Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An open letter to the media, by Anonymous

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: An open letter to the media, by Anonymous

#41

Post by hugofirth »

maaarghk wrote: post #6
nonchalance wrote: post #3

Are the Guardian, the Telegraph and the New Statesman notable for their fair and balanced journalism (or are they the fox news of europe)?

The Daily Mail is the fox news of the UK. The Telegraph is not a whole lot better - it's actually less serious and dangerous and just ridiculous. The Guardian is pretty similar, just for the opposite political side.

The Telegraph is less serious/more ridiculous than the Daily Mail? I'm sorry but that is almost demonstrably absurd...

If you read the Telegraph and Guardian you expose yourself to a fairly broad spectrum of political views, all backed up by serious journalistic credentials. Obviously you have to be aware of prejudice - but this does not render the content worthless.

For instance - whilst the Telegraph is undoubtedly an outlet which leans towards a Tory hymn sheet it printed a large section on MP expenses, prominently, every day, for a month. Likewise the Guardian have been harsh critics of Labours handling of the Unions.

Re: An open letter to the media, by Anonymous

#42

Post by icebraining »

foucault wrote: post #19

The masks represent: Unity Equality Struggle against oppression That is all. Fuck warner brothers Guy Fawkes was the only person to enter the houses of parliament with honourable intentions

What was so honorable about his intentions? From what I read about the plot, they were essentially replacing an oppressor for another.

Re: An open letter to the media, by Anonymous

#43

Post by icebraining »

joeshevland wrote: post #40
Ygg2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we are moving to a such world, albeit slowly. 3D printers are a movement in that direction, that ends with mini factories or replicators. Replicators will be the death kneel of the factories.

Having read Alastair Reynold's stuff, I thought the idea of replicators was awesome. My current thinking is that 3d printers, if they master multiple materials, will kill off mundane manufacturing. I can't see it being a bad thing, albeit an industrial revolution style shift.

I find it hard to see them as a threat to industrial manufacturing. Is there anything that a 3D printer can produce for cheaper and/or creating less pollution, if we account for the shipping of raw materials to a person's house and give any value to his or her time assembling things?

Re: An open letter to the media, by Anonymous

#44

Post by dasil003 »

raverbashing wrote: post #38
VikingCoder wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"wah wah wah monarchy is bad, empire is bad" The British government is directly responsible for the possibility that this discussion of "taxation without representation" is happening; colonization, trade, etc. Sometimes when you stand on the shoulders of giants, you realize that the old ways were lousy. America as it is today wouldn't exist without slavery and Native American genocide. I'm not comparing Capitalism to…

"but I am saying the form of argument you used is ridiculous, because I can use the same argument to defend awful things." Except you just used a straw man. Of course it's ridiculous then. "America as it is today wouldn't exist without slavery and Native American genocide." Of course not. But those things went away, and the USA is still there. But you can't have the internet without equipment, without servers built b…

> But you can't have the internet without equipment, without servers built by guess who? Corporations. Take that away: no internet.

Now you're the one strawmanning by painting it as corporations existing or not existing.

It's not a binary issue. A corporation is just an organization of people with a specific legal status. There will always be organizations of people.

However, I don't think we need to confer the rights of personhood to a corporation even though they don't have the same responsibilities or vulnerabilities. Similarly, it doesn't need to be the case that corporations should be able to extract value from the commons at the expense of the poor so that the privileged upper-middle class can have the cheapest possible gadgets.

It is definitely possible to draw a better line between individual freedom and the wholesale rape of the environment. For starters, those things aren't represented in GDP, and so it's of no real concern to those in power. What gets measured gets improved.

Re: An open letter to the media, by Anonymous

#45

Post by dalek_cannes »

raverbashing wrote: post #23
_bfhp wrote: post #9

The following quote is relevant here: “WOULD ANY SANE PERSON think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then…

"wah wah wah corporations are bad, growth is bad" Corporations and economic growth are directly responsible for the possibility that this discussion is happening: the internet, cheap and powerful computers, etc Or even better: https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/391943773963304960

Let us take iPhone-carrying anti-corporate protesters. Should we attribute the iPhone to 'Apple Corporation' and shun it, or to the individuals -- designers, engineers, accountants and managers -- who made happen? Corporations are a means of bringing these people together to work in a coordinated manner. I don't think anybody (except communists) says that people with skills working together for financial gain is a bad thing. It's the prevailing model of doing that people are objecting to. It has no safeguards against corruption.

Re: An open letter to the media, by Anonymous

#46

Post by raverbashing »

dasil003 wrote: post #44
raverbashing wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"but I am saying the form of argument you used is ridiculous, because I can use the same argument to defend awful things." Except you just used a straw man. Of course it's ridiculous then. "America as it is today wouldn't exist without slavery and Native American genocide." Of course not. But those things went away, and the USA is still there. But you can't have the internet without equipment, without servers built b…

> But you can't have the internet without equipment, without servers built by guess who? Corporations. Take that away: no internet. Now you're the one strawmanning by painting it as corporations existing or not existing. It's not a binary issue. A corporation is just an organization of people with a specific legal status. There will always be organizations of people. However, I don't think we need to confer the right…

"However, I don't think we need to confer the rights of personhood to a corporation even though they don't have the same responsibilities or vulnerabilities. Similarly, it doesn't need to be the case that corporations should be able to extract value from the commons at the expense of the poor so that the privileged upper-middle class can have the cheapest possible gadgets."

Good, I agree with that.

But the issue with cheap gadgets goes both ways. Chinese factories allow people in India and other 3rd world countries to have a cheap (read: affordable) mobile phone.

Yes, they could pay more and give better conditions, the profit gains coming from economies of scale would still be there.

Re: An open letter to the media, by Anonymous

#47

Post by eddiedunn »

Ygg2 wrote: post #14
_bfhp wrote: post #9

The following quote is relevant here: “WOULD ANY SANE PERSON think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then…

I think we are moving to a such world, albeit slowly. 3D printers are a movement in that direction, that ends with mini factories or replicators. Replicators will be the death kneel of the factories.

"Death knell", please. While I see why one would confuse "knell" with "kneel", this is incorrect and the words have vastly different meanings.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_knell

http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/knell

Re: An open letter to the media, by Anonymous

#48

Post by veganarchocap »

I don't understand people who are even against sweatshops, do they really want to deprive these areas of the only jobs they do have?

The middle-class westerners have good intentions, sure. Do they really think though, but starving sweatshops to the point of closure, all the staff will walk into well paid work? No, in all probability, the lack of competition and the low budgets will mean they have to fight over even worse jobs, if not... starve.

If you really want to take the moral high-ground, you should only buy from sweat shops, because the more they profit, the more you're contributing to bettering their lives and working conditions.

Buy all the masks you need!

Re: An open letter to the media, by Anonymous

#49

Post by bolder88 »

This should not be on hacker news. Who really cares about random teenagers throwing hissy fits anymore?

There is no "anonymous".

If you didn't see it, I'd recommend the final episode of "IT Crowd", where an "anonymous" member is unmasked as a scruffy teenager whose mum tells him its time to go to bed.

If this wasn't titled "An open letter", and signed "Anonymous", it would just be the random ramblings of some internet user. But those two magic linkbait phrases, and suddenly it's of some importance? bs.

Re: An open letter to the media, by Anonymous

#50

Post by ableal »

anigbrowl wrote: post #29
nonchalance wrote: post #3

Are the Guardian, the Telegraph and the New Statesman notable for their fair and balanced journalism (or are they the fox news of europe)?

A famous quote from the satirical political TV comedy Yes, Minister sums up the British press fairly well. Amusingly, one of the characters is named Jim Hacker. Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do…

> the satirical political TV comedy Yes, Minister

Actually a documentary, as someone pointed out years ago. Great quote.

(Something else depressingly well along the way to being a documentary is Terry Gilliam's 1985 movie Brazil.)

Post reply on HN