driver's licenses. Refusing to register can also cause a loss of eligibility for federal financial aid for college.
What's your point? It doesn't matter that those laws were on the books?
It's still a fact that
women have a protected right to vote.
men are allowed the privilege to vote in return for agreeing to military service.
That's what the law implies.
And, you know what? Voting should be a privilege; you shouldn't get to vote on whether we go to war if you're not subject to the draft. And, you shouldn't get to vote on welfare if you're a recipient of welfare—you don't get the privilege to vote if you're not paying for the government!
That's why Capitalism is superior: You vote when you allocate your own resources, and the weight of your vote is a privilege granted by the amount of societal resources that you've acquired through voluntary trade.
Feel free to leave. You can go your own way (go your own waaa~aaay~!). I hear there are, in fact, many Men who are Going Their Own Way. Maybe you can join them.
And, you're not gonna like it.
Oh, DO expand on this. Come on, you made a threat, back it up, little boy. This should be funny...
Women of the West are the most privileged people in the world; to gain equality means women need to lose some privileges—their pedestal will need to be dismantled.
You think they'll remove the draft for men? No. They'll add women to the draft, and to stop all the bitching and moaning about hypotheticals, they'll implement mandatory national service programs for young adults, so that such service becomes routine.
This is the world you are actively seeking, and you'll get it.
They'll add women to the draft, and to stop all the bitching and moaning about hypotheticals, they'll implement mandatory national service programs for young adults, so that such service becomes routine.This is the world you are actively seeking, and you'll get it.
They'll add women to the draft, and to stop all the bitching and moaning about hypotheticals, they'll implement mandatory national service programs for young adults, so that such service becomes routine.
The heck? A) No, nobody is seeking that, and B) mandatory national service is even more unlikely than calling up the draft itself, which the U.S. hasn't done since Vietnam.
Things get very weird very fast when the wealth disappears.
Pedestal? Pedestal? My God, you really think that don't you. Here's a free clue since I'm a generous sort of girl: men harming and killing other men over access to womens' bodies--NOT women as whole, functioning adults, you understand, just warm holes to stick your dick into and maybe get children out of--is not putting women on a pedestal. It's *objectifying* us. Society is not "gynocentric," which is the word you'd use when talking about this if you had enough brains to fill a shot glass, because men harm and kill one another in the pursuit of, and I *hate* seeing this used as a mass commodity noun, pussy. Not to put too fine a point on it.
There is a reason the basement-dwelling incel is a stereotype. And you are talking and acting precisely like it.
Yes, everything you said is true.
In addition, it's important to note that the US government consistently followed the Golden Rule: Those who have the gold make the rules.
One man dollar, One vote.
Chances are that if you have a dollar, your opinion is worth more than someone who doesn't.
Donno where you live, but here in the US we are not a democracy ( never have been either, and i hope never to be ). Nor is the FCC obligated to do what anyone asks, other than themselves. No matter how many people want it.
You err. The FCC is obligated to do what ~500 officials in Washington tell it to do. And, in turn, those ~500 are obligated to do what the ~150,000 vote-eligible citizens tell them to do. There are procedures in place that allow those voters to make life miserable for officials and agencies that do not conform to their demands.
Unfortunately, far too many voters fail to understand their power, or how to use it.
Term limits would be good. Simply voting professional politicians out would be good. Getting third parties in office would be good. Simply taking life seriously would be good. Alas, the average voter is irresponsible, so our government is equally irresponsible, and never held responsible.
Ajit Pai should be shitcanned, based on the results of this study. No other justification is needed.
PREFERENTIAL VOTING. Solves so many two-party problems. You can vote for a third party, and not throw away your vote!
I think that this one simple tricktm would greatly help US politics. It's not a panacea, but at least it helps to reduce the situation where you vote Kodos only because Kang is worse.
It would help the public...
It would not help those in power stay in power.
Sadly, it is the latter that write the laws.
Even if it were true, it matters not.
The government has no business allocating resources.
Choosing how to set up infrastructure, such as computer networking, is totally and completely the domain of The People, not the government.
No: politics is all about allocating resources: that is practically its definition.
Politics is about
"who gets what, when, and how"
- Political scientist Harold Lasswell [wikipedia.org]
Voluntary trade. Let's give it a try.
When one entity owns the last mile, "voluntary trade" isn't so voluntary. In the case of wired Internet access, this is the city that owns rights of way. In the case of wireless Internet access, this is the Federal Communications Commission (or foreign counterparts).
That's a problem.
It is a feature for people who want their infrastructure to actually work.
Hard to make those cell calls when your neighboring town is using the same frequency range for other purposes. Extra hard to compete in a market once the big companies buy their geographic monopoly and refuse to give you access.
Hard to find a brain in that vacuous space between your ears. Did Ivan forget to patch in your input sensors? Maybe you were programmed with simple responses and have no learning capabilities?
That's what you are. You're a fascist.
You don't believe in freedom.
Kill all men! Federal scientists have discovered that the Exterminate Men Angelic Contract System is the ideal implementation of anarcho-capitalism! Would you like to know more?
Ha, i just hope you are trolling, dunno if i can handle you being serious about that stupidity.
Well when you want to run cables across town it becomes an issue for *gasp* the government!
You realize you can run all your own network infrastructure in your own home right?
In the beginning [of the US], the government's sole purpose was to ensure the rights of the people, chief among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (i.e., the pursuit of self-interest).
The town should be completely private property, and so running cable across the town should be a matter of voluntary trade between individuals.
Alas, now it's a matter of politics.
Hmmm... we need to run cable through Elizabeth Warren's backyard. Let's ask People of Color how to go about doing that....
First sucker punch a Nazi, then bulldoze their homes and run the cables through there.
You can't do that! This is not Israel!!
That's not even close to being true. Oh, wait, you're not married, are you?
Should have been From the "No Shit, Sherlock" Department
I mean if Elizabeth Warren can be 99.99% white and identify as an Indian, the FCC 99.7% in favor seems like a slam dunk against.
What a wonderful example of whataboutism.
One could respond that what Warren, Clinton, or some not-black woman identify as, based on some distant-to-non-existent relationship, really doesn't fucking matter and should never fucking matter to anyone who knows that deeds should supersede genes.Conversely, ignoring the opinion of hundreds of thousands of the people you supposedly serve, when they are overwhelmingly telling you that you are making a bad decision, just because you're an industry shill, does matter, because that's what representative democracy is about.
Then don't back such shitty side in politics.
It's okay when making jokes, even if they're shitty jokes. Plus, whataboutism isn't inherently wrong.
One could respond that what [people] identify as [...] really doesn't fucking matter
But whatabout[ism] when people [allegedly] use their identity to get an advantage over other people in affirmative action or diversity [boston.com] situations?
Even I am more Indian than that.
Yeah, according to Dad I'm 1/16 indian. I fail to see why it matters, essentially I'm a mutt.
Sometime, way back in the mists of time, before the internet, I read some paper that claimed that ~20% of all Americans had Cherokee blood in them. I didn't question it, really. I just took the statement at face value. The logic seemed solid. The Cherokee were pretty welcoming toward the white man. A lot of Cherokee married whites. If I could identify or find that paper again, I might search their sources to learn how they arrived at their conclusion.
Primarily because of that paper, it doesn't surprise me that any white person might claim some Indian heritage.
Living in SW Arkansas, it seems that far more than 20% are part Indian. There really aren't a lot of pale lily-white people around here.
I never questioned her statement because my family has a similar heritage. Oklahoma Sooners. Like you said, Cherokees marrying whites wasn't all that unusual. So if you have family history going back at least 150 years in that area, claiming Native American ancestry isn't all that far of a stretch.
However, I also understand it is irrelevant. Only the tribes themselves determine membership, and they determine that on more than just blood. Warren can claim Cherokee blood, but not tribal membership or affiliation, and I believe she has stated that fact openly.
The question is did she use it to gain an advantage in applying for higher education? I didn't claim anything other than Caucasian on mine, even though I apparently have quite a bit more Native American ancestry in me. I'm certain that more than one of my great great grandparents was either full or half. It was important in that side of the family, and passed down. Still, I didn't use it on any forms because I'm the most white Republican looking motherfucker for miles around :) Who would believe me?
That's the only part I find a little off-putting about Warren. Apparently that blood was exaggerated a little, and she played Affirmative Action games with it.
When comments were being accepted, I submitted my own comment. And, of course, my comment was unique. Among other things, I noted that Ajit Pai was a Verizon shill, and that he shouldn't even have the job, let alone decide anything in favor of Verizon. My comment was probably among the first to be thrown out.
Sounds Familiar. They set our comments asside since we are obviously part of the Soylent Troll Farm.
They want everyone's opinion, as long as it's the correct opinion. In other news, you can get your Model T in any color, as long as it's black.
Unique content is actually probably a better indicator than actual count. People who sling other peoples letters are being partisan. "partisan" now being oxymoron since the DNC/RNC are indestinguishable from one another. We should say perhaps, people who sling other peoples letters are bots, whether mechanized or not.
So essentially what we're saying is there are ~800k Americans are thinking for themselves, and the vast majority are participating with the intent of preserving the first amendment.
That is some of the most enlightening news in a while. I was sure the number was much lower than that. Now the next question is, out of the 800K how many are willing to take some direct action in the form of protest? And the question after that, is why haven't they?