System.exit(0)
I can't help but KEK every time I see a Red October reference. That scene in the missile bay with pre-fat turd Alec Baldwin.
Bro you're talking to a bot. I think a human is behind the capcha but the thing is definitely a chat bot trained on a fucked up dictionary.
Never saw the movie (I don't support hollywood unless it is a Reeves flick) so I don't get the reference. KEK. Probs right Anon. Was ImageFagging and chose this one at random.
>https://www.ravelry.com/content/no-trump
Who are they? A group of people that like knitting. The site is a community of knitters.
Body of post:
New Policy: Do Not Post In Support of Trump or his Administration
Sunday, June 23rd 2019 We are banning support of Donald Trump and his administration on Ravelry. This includes support in the form of forum posts, projects, patterns, profiles, and all other content. Note that your project data will never be deleted. We will never delete your Ravelry project data for any reason and if a project needs to be removed from the site, we will make sure that you have access to your data. If you are permanently banned from Ravelry, you will still be able to access any patterns that you purchased. Also, we will make sure that you receive a copy of your data. We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy.
Policy notes: You can still participate if you do in fact support the administration, you just can’t talk about it here. We are not endorsing the Democrats nor banning Republicans. We are definitely not banning conservative politics. Hate groups and intolerance are different from other types of political positions. We are not banning people for past support.Do not try to weaponize this policy by entrapping people who do support the Trump administration into voicing their support.Similarly, antagonizing conservative members for their unstated positions is not acceptable. You can help by flagging any of the following items if they constitute support for Trump or his administration:
Projects: Unacceptable projects will be provided to the member or made invisible to others. Patterns: Unacceptable patterns will be returned to drafts. Forum posts: right now, only posts written after Sunday, June 23rd at 8 AM EasternProfiles: Please do not flag profiles yet if the only banned content is an avatar or avatars. There is not yet a flagging system for those.Much of this policy was first written by a roleplaying game site, not unlike Ravelry but for RPGs, named RPG.net. We thank them for their thoughtful work. For citations/references, see this post on RPG.net: https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-ban-do-not-po…
Update history
Sunday, June 23rd @ 8:00 AM Eastern: First version
Sunday, June 23rd @ 8:12 AM Eastern: Clarify that if you are permanently banned from Ravelry you will receive a copy of your data including any purchased patterns.
—
https://www.ravelry.com/about
About Us:
Ravelry is a place for knitters, crocheters, designers, spinners, weavers and dyers to keep track of their yarn, tools, project and pattern information, and look to others for ideas and inspiration. The content here is all user- driven; we as a community make the site what it is. Ravelry is a great place for you to keep notes about your projects, see what other people are making, find the perfect pattern and connect with people who love to play with yarn from all over the world in our forums.
How did this site come about? Jess had been a knitter and a blogger for a while, and, because she was an active blogger, she knew that there was all this great information out there from other fiber lovers – but with the growing number of crochet and knitting blogs, finding that information just kept getting harder! It was getting frustrating for her to try and find information about the patterns and yarns that she was interested in using. Casey thought that he would be able to build a website that could solve her problems, so they started working on it together, introducing it to a few friends at a time.
Anon posted a Twat and asked who Raverly was. I did 5 seconds worth of digging. Just a lefty site that claims to host a place for everyone (open and tolerant) but kicks out people with a particular view.
Nothing notable. Just the same hypocrisy - if they want a place open to everyone they need to tell their bitch liberals to suck it up and deal with other's views.
I have a problem with how this video is pieced together. The recordings of google employees at a happy hour are all cut up so you only hear one or two sentences. Is there video of the entire interaction? I'm no fan of Google and we all know they are up to dirty shit but posting clips of people talking in a bar spliced and edited does not make a compelling argument. Get me talking for five minutes and you'll probably have enough footage to edit it to support any argument if presented in the right way.
I took this video as one insider's perspective. He could be spot on - I just don't like the techniques. This is MSM editing tactics.
And what precisely is big tech? Throwing around the cool marketingfag lingo does nothing but muddy the water.
What is big tech? How would you define it? How would you go about breaking it up? How do you propose breaking it up?
Going out and marching with a sign does fuck all (except maybe get some exposure) if you cannot answer the above. Let's keep our eye on the ball - we have members of our government committing treason and you are worried about the FacebookGoogleAmazon? Let's get our own house in order then go from there.
My issues are baseless? HUH? The happy hour footage is cut so that the viewer has no context other than what the narrator provides. Why not show the entire interaction so the viewer may decide how to feel about what is said? How is that baseless?
I don't need a narrator spoon feeding me what to think in a voice over, I can discern truth for myself. What I would have liked to see: what the google employees were saying the whole time and what questions were asked. This editing technique of cutting after 5 seconds of source footage is fuckery, plain and simple. It makes for a weak argument.
I question the source anon and called to attention the editing techniques of the video. I also called out that the conclusion could be spot on. The messaging matters. Sources matter.
I can sure as hell see a forest and trees and also weak ass arguments. Again, it doesn't mean the argument is wrong or the conclusion is wrong, it just makes it weak.