• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Rippounet

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,929 profile views
  1. I wonder if at some not-so-distant point in the future some people (important politicians, business leaders, some scientists... ) will be sued for their role in climate change denial - if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied and knew the consequences these lies would have on millions, if not billions. It would be a textbook case of individual freedom versus collective responsibility. With a fascinating question to answer: are individual freedoms still paramount when they jeopardize the survival of our entire species? What kind of global society do we really want to build? The entire left-right paradigm hinges on that kind of question. And I know I tend to repeat myself, but I just can't see how humans can keep the level of individual freedoms we have today in the long-term. The consequences of economic liberty alone are reason enough to seriously reconsider what an individual's fundamental rights should be.
  2. But you can't draw a line. Not when the internet is necessary to access information quickly, pay your taxes, order tons of stuff (from train tickets to rare automobile parts), exchange with colleagues and communicate with friends and family. We live in a digital age. You can limit your footprint in some ways, but unless you go full paranoid and use obscure software and crypted communications, what's most important about you is what's hardest to protect. If anything, the Facebook case isn't worrying per se because social media is relatively optional, it's worrying because of what it foretells. If it's Facebook today, it'll be the complete data on individuals within a decade. Used not just for commercial purposes (we already knew about that) but for political ones, with everythin that entails. That's why the outrage is justified. Not so much because it's surprising, but because we want to see some kind of protections, as illusory as they may be, while there's still a chance. Otherwise we're just accepting the fact that privacy is dead and we live in the twisted brainchild of 1984 and Brave New World. We are, of course, in many ways. But that's no reason to accept it. These people need to be prosecuted and condemned, else the message it sends is that every single individual right one can think of is but a joke.
  3. Ok, sure. But I've been on facebook for like... a dozen years, give or take. Was micro-targetting even a word back then? I'm not saying it wasn't possible to see it coming. It's just that this kind of big brother thing came about way faster than most of us imagined. And anyway, what's to be done about it, really? I've always taken some precautions (my parents being in IT and all). Even if I were to get completely rid of social media, I still need to use various google services for professional reasons. Bottom line is, like millions of people, I need the internet. I don't think it's very fair of you to blame the victims here.
  4. You realize The Crucible was giving McCarthy the finger, right?
  5. So you're saying it was too much to hope that it wouldn't happen?
  6. Technically I believe you are correct, I could theoretically be sued. But in France, where I believe libel laws are even stricter than in the US to begin with, Trump's lawyers would still have to prove i) that my declaration has actually harmed the reputation of their client (lol) ii) that my aim was to deliberately harm the reputation of their client (i.e. that I believed my declaration could do harm) iii) that my declaration was made in bad faith (i.e. that I did not believe it), iv) be ready to demonstrate that my declaration is false beyond any controversy (which, depending on your definition of "Russian mob" is a pretty tough thing seem to do imho) The simple fact that my declaration can in no way harm Trump's reputation is enough to make the case moot. But the fact that I actually believe what I say and can explain which publicly known facts I am basing this declaration on makes it even mooter (if that is a word ^^). So actually, no, I really can't be sued for that.
  7. Several of Trump's declarations can indeed be considered to be breaches of American law on some level or the other. And anyway we aren't part of the US judicial system nor are we journalists so we have no obligation to respect presumption of innocence. I can say that Trump has laundered money for the Russian mob if I want to, as it has zero consequences.
  8. When most of us registered on facebook, we knew that we shouldn't put private information on our profile, but probably didn't think about the information that could be provided indirectly (like what link you "like", or who you talk to). And even if we could think about that, it was widely assumed that such information would be used for commercial purposes. I think it's fair to say no one expected this kind of data to be used for purely political purposes.
  9. I really wonder about that too. It's come to a point that when a politician starts running on a Keynesian platform while facing supply-siders the Keynesian is labeled as "far-left" and ridiculed for his poor grasp of economics. F*** it's French politics but Mélenchon actually built his entire program with the help of economists like Hoang-Ngoc or Généreux who are actually quite solid. He even got a half-assed support by Piketty when it came to choosing between Keynesian Mélenchon and neo-liberal Macron. A hundred economists even supported Mélenchon's program including big shots like Ha-Joon Chang from Cambridge. But none of that mattered. Mélenchon was still mocked and ridiculed, his program described as "unrealistic" or "utopian" at best, and completely nonsensical at worse. Whenever I discuss economics with random people (i.e. not fellow leftists), Mélenchon is an object of scorn and mockery. Outside from his supporters, it seems no one can believe that his economic program was actually the best by far. Macron and Fillon were classic neo-liberal supply siders, Le Pen proposed to leave the euro and devaluate the franc. Mélenchon -and Hamon, I guess- was the one who actually knew what he was talking about. But try to point that out to a random person and you get a smirk. It pisses me off. F***ing bullshit neo-liberal propaganda. And then someone wonders why the left "demonizes" the right. Bloody squawking popinjays...
  10. I like the fact that in one of the latest X-files episodes, Mulder goes "sasquatching." Seems fun. Wasn't able to find the clip on the web yet, but we do have this extract from the same episode:
  11. Sweet holy mother of fucking cow. I'd heard about this before, but it's way worse than I'd imagined.
  12. Most people are not aware that supply-side is bullshit. It's hard to believe when you know that, but it's true. Even well-educated left-wing people don't always know that it's been absolutely debunked. Most of them oppose it on moral grounds. Politicians and the media are extremely good at dissembling. In most countries, a cursory look at the public debate would have you believe there is a debate about it - when there is none. That's because what I call "pseudo-economists" go on TV and pretend that they know what they're talking about. Anyway, preaching to the choir here. What I meant was that the left could seize the intellectual high-ground with the masses, which it really doesn't have right now.
  13. I wonder what it means when the right is flirting with nauseous ideologies while the left is struggling to redefine itself to avoid the same kind of pitfalls. Because false equivalencies aside, it's quite clear that the left no longer plays with communism or marxism-leninism... I still have this impression that the fall of the Soviet Union struck a terrible blow to the left in many Western countries (well, not in the US I guess, where the Cold War had already achieved that). But today, with inequality exploding and the middle-classes under various threats there's a real opportunity to seize the intellectual high-ground for decades.
  14. You can add France to the list (at least). Sadly, there's a reason why distrust in the media is skyrocketing. Too many issues that matter deeply to most people are being ignored or dismissed.
  15. Dat's a good one, hur hur.