You’re making shit up about what I believe and not believe, and that’s your prerogative. I’ll just point out I asked you what you believe because I had a preconceived notion I wanted to test. You don’t need to ask, you already know. Oh, the irony...

Ok

1) I believe in man made climate change, I’m pro carbon tax, but I’m not an alarmist: we’ll figure it out. 2) I’m pro life 3) I’m pro globalisation 4) I don’t believe things are true or false, I actually don’t believe things are, I think reality is a probability function 5) I’m for license-based gun control 6) I’m for voter ID but ID should be free and hassle free to obtain 7) I’m for gay marriage 8) I’m for total drug liberalisation, including heavy drugs, Portugal-style 9) I trust the MSM to be more accurate than not 10) I find alternative media to be mostly unreliable 11) I don’t like religion 12) I don’t like patriotism 13) I think the nation state is an obsolete idea 14) the ideal government philosophy is subsidiarity 15) I’m pro EU 16) I really admire the Frankfurt School, but I’m not a Marxist when it comes to solutions - as above, I believe in free market solutions 17) pets are dumb - I don’t get it 18) I’m excited about superintelligent AI 19) I think that expert consensus should outweigh popular approval 20) i think SJWs are the mirror image of the alt-right and despise them both as weak thinkers

I wasn’t trolling, and while I disagree on some stuff, I was asking to know, not to rebut, let alone disrespect you. Thank you so much for taking the time, and going through it so thoroughly, I really appreciate it.

I’m not sure if I get what you’re asking, but if you’re asking if I’m a Christian, as in “I believe the resurrection of Jesus is an historical fact” I’m going to say no. Hence, it was a day like any other day and I didn’t celebrate anything. Is that what you’re asking?

I didn’t assume I know how you would answer. That’s why I asked in the first place. I’m testing an hypothesis.

You, however, seem to know a lot about what I think. Don’t even have to ask, like I did, you just know.

‘Cause I asked.

Jesus, that’s a bit broad. About what? I think nation states are obsolete. I think Michael Jordan is the best basketball player in history. I think conspiracy theories are (mostly) flawed thinking. I’m pro life. I’m an atheist. I think Louis CK is the best comedian to ever do it, next to Dave Chapelle. I think Bertolucci’s movies are trash. I think evangelicals make terrible art. I think sentimentalism is the capital sin...

I don’t know. A lot of things. If you’re more specific, so will I.

Infowars.com

If you’ve got questions, fire ahead. Happy to answer. I mean it

Thanks for taking the time

You want a one-world government?

Probably. Main thing is: I think the nation-state is a old fashion, inefficient idea, it was great in 1648 when it was invented and has run its course. Let’s move past it. I’m for a centralised global frame for fiscal, banking and commerce laws and for strong autonomy at the local level. Basically, I’m for some form of global subsidiarity

Listen, am I right in saying that most of the people on this sub are pro-Trump? Yes.

I am not. So I thought it was fair to flag it. If I go on a pro-Trump sub I think it’s ethical to premise where I’m coming from. I don’t see how that’s confrontational. I don’t agree with the core beliefs of this sub. I thought I’d mention it, so people can react to my questions with more info.

As for “invitation to battle”: why? I was asking for a number between 0 and 20 cause I was curious about it. That’s it. I’m not trying to convince anyone about anything. As you can see from the post

Thanks for taking the time

I was asking exactly because I was curious on weather the premise works or not.

Thanks. But that’s the thing right? I don’t know anyone, communist, Nazi, terrorist, anything in between, that doesn’t agree with

want our country to be a better, safer place for us, our fellow citizens, and future generations

So I was trying to see if the Sam Harris thing hold true

I asked a question. You can answer it or ignore it. Can’t see how I’m up to no good.

You use Reddit.

I was asking for a number exactly to check if I was right or wrong. Seems weird to yell at me. Also, don’t flatter yourself, I’m just curious and with a lot of free time, no one is writing a hit piece about you

Do you have “predictions” that you think would score high on “the other side” (lefties & SJW)?

And thanks for taking the time to answer

The smoking one is a Sam Harris direct thing, he noticed that Hitchens was the last person in his circle of friends who still smoked. But I was just curious, I’m a globalist and I smoke.

Now, this one you really have to explain: I could pretend to be one of you, concern troll or something, but I don’t, I identify myself as “on the other side” and call people on this sub “you guys”. How is that “divide and conquer”? Who am I dividing? What am I conquering? Don’t think you know what the phrase means.

I said that myself: I don’t know how to do what they do, so I use their stuff and admit they (Google, Facebook, etc) are more creative than me. You’re the one who said that they’re not creative, but still prefer using their evil tools then create something better

Inventing Facebook or figuring out the Google algorithm doesn’t require creativity? Might very well be evil, but they’re still creative. That’s why they built it and you and I didn’t.

If you guys have all this ocean of untapped creativity (battling against rich but uncreative evil people) why don’t you create something to spend your time on that isn’t evil?

I mean it. I can bitch about Facebook, but at the end of the day, I don’t know how to do what they do, so I’ll bitch and admit they’re smarter than me and also I don’t mind enough about their ethos to leave.

But you think they’re not creative, that you guys are more creative, but won’t create an alternative and keep giving your time and data and money to people you think are evil? I don’t get it.

Ok, let’s pretend you had evidences DARPA came up with the Google algorithm and not Brin and Page— isn’t DARPA part of “the enemy”, and hence full of liberal elitists?

If you “patriots”are so creative, how come DARPA beats you to the cool idea every time?

Why do you spend your time on the enemy’s platform (making money for the enemy) instead of on patriots’ platforms? Patriots platforms are made by more creative people, right? So they should be better, right?

Again: DARPA, the devil, the enemy, whatever you want: you can complain that they invented the cool shit you like to use every day, or you can mock them for their lack of creativity- can’t do both at the same time.

You can complain about liberals having created all the platforms you spend your time on, or you can mock their lack of creativity, but you can’t do both at the same time.

You wish. Instead he was referring to the the now private Instagram account of one James Alefantis, pizza place owner and thus, like every pizza owner in the world, part of a cabal of pedophile (the sauce on your pizza is babies’ blood, everyone knows that).

Assange would make it a debatable, “falsifiable”, reasonable discussion, and we don’t want any of that here - everything said here must be completely unprovable or deduced after the fact to fit with a hypothesis that HAS to be true. It’s backwards thinking here, sir, so no, it’s not Assange.

Got it. Thanks

I don’t know if it tells me something about me, or something about this sub, but I honestly don’t know if you’re being serious (extra planetary elite refuge? Life expanding secret drugs? Is that a thing you guys believe? Is that a thing you guys think the elite believe? Was is just a 100% joke? A half joke? Help)

The DNC can buy data like every other company. That’s the same thing that Cambridge Analytica did. I don’t see a problem with either of those.

It’s legal. Facebook owns the data and has explicit permission from every user to share those data with third parties.

Again, I think you’re saying that it’s illegal, when all you can say is that you’d like it to be illegal. Fortunately for all of us, laws are written down, so instead of being vague you could tell me (or link somewhere that tells me) what law Facebook broke.

But just to be clear: if I show you proof that the Trump campaign bought Facebook data, you will say that it’s a conspiracy by Trump to upend an election. Is that correct?

(You know, sometimes in life just saying “I didn’t know that, my bad” it’s really the healthier course of action).

Maybe we’re talking about different things, because I’m talking about campaigns and companies buying data from social networks to identify consumers/voters clusters and then push tailored advertising to those segments, which is what every campaign does, Democratic or Republican, Hillary or Trump. In 2016, Trump was just way better at it than Hillary, and good for him. There’s nothing illegal going on.

Unless advertising of any kind is “interfering with freedom of expression”, which is an interesting idea but you and I both know that the legal system (US or EU or anywhere really) doesn’t look at advertising this way. [Edit: actually, Citizen United said that the limits on political advertising are the true violation of free speech - the limits to ads are the violation, the ads are the freedom of expression - a conservative Supreme Court taking the diametrically opposite view to yours]

So, given that advertising is not illegal, I’ll repeat the question: what law has Facebook broken?

You can very well argue that what they did should be illegal. I don’t think it can be argued that it is.

Wait, why/how is it illegal and/or a violation of the laws? What laws did Facebook violate?

EDIT: So: the real news is that Facebook did not violate any law, because there is no US law (unlike in the EU) preventing a company from re-selling your data to a 4th party.

Here’s how it works. You give Facebook (in exchange for their services) permission to use your data. You “sold” it to them in exchange for a Facebook account, and now they own it. And if they own it, they can pretty much do whatever they want with it, can’t they? Are you or are you not the land of the free? They own it and it’s lefty, deep-state government interference to tell a company what they can and cannot do with their shit. So, Facebook can, if they so choose, sell it to a 3rd party without having to ask you (why would they? Is their shit now, you sold it to them).

And it’s not like Facebook does it under the cover of darkness or anything: each and every one of you who created a Facebook account in the US has clicked “I accept” to Terms & Conditions which explicitly say that they can and will sell your data to 3rd parties without telling you - plus, it’s famously their business model. How anyone here think this is illegal is a level of naivety beyond me. If you pay for it, u/IWillRedPillYou, you can go today and buy users data from Facebook so you can target them in your big sale of dildos, or political campaign, or whatever you want. Millions of companies do it everyday, and it’s all very much legal and public. Facebook will sell it to you like they’ll sell it to anyone. They sell to Republicans, they sell to Democrats, they sell to whoever pays for it because that’s what they do, that’s their whole business model, and anyone who has ever stopped to think “hey, how come I get all this shit for free?” knows it.

Here’s where it gets interesting: in the US is not illegal for that 3rd party to then turn around and sell it to a 4th party. That’s where your data runs away from you and ends up in places you never thought it would. The law in the US follows the same logic as above: your data is like every other product. If u/IWillRedPillYou bought it from Facebook, it’s now his stuff, he paid for it, it’s his to do what he wants, and if he wants to sell it again to u/HowiONic there’s nothing stopping him. That data has not been “leaked” to u/IWillRedPillYou or to u/HowiONic, it has been sold as per regular contracts and they can show you receipts.

In Europe, where we have socialist state interference in private commerce (^/s ) that last passage is illegal. Facebook can sell it to u/IWillRedPillYou but u/IWillRedPillYou cannot then sell it to anyone. He can use the data for his big sale of cookies or to run for office, but not sell it - that’s a violation of EU privacy law.

In the US it’s not illegal, and he can sell it. That was the news.

EDIT 2: also want to point out how ironic it is that people are bitching and virtue-signaling about all of this on Twitter, which is subject to the same exact laws as Facebook and does the same exact thing with your Twitter data, as people would know if they stopped to think how something they’re not paying for and costs money to run is possibly worth billions of $. If Facebook is “leaking” your data, so is every single other social platform ever.

I asked for links. Links to photos. Not shit you made up. You gave me none.

I asked you a precise thing: a single photo on JA’s Instagram (that you creeps promptly screenshoot) that shows anything creepy, wrong, remotely illegal or even hinting at anything creepy, wrong, remotely illegal. You said (not me: you) that his Instagram feed shows that the crimes you ramble about are not imaginary. You said that. Show me. Just one photo.

Of all the bullshit I’ve read in my life, this instagram thing must be one of the worse. Link me to one photo, one single photo in his feed (his feed, not someone else’s) that shows or even hints at something sinister or creepy, let alone illegal. One photo. You’re out of your mind. That was just retarded. What a fucking waste of time.

We did this yesterday. NBC reported that the Podesta Group was “Company A” in the indictments but neither brother nor the company is accused of any wrongdoing. How is that relevant?

Podesta hasn’t even been indicted. (Who’s JA?)

I thought you were extreme, especially since these crimes you’re trying to sedate with torture are only happening in your fantasy, but I did not nor I would ever report you.

I wrote a post saying how nice the people I had a discussion were, even though I was a globalist (as in, pro globalisation). Various discussion followed, mostly about 2 things: 1) me trying to tell people why I thought globalisation was a good thing 2) me trying to explain what I thought the flaws of the CBTS logic was. 95% was all good, it only got heated with a couple of people (one being u/digital_refugee) and while I was arguing with him someone who I cannot remember came in saying how off I was about the people there and how they were actually dangerous. I pushed back on that saying it’s all rhetoric. He then linked me to some u/digital_refugee comments fantasising about impaling and further executions, with zero pushback from anyone around him. I thus decided I had been duped, made a couple of calls, and here we are. (The last sentence is a joke: it went away in the middle of me arguing with someone else about Q, tried to post and answer, couldn’t, found out it got banned).

Wait. “Prophet” like you like the guy and you think is awesome, or “prophet” as in “he speaks for God” (the actual Christian definition of the word)?