princealbertofb Wrote:Actually, I didn't read your first post but was reacting to the way you answered some of the other posters. So, don't condescend, please, Inchante: of course I know English and can teach it... Thankfully I can also read it and that's how I read you... as condescending to me and to other posters here. Had my English not been so good, I might not have detected the lash of your whip-typing.
My remark regarding your English abilities was meant to refer directly back to the fact that I did offer criticism of the bill in the post you responded to and that I did agree with those websites and individuals who were against the bill. The fact that I had a condescending tone was a reaction to
your condescending tone when you asked: "Are you saying that you're the only one to have understood the extensions of this law? And are you calling the bosses of Wikipedia and Reddit badly informed?" Questions you would know the answer to if you were able to understand the content of my post. If understanding was not the problem, then I have to presume that you ignored it or did not read the content. Why else would you feel the need to be condescending if you already knew I agreed with the the companies?: "It has the POTENTIAL to hamper free speech as an unintended effect while attempting to prohibit theft. Even the websites like Google and Wikipedia state that fact and are in favor of its intention. They just do not like its method."
princealbertofb Wrote:If truth be known, Marshlander left the site because of the way you expressed yourself and tried to bully people into thinking your way. But Marshlander was too polite to say so.
The only thing I ever said to Marshlander other than complimenting his ability to listen and give advice was the following:
"It has been my experience that people in general are far too likely to see only one dimension of a subject, on either side of a subject. Why, the essence of the video you posted is about peoples tendencies to see a single dimension of a subject. Is that not true?
The one dimensional perspective for some can even become an obsession. They start inserting it into conversations where that topic has really nothing to do with their own perspectives or even the situation at hand. Each of their arguments rest upon it. The thing that those people often don't realize is that, as with every obsession, their in rests dimensions of both love and hate for the subject. They end up perversed by it, like Echo loving Narcissus for his cruelty and hating him for his beauty.
So, I find a reminder from time to time helps people to remember that the world functions, not in categoricals but continuems, not in single dimensions but multiple. This is certainly not a condemnation of that person. We all have those tendencies within us. It is valuable to resist them and to practice at it continually.
Perhaps that is my own obsession, to try and examine things from both sides of the looking glass."
Marshalnder was far more of a bully than I ever have been. He took every opportunity to insult an entire group of people that he knew little of (and he did it on topics that had nothing to do with those people), and if one voiced an argument in opposition, he would cry wolf. The above was a response to his bullying. And it was an effective response simply because it cut to the quick, to what was behind his bullying.
princealbertofb Wrote:Despite all that, I can't believe that so many people would be wary of such a law if it were totally criticism-proof, and warranted, and if people weren't wary of other hidden motives.
I did not say that it was criticism proof. I offered criticism, I agreed with the criticism of those who have studied the issue, and I acted upon that criticism. But if you read the comments made by the various companies, their legal teams, not even they commit to the idea that SOPA is a DELIBERATE attempt to pass a hidden agenda. I have used the word DELIBERATE or synonyms and phrases that mean the same thing several times. I do not use it superfluously. It has meaning, and that meaning is intended.
princealbertofb Wrote:If you want people to vote against a law that is badly put together, then you need to get people worked up against it sufficiently so they'll bother to sign the petition or take action against it. You know that and I know that.
I am not one to "get people worked up against" anything. I have seen what people are like when they "get worked up". They lose reason, forget the facts of the situation, and it quickly builds into propaganda, divisiveness, and hatred. Read what I wrote to Marshlander. Getting people so worked up that they can only see one aspect of a situation is what I am entirely against. I think what the world needs more than anything is to retreat from ideologues who get people so worked up that they cannot even speak to each other about a topic and reach a compromise.
Your following quote is an example of this very thing:
princealbertofb Wrote:No, people don't want everything for free and they're not trying to steal from the American economy, as you seem to think. I think it's more likely to be the other way round (or we could say the shoe is on the other foot) What people probably want is to be able to have a better life. The U.S. is not that generous, but they sure know how to make a buck off the backs of other countries.
This statement screams indoctrination into a specific ideology. You do not even put in facts to support your argument because you believe this so fully that you don't think anyone will bother to question it.
And who can blame you when the media in every country strives to put out the most fantastic story possible? Why would you read an article that states that the U.S. is the single largest donor of foreign aid on the planet when it comes to actual dollars or the seventh largest in the world when adjusted for GNI (above France, Germany, the U.K. and Japan) when you can read an article about how it is number 20 in the world when you adjust for GNI and eliminate ALL private donations? That is what "getting people worked up" is all about--give them some hype so that they lose track of facts. Never mind that the people of the United States actually prefer to do their own charity rather then having the Government do it for them. That is meaningless in the news cycle.
Furthermore, the legislation has been dropped by its sponsors as of today. And I certainly played what role I could in having it droped:
http://mashable.com/2012/01/18/pipa-sopa-abandon-bill/