Because we want racist, homophobic, ostensibly "straight" but showing all the signs of being a closeted self loather morons like yourself to suffer under the gay tyranny!!

Change is coming/has come/will keep coming, and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it. You're impotent, flaccid, unable to become erect, a floppy fossil that has already passed in to irrelevance. You can rant and rave and troll to your hearts content, but if you really feel that strongly about it, prepare to be fucking disappointed bitch! ; )

That's about the level of insanity, discourse, and command of english I've come to expect from your posts.
No point disputing every thing you've said (although it would be easy). You'll just move on to more insulting, and more completely wrong insanity in your next post. You don't even realize you completely contradict yourself, do you?
It must be a scary world you live in, where evil, godless, America hating 'liberals' have the majority in this country (by your definition of 'liberal' they are about 75%...and the other 1 in 4 is the insane 25% of people). You and the remaining 25% better move on, or you'll have to live under liberal tyranny. I'll chip in for your one way ticket.

@bobknight33 said: You dumb like newtboy.

You were clearly warned, and I didn't have to watch long. That's another double ad-hom attack. I'll be reporting you now.
Because you seem to read so poorly, I'll explain again, I don't want you gone, I want you to act within the rules we agree to if we use the site. Because you can't, and you're as insulting as you can be consistently, I'll be sending these to the admins. Enjoy that.

148...

If Syriza pulls it off and truly tells the banks and the troika to shove it up their collective asses, the banks in particular will throw Greece into a world of pain. With silent support by several governments within the EU, including my own, mind you. Any defiance must be crushed or else Spain will be right on track for a Podemos government.

And if Syriza caves and doesn't end the tyranny of austerity, Golden Dawn will become the only credible anti-austerity party -- the fucking Neo-Nazis.

The stakes are high, my friend. I haven't been this nervous in quite some time.

What a catchy jingle for all of you who love tyranny and/or communism over liberty! Maybe this could be the new anthem for Police State USSA!
Not only do cops not feel bad about all the people they kill, they celebrate it. This is the direct result of having centrally planned theft and violence based on systems of control.

@enoch,

I'm afraid you are the one misunderstanding. Hijacking and redefining anarchy to mean support for essentially a different flavour of grassroots democracy isn't clever or insightful. It's an abuse of the language. That is merely a semantic complaint though. The deeper problem is that it's an effort to build an argument atop a contradiction. Namely, anarchy with some form of overall governing structure. Starting from such a contradiction allows you defend or tie anything and everything back to your core statement. That's why I declared it intellectually dishonest.

You advocate your position as 'anarchy' but then proceed to describe a government of the people, by the people and for the people. You've described democracy, not anarchy. You advocate absolute freedom of the people from the tyranny of rulers. You declare no more wars of aggression, but who's rule is that except your own? I'm afraid that history shows that a large portion of your free people will most assuredly gather together and agree on waging a war of aggression, and the only stricture holding that back is the rule made by the ruler against it, in this case the ruler being yourself.

In short anarchy only fares as well as human nature can be trusted, which is not far at all. Redefining it as democracy light isn't honest, it's just rejecting the burden of defending the specific changes and improvements one would propose. It's an ancient trick used endlessly throughout history and one I refuse to accept.

"See, now I'm thinking, maybe it means you're the evil man, and I'm the righteous man, and Mr. 9 millimeter here, he's the shepherd angry ram protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd angry ram and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is, you're the weak, and I am the tyranny of evil men. But I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd angry ram."

Congrats on reaching gold!

You are an outstanding pillar of sift and a much appreciated presence in the face of tyranny of evil men.

I think we have a lot of deluded posters here that are unaware of just how much propaganda we're inundated with in the democratic world. In a democracy you have to propagandize to people in order to get them to do what you want. You don't have a tyranny and a big stick to force them, you have to "Manufacture Consent" or the bewildered herd.

So what some people are doing is pointing out rightly that what is portrayed in media is up for criticism. The fact that some women have done it and are being driven from their homes by threats is a travesty. And it's pathetic to see whatever lame defenses the people in this comment section have come up with.

I've tried very hard to stay out of this GamerGate bullshit because frankly people are just stupid, even when they think they're being even handed about it. Apparently context means nothing to those who are privileged, yes that's you.

I'm not sure he answered the question, or at least that wasn't his focus... rather than explain why privacy matters, he stressed that we 'like' privacy. Don't get me wrong, I like it too, and I don't see that there are any overarching security or economic concerns that consistently outweigh my liking it, but it would be interesting to hear if there are arguments that more directly address why privacy matters.

As far as I could tell, he had three overarching points:

1. Privacy is culturally and psychologically valuable to us, and we suffer if we feel that this private sphere is taken away from us. This is fine, but it doesn't really tell me why privacy 'matters', just that it's an artifact of our current civilization and culture. A similar argument could be made for religion, which I don't think is a necessary but certainly a very common phenomenon.

2. Privacy allows for dissent against tyranny and corruption to grow. This, to me, seems a little fallacious - in a system of asymmetrical privacy, where your government has more privacy than you, this might be true, but in a system of very high transparency on all sides it would be very possible to effectively express and build a dissenting voice. It seems dissent is possible in both very private and very open societies, but not in societies where privacy is only granted to the state.

3. Privacy is needed for creativity and unique expressions of talent. This might be true on an individual level (though it might also be a case of overlapping with #1) but transparency and openness are also facilitators of collective creativity. It might be that we need a private creative space for traditional acts of genius, but who's to say that we can't supersede this with crowd-sourced creativity in the future?

I'm not arguing in favor of any measures to take away privacy, but it would be interesting to see some more rigorous arguments for the need for privacy. Looking at what Snowden did, for example, we see that his actions might contribute to increased privacy in the long term, but in the short term he actually removed privacy (from the government) and made the equation a little more balanced in that sense.

incorrect. there was what 90 percent of people wanted SOME form of gun control implemented after sandyhook.

you're confusing the people who want gun control for those who want a total gun ban. But that's ok, It's my understanding you've made that lie, err I mean mistake repeatedly.

It was the gun lobby, aka the NRA, that prevented anything from anything being done. That overwhelming minority controlled what happened to the majority.

We've seen this before on other sifts. The rhetoric is that people should own weapons to throw off tyranny. but apparently tyranny only applies when the guy you didn't vote for (wait, how can you have tyranny when you can vote?) wins. When actual law enforcement goes bad and abuses their power. suddenly the stand your ground folks are silent. Then there's the obvious racial component. white people are allowed to stand their ground, but if you're black, suddenly you're supposed to shut up and take it.

A rather disturbing discrepancy to say the least.

Nonsense and hyperbole. There are already protections for individual rights. See Tyranny of the Majority.

What you can't accept is responsibility.

Over the long term, the comparative levels of scarcity that would result from a complete hand gun and assault rifle ban would make it difficult for these weapons to play such a common role in violence amongst minorities.

But of course we can't ever ban these weapons because we need to have the option of starting a guerrilla war against the US government in suburban Cleveland - because that's the only way to get rid of tyranny!

If you were arguing that we need to work towards a functioning democracy than I would agree with you. Instead you are arguing destroying a collective voice that would have power against corporations who would aim to destroy us.

Sorry I can't support any libertarian point of view when it's simply worsening the tyranny of corporations.

..yay verily dagmar, and some folks willingly pay to pass for your pet-project's site sake have myself in the past-One gracious being paid my way for six months having seen with an uncanny innate ability the value and grace with which I navigate the world...I thank you sincerely for the consulting fees already paid to myself and on my behalf....The fact that you and everyone playing suffer my tyranny is more than enough recompense

Is it just me, or do the heroic one liners about freedom ring more hollow every day as these buffed up brain-dead roid monkeys fight to maintain a government and status quo that shifts dramatically from generation to generation away from freedom and towards economic slavery and tyranny?

Sadly, these sorts of movies just serve to placate the masses while their freedoms are stripped away. But hey, who cares, awesome FX, right?