trollificus’s Techdirt Profile

trollificus

About trollificus




trollificus’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 16th, 2016 @ 9:04pm

    Re: Re:

    "Alternative"?? Why would you think any of the homeless who have drug problems* would change that just because they suddenly have pr0n to whack off to?

    *-"homeless drug problem", funds inadequate to obtain desired quantity of drugs. (sry, but I've worked with homeless folks)

  • Sep 16th, 2016 @ 7:54pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I have seen Trump referred to as a "giant orange middle finger" offered up to the political class by people who feel betrayed by both parties. The question of his "competence" for the office is irrelevant to them.

  • Sep 16th, 2016 @ 6:03pm

    Re: "You are a hypocrite!"

    In point of fact, you, and other self-appointed elitists, do NOT want anything like a true "polyglot culture". In action, as we have seen recently on college campuses, you want absolute adherence to ideas that you find amenable and an absolute ban on ideas you characterize as objectionable.

    You are so certain of your moral superiority (which is based on projection, straw men and LOADS of unexamined assertions) that you see no need for any self-awareness. You hand wave and name call all disagreements, and alter definitions of words as necessary.

    When it can be seriously claimed that the morally unobjectionable sentiment "All Lives Matter" is LITERALLY an "act of violence" (and not far down the rod, a sentiment to be met with violence, I suspect), the "false consciousness" is not only on one side, and neither side is actually FOR freedom of expression and belief.

    And as long as one party or the other can convince either the educated clueless or the less-educated clueless that they are on the "moral" side of some stupid, irrelevant wedge issue, what you claim not to want is supported by your actions. And of course, you won't see it...

  • Sep 16th, 2016 @ 5:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The only thing worse than too many "ignorant citizens" would be a permanent army of corrupt white-collar elitists in a permanent federal bureaucracy benefitting from and perpetuating the cronyism and influence-peddling the elected officials indulge in. In such a vile system, the self-interest of all parties involved is to strive for ever-greater, more centralized power and wealth; to be used in pandering to ever-more-incompatible interest groups.

    Good thing we don't have anything like that. So much better to have the educated running thing for the dummies, right? #noneedforasarctag

  • Aug 15th, 2016 @ 4:35pm

    Re: Re:

    Starry-eyed tech utopianism!

    I think it will be years before the all-important 19-25 demographic will accept a technology that can be used by parents and grandparents without routinely generating eye-rolling faux pas.

    OTOH, the conversion of text about a song into actual audio bits of the song itself, could generate a mini-licensing scheme. The RIAA would have to cut the NSA in on the deal for access to those multi-billions of communications on your text-o-voice-o-phone device. After all, those mega data centers don't build and maintain themselves!

  • Aug 9th, 2016 @ 5:17pm

    (untitled comment)

    What happens when a definition of, or extrapolation from, a dubious definition of racism runs smack dab into mean ol' REALITY, eh?

    So far, as with some really sketchy rape statistics on which some good-sized new departments and well-paying enforcement jobs depend, reality has been politely asked to make the adjustments. But I can't be the only one who questions how far down that road we can go...?? Can I?

  • Aug 8th, 2016 @ 11:13pm

    Re: Re: IOC Commitee

    Threats, bluster...it allows them to selectively enforce their policies. People who play nice probably won't have a problem. Individuals, websites and bloggers who are critical, who point out what a social, ecological and economic disaster this decadent bread-and-circuses shitshow has become...THEY might find themselves on the bad end of the expressed consequences.

    The wealthy and powerful benefit, as in so many big-money endeavors, governmental and otherwise. But the sanctimonious drivel under which this corruption festers, the soaring invocations of "the aspiring human body and spirit" and the "bringing together of all nations under the banner of noble athletic competition", that's what really makes this particular in-your-face reverse Robin Hood act so unbearably nauseating. There's hypocrisy, there's mega-hypocrisy, and there's hyper-reinforced industrial-strength hypocrisy. And then there's the Olympics.

    Ugh. "support the Olympics"? I'd rather support some corrupt sport that basically enslaves the athletes, making them work for nothing and casting them aside when they become useless for revenue generation...something like NCAA football, maybe.

  • Aug 6th, 2016 @ 10:47am

    Re:

    I think we're going more with the "dirt" side of the site's name with this one.

    If need be, you can close your eyes, put fingers in ears and repeat "lalalalalala" until the mean old story goes away.

    Or just click some other link.

  • Aug 5th, 2016 @ 7:30pm

    Re:

    Somehow, I doubt Terrebone Parrish and Sheriff Jerry-Bob are much concerned with the effect of this story on their global branding efforts.

  • Aug 5th, 2016 @ 6:46pm

    Re: Genius move.

    Maybe he's trying to make the relatively minor, commonplace (for Louisiana. And Illinois.) corrupt practice of crony favoritism seem unimportant by comparison to the direct abuse of citizens under color of law.

    Though illegal search and theft of private property has been somewhat devalued as a shocking violation of the oath to "serve and protect" recently. Was the failure to administer a beatdown just professional courtesy or something?

  • Aug 4th, 2016 @ 10:20pm

    Re: Regulation drums

    Ah, you want some kind of clarification.

    Did you check the Official TechDirt Pledge everyone has to sign in blood before coming onto the site?

    Or the finalized, official platform of the TechDirt Party?

    Or the policies of the FTC telecommunications department Masnick runs.

    If you still can't find the official explanation of what "we" all want, brush off the dust and try looking under that gigantic, cobwebbed pile of unused brain cells. Which, for most of us, are kept in the cranium, but your search might be quicker if you just started at the anus.

  • Aug 4th, 2016 @ 11:04am

    Re: Re:

    Perfect. Great comment.

    But all meaningless to a pandering scum politician like Cuomo. Not only is the list a tragic joke, but the ongoing expansion of "restricted activities" and locations ("not within 1,000 yards of school/candy store/daycare/cute puppy, etc") for people on said flawed list calls into question the entire philosophy of incarceration-as-punishment.

    We HAVE punishments in the books for these crimes. When the punishments have been meted out...the State's done. They don't get to add punishments, inconveniences or petty humiliations to the sentence.

    If Cuomo really cared about da chirrens, he'd have these bad people castrated or murdered, or both. AND shunned! Honestly, it seems the patience The State has for the inconveniences presented it by laws and the justice system seems to be growing shorter and shorter. I won't be surprised by the introduction of a "We Can Do Anything We Want Because Pedophiles and Terrorists Act"

    (though I'm pretty sure anyone who points this out is automatically considered a pedophile apologist, amirite?)

  • Jul 24th, 2016 @ 2:53pm

    (untitled comment)

    However bad the President may be, the damage done would be less had Congress a approach to their jobs than:

    Step 1: Get elected. (And re-elected)
    Step 2:
    Step 3: Profit!!

    (Maintaining the perfect void of Step 2 inevitably requires all Congresscritters to delegate any actual legislating or decisionmaking to the executive branch and/or lobbyists retained by well-heeled industries. Then the only exceptions are hysterical legislative overreactions to media-driven moral panics and tit-for-tat patronage deals.)

  • Jun 30th, 2016 @ 11:36am

    Re: Of course, they're going to charge...

    Possibly, but this seems, like a lot of cases, to be companies' representatives responding to a clear "Heah's how we-all do bidness roun' heah." message. An employee, in such an environment, pressured by a boss who plainly states he doesn't care about "how they-all do bidness down theah" but wants results and a corrupt potential customer, will usually go along to get along.

    We hypocritically prosecute businessmen for doing business in ways that are accepted overseas but don't seem to be bothered when it involves gov't procurement procedures, military contract bidding or "please just shovel the money into these dumptrucks" union demands.

    It just seems sleazier when the scale is smaller and somehow more acceptable when the bid/contract/procurement specs are hundreds of pages.

  • Jun 30th, 2016 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...

    I'd say presenting EU-free governance for Britain as "nothing", as you have done here, is more than a little disingenuous. Does Britain suddenly have no way to govern itself? Has Brexit left the UK with nothing in the way of governance?

    I'm going to have to pull out my dusty old copy of Wikipedia Brittanica here, but I'm pretty sure Britain governed itself prior to EU membership, and should be able to scuffle along after.

    As for immigration, there seem to be mutually exclusive realities. It is as if you have two friends at work who are next door neighbors.
    Neighbor A says:
    "We invited some black couples over for dinner and my neighbors were quite upset. Never knew they were so racist!"
    Neighbor B says:
    "My neighbor says he's throwing a party, but it appears to be a permanent open house! When I complained about things stolen from my property, people camping in my yard and his "guests" trying to ogle my wife and daughter when they shower, he accused us of being 'inhospitable' and 'racist' and said there was nothing we could do about it!"

    Not sure 'reality' is getting a clear presentation in either story there. But there's obviously a large number of citizens who felt "Shut up, hater." was an inadequate response to their concerns. The Brexit vote shouldn't have been a surprise, even to those who were certain Lindsey Lohan's support would help them carry the day. Maybe she should have supported before the vote.

  • Jun 30th, 2016 @ 7:39am

    Re:

    Really.

    When did TD switch over to the top-down corporatist side? Is it the result of blindly following some narrative-"These same people are wrong on A, B and C, so I must oppose position D which they support"?? Or the knee-jerk obeisance to the "Our strength is in our diversity" mantra and it's unspoken clause "...in every circumstance, without exception and any questioning this is racist"

    I've always been very suspicious when someone presents a position to me that, it is claimed, is correct beyond criticism, analysis or thought. Doesn't seem to bother you, I guess.

    Likewise, to present this dispute as if only the Brexit side used wild hyperbole and unquestioning hatred of "the other" must mean you approve of the knee jerk, sky-is-falling,"maybe we really don't like democracy" post-vote hysteria coming from the Remain camp.

    Wow. I've always respected TechDirt, but this is just head-shakingly sad...

  • Jun 28th, 2016 @ 12:59am

    Re: Nobody is arguing

    Shill gives shill high shill rating. Noted.

    IF the only way to break down a bought-and-paid-for scam is to circumvent the sleazebags in local government who've been selling out their own constituents for decades, so fucking be it. No apologies.

    I only wish the Uber/Lyft approach could be as effective at the fed level.

  • Jun 28th, 2016 @ 12:48am

    Re: Re:

    ^ This. Exactly this.

    And the red herring of purse-clutching alarm over "surge pricing" (otherwise known as'supply and demand') is misplaced, since it serves most effectively as the organic component of the software. Imagine: people freely choosing when and where to work, 'magically' and promptly responding to riders' needs!

    But fuck that. Why suffer the indignities of freedom and choice when we can have city council grifters and union bosses decide these things for us? Why should we listen to satisfied customers and drivers, or take into account public safety when there's an incumbent, entrenched business doing a lousy job to be shaken down?

  • Jun 28th, 2016 @ 12:27am

    Re:

    You lying sack of shit.

    Although I suppose I really shouldn't say that, since you've taken a page from the proggy playbook and carefully made sure your post was completely fact-free.

    Does that evil "surge pricing" ever, EVER rise to even HALF the nice, steady ripoff pricing of the cabs??

    Yeah, I really love to participate (as the victi...err...'customer') in transactions where the person serving me is incentivized to rip me off in any way he can. That's just swell. Great alternative.

    *ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE WARNING*
    Also, subtract from your apologia for the downtrodden cabbies the middle eastern gentleman who glared at my un-burka'd, tipsy friend for the entire duration of what she swears was her LAST cab ride ever. Bit of a microaggression there, eh wot? She's lucky he didn't blow up at her over the absence of a gratuity. so to speak.

    So make it 899 carefully vetted, professional "service providers" on the cabbie side.

  • Jun 28th, 2016 @ 12:00am

    Re:

    I had a rider (Uber) from Austin, little artist gal, who told me the police were actually SUPPORTING the laws killing off the ride-share services, because of the revenue from DUI fines!!

    I found this shocking. I said, "Tha fuck? Putting the lives of the people they're supposed to be "serving and protecting' at risk just for money? Hell, even I'm not that cynical!"

    She said "It's Texas, man. You can't be too cynical."

    She said the restrictive laws were passed with a grand total of 8% of registered voters actually voting for them. Turnout was something like 17%.

    Hope they have a better turnout for the "Texit" Referendum, eh?

More comments from trollificus >>