Sagat

The government is put into place by the Americans. They elect their own masters. Most of what the U.S. government does is the result of the demands and constant pressure stemming from the electorate. The aggressive foreign policy is a direct consequence of the semi-religious jingoism and fundamentalism that affects the majority of citizens.

I'm met both online and offline a ton of Americans with aggrandizing and myopic views. Like you I used to think they were victims of the state that time is past. They share the blame.

It amazes me that many people still think the US are somehow the "good guys" or "the leader of the free world". Americans believe themselves to be the chosen few favored by God. Their manifest destiny leaves no place for the rights of other peoples. With such an ideology, it is not surprising that they hold foreigners in contempt and show a severe lack of interest for the fates of others.

Americans are far more dangerous than any bearded fanatic.

I think the problem is that there is too much content available, and it paradoxically reduces interest.

That's because we still are at the beginning of the process. Once technology is directly melded into the brain we'll start to see people become dysfunctional when they can't get their fix.

Although this might seem great on paper, he just created more intractable problems for future generations to have to deal with. Instead of focusing on the quantity of life, we should focus on the quality. Educate people instead of helping them make more children that will lead sad lives.

So your idea of making the world a better place is to modify other cultures until they are familiar to you? According to your post, your ideal world would be filled with copypasted cities, themselves exclusively populated with chains and products that are familiar to Americans; all of this so that Americans travelling abroad feel less anxiety. A nirvana for the heads of American multinationals but a nightmare for everyone else. Imagine if the entire planet was like an airport mall. You'd have a ton of "brand recognition" but not much else.

Brands do not make people feel that there is a "global village". They do not create a sense of cultural belonging or strengthen relationships between individuals. Buying things does not make you reach out or empathize with others. Advertisers frequently try to associate products to concepts such as freedom, sex, friendship but this connection is artificial and manipulative. At best, brands elicit a sense of loyalty that pushes consumers to purchase the same products over and over again out of habit. This loyalty can be highly dangerous: a lot of people get health problems because they are regular patrons of fast food chains.

In fact, most brands actually increase stress. One of the usual marketing goals is to create a need in people that didn't exist before. This can be achieved through fear, making the consumer feel inadequate or inferior if they don't own the latest items. This is especially prevalent in the fashion industry. Creating additional needs is the opposite of stress reduction.

I'm glad I don't live in America.

His ecological footprint is still much, much, higher than the global average. He is not living in poverty and never will.

In what way does brand positioning advance the human condition or actually improve the world? What does "communication professional" even mean?

Listicle with vague advice? Sign me up!

Great, another listicle that people will get excited about and then forget about in a few days.

Americans are extremely dangerous from the point of view of non-Americans.

The future of humanity is 99% water.

Americans believe their country has been chosen by God: ordained by divine powers to be the leader of the world. So it's not surprising that they view the rights of foreigners with contempt or at the very least lack of interest.

"Un-american" supposedly means against freedom (and a range of other positive buzzwords) which is pretty hilarious given their behavior.

Obama is not solely responsible for everything that goes on in the US government. The president's power is limited. However, since he is the figurehead of the state, it's only natural that citizens have the impression he is the mastermind behind every single negative action of the gubment.

I'm highly disappointed with Obama but he is hardly a psychopath. All those decisions you find repellent are the result of pressure from third parties or his own underlings. Impeaching Obama would be counter-productive. It would just create instability and would not solve the underlying problems that led him to make those decisions you hate.

There are a lot of commenters here who automatically got on the kid's side as soon as they heard the buzzwords "anarchism" and "individualism". It's probable they didn't even read the article or the blog posts before reaching this decision.

All I'm saying as that we should be more careful when taking sides in any situation, and try to avoid being manipulated by words. Sure, I did post a personal opinion about this kid. You are entitled to hate it and post aggressive comments about it. But I think my post still added to the conversation. A few people voted on it so at least one or more people gave a shit.

What I mean by loaded is that they have a ton of different meanings and interpretations, many of whom are illegitimate. Isms of any kind are frequently misused to label people or things. "Anarchism" and "individualism" are just examples. "Fascism" is probably the most common: even Orwell noticed that it was used by everyone to mean anything. [1] In this case the kid thought that making blog posts with swear words that criticize his school constitutes "anarchism" and "individualism". It's like those ads that try to associate their crummy product with freedom or love: meaningless and artificial.

[1] http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/ef...

Edit: looks like they deleted their comment. Nevermind.

vpntunnel is a pretty good service, and there are no logs.

I'm disgusted by the head teacher's nosy behavior. I also think the student is an insufferable person according to his blog posts [1]. He's one of those people who try to use loaded words like "anarchism" and "individualism" to justify annoying or selfish behavior. Kind of like Galt-wannabe libertarians who hide being the word "liberty" to give credence to social darwinism.

[1] http://hampsteadtrash.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/sludge-obituary...

Nice ad.

I'm currently trying to learn Mandarin. Thanks for posting.

This is a dream come true for law enforcement. People willingly filming everything and sending the data automatically to Google.

>Part of the (sexual) appeal of synthetics is how much they look like their organic counterparts. If you have a robot shaped like a refrigerator, that won't have as much draw as a robot in the shape of a human; people will be more willing to interact with the human-shaped one.

>However, that 1 percent of unfulfillment? That's only there because neither Sidore nor Elena are Gynoids. Once that technology becomes affordable, I'll have one made in my wife's likeness, and that'll be the final piece of the puzzle. She'd be able to hug me back whenever I embrace her, we'd be able to attend films and concerts together, and do all manner of things besides. There would be genuine interaction.

>I'm not interested in having someone in my life who may bail at any time, or who transforms into someone unpleasant.

According to the above quotes it seems he does indeed want a relationship with a real person, but he just wants that person to be submissive and totally devoted to his whims; in other words, the perfect slave. The problem here isn't the dolls. He's entitled to own them and enjoy their presence. But he's not entitled to compare them to real persons or claim that they are more than objects.

So yes, I am going to judge him. It's clear to me he has a really unhealthy and controlling attitude towards others.

I think it's still rational to distrust Google. Until there is more proof I will act as if I am watched at all times when using Google services.

There is probably a backdoor for government agencies anyway.

I just wish the internet wasn't under the control of American people. Americans can't be trusted to respect other people's rights.

If people could survive without breathing they would do so. It's an added inconvenience.

This whole thing was blown way out of proportion. Sure, the comic's creator reacted poorly to the complaints and should have just moved on to other things, but I can't say I have sympathy for the persons who read too much into the joke and thought they should try to turn their private outrage in a public issue.

I don't believe being offended is a valid reason for pulling down something (assuming the thing in question is legal). If we start vindicating loud, sensitive or manipulative people who try to remove content that doesn't please them, I think society is going to suffer as a result. More PC is never the solution. I can totally empathize with rape victims, it must have been a traumatic experience for them. But it should obvious to anyone that the comic was not promoting or encouraging rape at all and that the appropriate response if you didn't like it, was to ignore it. Humor is in the eye of the beholder. To give you an example, I knew an American guy who thought 9/11 jokes were incredibly offensive but had no qualms about mocking Haiti earthquake victims. Whether or not a joke is acceptable depends entirely on the audience. There is no moral code that stipulates in absolute terms what is funny and what isn't.

Academics looking to get rich? Can't blame them.

Loud and assertive people get results in today's world. I applaud the EFF and their aggressive legal actions.