/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

Dr_bee wrote:

CosmicScientist wrote: As a question of my own, are net neutrality regulations supposed to prevent arbitrary, malicious or favoured decision making for business and end user traffic when the system is over saturated, or is it to prevent artificial slowing down of traffic when physical capacity can handle the paid for data plan, or is it both? I have no clue if the netflix graph shown on the previous page is showing actively malicious or preferential behaviour or something I don't know about because me no looky uppy this stoof.

It is made to prevent both. The primary argument against it is that it prevents setting up preferred lines for medical facilities for example, but it also prevents them from arbitrarily throttling websites that dont pay for special treatment from the ISP. It is easier to make a special line by giving the people who pay for special lines preferred access to lines that already exist. Special lines made for special buyers means that there is less bandwidth for others.

Net neutrality regulations basically keep the ISPs from acting like a de-facto extortion racket. The amount of power Telecoms would have over the economy without these regulations is frightening.

I'm trying to understand but follow this example:

You live in the middle of nowhere. You have shitty internet infrastructure. You want to watch netflix but you can't because your internet is shit. Here comes the cable company, they lay miles of state-of-the-art fiber network up to your living room. Now you can watch netflix all day, loading their network with terabits of data. But thanks to net neutrality, the company can't charge you more for that, or netflix either. They just spent billions of dollars only to provide Netflix with a hefty profit.

Now let's move to your neighbour. He is a farmer. He couldn't care less about netflix, he uses the internet just to tend to his business, watch a couple youtube videos and stalk pre-teens on facebook. He has access to the same network as you do, he pays the same as you do. But he'd rather pay less for a package that only includes high speed for the stuff he actually cares about. Cable company spent money to give him something he doesn't even want.

Now you can watch netflix all day, loading their network with terabits of data. But thanks to net neutrality, the company can't charge you more for that, or netflix either.

They're free to charge for me using a ton of bandwidth. They currently just don't get to dictate how I use that bandwidth once I've paid for it.

If I stream 50gb worth of netflix videos or download 50gb of steam games it is all the same to them as far as me using what I paid for/them handling the traffic goes.

CosmicScientist wrote:Pretty much what Kor said. Unless you just pay to have access to their network and not capped data rates or capped total data? Then I'm wondering what internet is like across the pond.

Also I'm pretty sure this is the problem with the internet blowing up about net neutrality, again, you won't be paying the ISP more for netflix, netflix pays more for you to get the same speed as you do now, which might make netflix more expensive when they run the numbers on how much they need to then charge you.

Why do all the curazeh internet is dying posts mention that the consumer will have to pay to see more content? Isn't blocking sites and services for the end user something only China, Best Korea, Iran, Indonesia and the UK do and private services cannot do without government sanction?

Telecom companies are private services, so you can see where this becomes an issue.

What if AT&T parterns with Newscorp for example, they could legally slow or completely restrict access to all news sites except for a certain one without net neutrality legislation. This basically turns the internet into cable TV but worse.

Corporations in general have very few ways to be held accountable without having stupid amounts of money or the government on your side.

As for the market deciding the large ISPs in America are widely reviled anyway and well known for having low customer satisfaction.
However they persist in spite of this. How unusual HMMM I wonder why the customers are not voting with their feet and the invisible hand is not rectifying things what a anomaly.

Telstra is top dog in complaints in Australia also still standing.

Isnt the Australia thing because the gov basically handed them a monopoly and nothing can be done to change that?

That's pretty much how it works in the US too.

You have no other options for internet, and if you do it's shit speeds.

We handed them a monopoly but laws were latter introduced to force them to let other ISPs buy capacity on their network and resell it.

The response was to do no maintenance or network expansion on their own dime.

Not that they had any reason to do so anyway shitty adsl plans are priced about the same as nbn or old broadband plans because you only take them when you can't have anything else.

Doesn't seem like anything can even be done from my perspective. How do we even fix this anymore when the people we "voted" in are bought by those responsible. I actively wonder if the entire political machine just needs to be purged. And there is no answer in my head on how.

For most sensible democracies you can vote minor parties to replace or at least scare major parties.

In America you get to choose the lube flavour.

Incomptinence wrote:We handed them a monopoly but laws were latter introduced to force them to let other ISPs buy capacity on their network and resell it.

Sounds like the situation in the UK with BT, although Virgin does operate their own backbone.

Apparently a part of Londistan had to be evacuated due to reports of gunshots. Turned out this was just a prank.
Also an Egyptian mosque actually did got a shot up, but they they were brown people so who cares.

Burn down DC. Pls. Pls help.

ShadowDimentio wrote:

ColonicAcid wrote:hum

i dont think too many regulations equals communism

Communism is also known as a command economy, where the government controls all the manufacturing and commands them to produce so much of this and that. Can't get much more regulated than that.

You're thinking of Leninism/Stalinism, which are particular schools of communist thought. Communism as a concept does not necessarily dictate a command economy. Additionally, note that other political philosophers from various locations on the political spectrum have advanced the claim that Leninism/Stalinism are better described as "State Capitalism" then "Authoritarian Communism."

CosmicScientist wrote:Aren't there also theories of centralised and devolved industrial control for the state in communism? Do any of the models have the workers own the factories instead of the state or is that supposed to be anarchism? I get confused with how communism sounds like fascism in practice, especially when they both have victory parades in Poland and dictators up top.

First question:
Kind of, yes! But communist philosophy uses a notion of property that is not the same as in a capitalist society. So saying the workers will "own" the factories is somewhat misleading. The communist notion of property is centered around ability to use, while the capitalist notion of property is centered around ownership. The difference being- the capitalist notion of property is exclusionary. Person or group X owns Factory Y- therefore they have the right to make use of it, and no one else does, even if Group X aren't making use of it. Communist (extreme-left in general, really) political philosophy broadly rejects the validity of this sort of exclusive ownership- that's the meaning of the phrase "property is theft". Instead, the communist notion of property gives the propertyholder the opportunity to make use of of the property in question, without excluding others from doing so if they fail to.
Of course, if an authoritarian, monolithic government is in charge of determining who gets to make use of what, then everything is essentially just their exclusive property. Hence why Leninism and Stalinism are sometimes referred to as state capitalism.

Second question: It depends- if the means of production are owned by specifically the people who operate the machines of a given kind (i.e, by labor unions), you have syndicalism or anarcho-syndicalism. If they're owned by the public writ large, you have democratic socialism (assuming certain things are true about how the public writ large's interest is administered.) If they're owned by geographically located communities administered in particular ways, you have either anarcho-communism or anarcho-collectivism.

Communism...bad!

If your post has a scrollbar you are wrong

lntigracy wrote:If your post has a scrollbar you are wrong

Not everything that is true is simple or obvious, or can be explained succinctly without providing misinformation. Some things that are true are even counter-intuitive! "If your explanation is lengthy, it is therefore wrong" is neither obvious nor true, however.

Drynwyn wrote:

lntigracy wrote:If your post has a scrollbar you are wrong

Not everything that is true is simple or obvious, or can be explained succinctly without providing misinformation. Some things that are true are even counter-intuitive! "If your explanation is lengthy, it is therefore wrong" is neither obvious nor true, however.

for every complex question, there is an answer that is simple, obvious, and completely fucking wrong

imblyings wrote:

Incomptinence wrote:Corporations would love to rule our lives with a gilded fist.

One of the best parts about democratic government is it is full of incompetent fools.

That's why I trust democracy because we elect unsuited fuck ups giving us wriggle room to be actually free.

>the current state of nbn is, in the big picture, good for me

damn

I'd trust them.

if nbn is your idea of gotcha incomp gov dum n bad like u wanted

it's gov owned but they made it an nbn corporation that runs itself so technically i can still slag it for being a corporation.

nbn is what happens when you make common carrier infrastructure politicized, instead of the basic competency of the government.

So is the current topic NN?

Muzzies do violent things, not newsworthy
Trump retweets a nationalist party posting vids of those acts, woah holy shit stop the presses and run a big segment on the beeb

Malkevin wrote:Muzzies do violent things, not newsworthy
Trump retweets a nationalist party posting vids of those acts, woah holy shit stop the presses and run a big segment on the beeb

THIS is finally the last straw this time for real guys.

Here's how Hillary can still win guys

The only thing the beeb is good for is pidgn news reporting.

>TV
>2017

What dinosaurs are watching this stuff?

>buying toys

Blue pill as fuck enjoy your Chinese plastic turning your kids gay/retarded

I've caught glimpses as I've walked past the idiot box, didn't see one advert that wasn't multicultural tosh. I thought there was one, which went for the all white males are incapable of doing simple things, but it turned out it was a couple of gays and family

>using brown people in an ad

what were they thinking?

Never forget: Multicultural = not white

Europeans are basically the new Jews for some on the left, blame em fore everything in society then scape goat them for when you fuck up.

Bonus points if they also snub jews in their quest for diversity for being too white.

With the racial paranoia making even less sense, oh golly geepers the majority demographic ended up in a thing together must be a despicable whitey plot instead of say random chance and there being more of them.

I think it's wholesome and refreshing to see a brown girl do things like dancing happily to western pop music, things she most likely isn't allowed to do in real life, if she doesn't want to end up beaten and buried alive by her own 5 brothers while her dad proudly watches on.

muh multiculturalism is evulz is the identity politics of the right

both have barely any relevance to your life beyond the most utterly tangential, unimportant relation, it's just something people with an agenda tell you to look at while they fuck you in the ass

CosmicScientist wrote:I do not think multiculturalism is not bad. I dislike imported American culture because it causes people to protest Murica's president and be greatly aware of American issues as though they were our own.
[snip]
It all gives uncomfortable 51st state vibes at worst (ha ha ha our prime minister's being held by the hand by the President, for there is only one president, who is on our news, all the time) and at best it gives a feeling of lacking a culture or having it suffocated.

This is entirely fair. America's extension of it's sphere of influence to everywhere and anywhere it can is transparent power extension.

CosmicScientist wrote: Then you can move onto the imports that aren't fashion or media. Skin, voice, facial features and language. Is that not going to naturally create division? By looking like a different species? By acting like a different species? By sitting around, insulated in bubble communities? There's already many an issue between men and women, why then add other races even if ignoring the prejudices those races have towards other races, cultures and sexes you house too?

This one's not really fair. First: Having a different skin color etc. isn't 'naturally' going to create division- at least, not in the long term. Reactions to different races are, broadly speaking either a) a result of learned reactions or b) an extension of the natural, but quite easily overcome, negative reaction to the unfamiliar. "Bubble communities" are a thing, and can certainly exacerbate social division, but the historical record shows they generally form in response to social division, rather than creating them.


As for deeply problematic cultural practices like restrictive attire and female genital mutilation- they suck, but I can say they're bad and also say bigotry is bad. And I can say that using these practices as some kind evidence against groups, rather than the individuals who engage in these cultural practices, is also an bad thing.

What about male genital mutilation

American multiculturalism isn't really multiculturalism, people that come to America are (largely) expected to become American.

And Trump got elected president because they're refusing to do that and keep being proud of their old country

I hate people who are different

Super Aggro Crag wrote:I hate people who are different

The human experience in 6 words

CosmicScientist wrote:Surely it does naturally create division? Like goes with like? Anything that is not like has a harder time to mingle? I assume Switzerland might be an example of differing languages and (I assume?) custom being able to work together happily and quietly as a country, though I know nothing of them. I'm not familiar with other countries where drastic differences between members are fine.

It "naturally" creates division insofar as it's unfamiliar. I.E, if you rarely see black people, or see black people only in particular contexts, you will have a negative reaction to black people. If you rarely encounter certain cultural practices, you will have a negative reaction to them. But people will not have a negative reaction to others simply because they are physically different.

The reason for this is that "Like goes with like" isn't an absolute statement of similarity- for any person, there is a range of appearances and actions that they find comfortable to witness and participate in. This range isn't based on what that person themselves looks and acts like, but instead what the people around them look and act like- and it can be wide or narrow, depending on a wide variety of social factors.

Of course, because this negative reaction to unfamiliarity itself pushes people towards more unfamiliarity, these divisions can be self sustaining, but there's a huge difference between "This will always be present to some degree" and "This will sustain itself indefinitely if no action is taken".

The human experience is not "I hate people who are different", it's "I hate people/things who/that are unfamiliar." But familiarity can be acquired as a result of, or encouraged by, social circumstances. The human mind can and has adapted to different climates, drastically different terrains, changes in food sources, different types of stress response, etc, etc, it can (and has) learned to deal with people who look and act differently.

Pushing two ethnic minorities into a room and saying
"NOW KIIIISSS"

Is all that is wrong with SJW's and successive pandering administrations across the world for the last decade. Its been the message in the UK since Blair helped create 'the vision of a multicultural Britian' driving his political campaign and lumped us with a never ending propaganda machine. Forcing them into a room while neither of them want anything to do with each other justifies the tension surrounding them as the different values run parallel to each other, in general African American stereotypes if you have gang culture, deprived neighbourhoods & cities (in terms of finding distinctions to what white Americans are stereotyped with) then glorify it & or individuals either as conformist or stepping out and way of it with extra attention you have successfully failed to familiarise that culture with your own by making it distinct further.

I view the problem is that yes we are unfamiliar, but overlapping culture is always going to be dominative not harmonious. Whichever more powerful or wider culture (for many reasons politically etc) is going to engulf the smaller ones, and this example stretches back into Roman times with the concept of the ability to attain Roman citizenship. Romans spread their culture wherever they went aggressively & local populations yielded into submissiveness of it and quinsentially became Roman cultural subgroup but followed the template.

In Bath (in England) there are detailed engravings inside a Roman bath house of Roman gods with local celtic/anglo god features because the two cultures locally merged into one and the Romans actively encouraged this sort of thing happening as the new citizens try to integrate themselves, same can be seen with depictions of Christ around the globe being different ethnicities though he was most certainly a dark hue of middle eastern, not some pasty white guy. Religion plays a large part of it and its partially why i have views on Islam for being a political weapon within the Middle East and view it poorly because of how toxic it is, yet we bend over backwards to try and integrate people that literally call out for our death in their rhetoric. Unchanging and hostile desperately in need of reform.

America was founded & further fueled by immigrants who wanted to become Americans and follow the dream, many immigrants nowadays are just literally looking for refuge for their own mistakes or to hide from others & circumstances (economic, personal & political).

America has pretty much always been a land of opportunity, and that's been a driving factor in immigration. The government also being enormously less shit than other countries at the time was another big factor, along with the identity of "American" being something pretty much anyone can accomplish, and is viewed as desirable to do so.

CosmicScientist wrote: I don't really see how familiarity can help with overcoming division caused by multicultural or multiracial societies mainly because unless you get a very generous split of two types at minimum, I don't see how familiarity will be achieved. There is mistrust between genders and we have an almost even split in existence for that.

Gender issues are different, and not really a good comparison. They're neurologically and biologically more complicated, because biological sex distinctions are hundreds if not thousands of times older than racial or cultural distinctions. Racial and cultural distinctions occurred very recently in evolutionary time, whereas sex distinctions predate the last common ancestor of humans and lizards.

"How do we achieve familiarity" is a fair question. The best answer is "cultural synthesis". As Shadow pointed out, Romans applied aspects of their culture to those integrated into their empire, but- and this is an important but- they also took aspects from local populations into their own culture. It's why the Romans had so many gods- whenever their was a local god who wasn't close enough to an existing member of the pantheon to be declared the same being (as happened with the Egyptian and Roman boner gods), they would just go "sure whatever!". The best modern example of cultural synthesis is probably Christmas- it's gone from being an explicitly religious holiday to something celebrated by loads of nonchristians, for nonreligious reasons.

In our case, familiarity is best achieved, well, through media. Familiarity is not that hard to produce in a person- it doesn't require constant exposure, just occasional reminders of presence in a context that doesn't explicitly label the group in question as an outsider. What this means is that there actually is a pragmatic reason to disproportionately display minority groups in media- it creates a sense of familiarity, reducing division, which in turn allows for cultural synthesis to occur. That's not necessary or helpful for majority groups- people already see enough of them to generate familiarity.

christmas is an even better example since it's basically a conglomeration of elements from various pagan celebrations

As a white Britain who grew up as an ethnic minority in a burnt out former mill town let me tell you, it's not unfamiliarity why I hate pakis. I'm very much aware of their positives and negatives and the negatives far outweigh the positives.

If anyone doesn't understand something through unfamiliarity it is suburbanite pinko commie hand wringing lefties like you.

t. the guy who walks across the street when he sees a minority walking towards him at night


for someone who always harps on about people getting thicker skin you sure a pussy when it comes to dealing with brown people arent u

even minorities will walk across the street when they see a minority walking towards them at night

Super Aggro Crag wrote:>buying toys

Blue pill as fuck enjoy your Chinese plastic turning your kids gay/retarded

I just wanted to relate to them a little better

Malkevin wrote:As a white Britain who grew up as an ethnic minority in a burnt out former mill town let me tell you, it's not unfamiliarity why I hate pakis. I'm very much aware of their positives and negatives and the negatives far outweigh the positives.

If anyone doesn't understand something through unfamiliarity it is suburbanite pinko commie hand wringing lefties like you.

Thank you for being direct and blunter to the point, i was being tactful earlier.

Drynwyn wrote:words

You should tell all of this to the self-ghettoizing neighborhoods then. There's a reason I didn't go to several parts of the small town I grew up in growing up and the reason wasn't something supercicial like "They're brown and unfamiliar." The reason was "They don't speak the local language, they don't participate in the local culture and they organize and cover for a lot of crime." The host country in no ways should feel obligated to morph its culture to welcome the migrant, for a host of reasons that should be self-explaining.

cedarbridge wrote:

Drynwyn wrote:words

You should tell all of this to the self-ghettoizing neighborhoods then. There's a reason I didn't go to several parts of the small town I grew up in growing up and the reason wasn't something supercicial like "They're brown and unfamiliar." The reason was "They don't speak the local language, they don't participate in the local culture and they organize and cover for a lot of crime." The host country in no ways should feel obligated to morph its culture to welcome the migrant, for a host of reasons that should be self-explaining.

Itt - Swedenstan who has monthly grenade attacks now, defunded police & fire stations for being too dangerous & blatent no-go zones.