sircac

Only? Probably for the remaining 27% it never was…

Nope, no stay silent about them at all, actions must be taken indeed, but stay silent to them: if you answer or react to his words you accept the dialogue, legitimating the value of a speech full of fallacies, from someone that does not speak for a prolific constructive exchange of ideas that may result in advancing the understanding of a situation regardless of the thesis but from someone that only say those words to echo those slogan-like fallacies for the long run strategy.

The more care we put in avoid working for their propaganda the better. I believe that media and personalities reactions would better be accompanied by the statement that is a speech so full of fallacies that is worthless consider the arguments exposed nor the apparent conclusions, therefore no dialogue effort has been carried out but an attempt of manipulation based on lies, what more can be the opinion but the inappropriateness of such behaviour?

I agree, they are recognised agents, so they should be invited, and I would turn on the microphone for them and wait patiently until they finished their speech within their rightful time, we play according to the rules, but then I would continue as if those minutes never existed, as a journalist I would provide the report of the real value of those irrelevant words and as a consumer I would treat their speech as useless as a child’s play as an adult blabbering, not too much to do with it, why isolate their catchy fallacies and amplify them? They do not contribute constructively to a coherent debate but exploit the system weaknesses. I believe that it starts in our individual choices.

I already said it somewhere else:

I think this people have long already disqualified their ability to speech anything worth of coherent value, why keep listening them or take note of their words? They do not follow the rules of that game, is not possible to play on the same terms so that battleground is a distraction at best, a cancer at worst.

Don’t feed the troll, don’t support the bully.

Like it or not, but with agents prone to use military force around the corner we better prepare for it one way or another, either to fight back or to subdue, because deterrence is at the weakest point since decades and most of Europe has become unused to war efforts.

I personally hate to have to do this, strength countries mutual balanced dependence that makes this undesirable for both parts is my preferred choice over spending on military resources, but lacking of that tie with those agents around…

My point goes mostly to international leaders or representative people that over-react to his words and then the media look to amplify it by doing it a “new”: part of his strategy is this shit bombing upon saturation, so it buffers a space of allowance of shit actions in the public opinion that otherwise would have suffered of even more rejection if done without this probing, confusing and dragging resources in the meantime to attend this… which in the end will not matter how are they answered, prevented or reacted, he will push anyway in that direction, so I would give zero weight to all that diarrhea, shit will come willing it or not since he has the power to do it, accepting any kind of conversation with someone like that is playing a rigged game and lose terrain… why accept his ability to an exchange of opinion in the first place? why respond/listen to him? He behaves like the strongest bully, the corresponding treatment is required… join on isolating him, he will not make it easy though. This is my opinion…

Why people keep listening to what that being says? Just respond to his actions, anthing else is useless…

A light-speed “denaturalization” of the universe should not worry anyone, cannot be a faster cease of existence… indeed it could be taking place on each frame of existence, like in an old ctr screen…

This made me reflect on multiple interesting ideas.

This has been a case of hidden-intended foreign interference, where foreign interests have supported a candidate without making it openly. Even patriotic people should feel against this… unless may be they have already voted for it, humans are like that.

An interesting alternative would have been that, for example, Elon Musk (which may still be popular among some people) decide from the beginning to openly support such candidate, trying to influence positively the candidate’s success with all his resources. Being an European country, this would be also foreign interference. You may see where this reflections are going…

Lastly, imagine a similar situation to the previous one but with a national powerful lobby. Is not foreign interference, but is the same kind of action in the end, a particular interest investing in a political candidate. This happens everywhere, and has proved to be very successful for them, with grey lines drawn mostly on direct money donations in some countries, which nowadays is a bit of a scarce control anyway.

Now, I find hard to believe that some candidate would be able to convince you that, despite benefit of being openly supported by a particular group of interest, will not represent it but the promises you want to hear once the interference is openly public… yet, considering all the media control those groups of interest invest on, I think we already are in a situation were all candidates of success in democracies around the world have strong conflicts of interest with such groups… and probably has been like that from the beginning of democracies.

It seems easy to imagine that many may find justified such actions (call out invalid the elections) under evidence of foreign interference but I see a grey line on the mechanisms that happened here, and we still do not call on responsibility to the voter on reflecting what is voting, specially when the media is influenced in spread a particular consensus or debate.

I am afraid that hope is only on the voting individual capabilities to react to media and to judge the reach of these conflicts of interest and the intelligence to decide how to vote (even to non favourite candidates or even voting in white), because in the end, a democracy blocking foreign interference can still be in the practice just a national group of interest blocking a foreign one.

Ma cuanto mi manca Italia…

…and looping on the same phrase 3 times and still not being able to realise of what you just read

Bidets don’t use soap? Well, I use soap on every use, what kind of bidet instructions do you follow up? Sponge and hands, a bidet is like a mini shower in your groins without a full body implication, is just a washbasin at a convenient height… don’t you wash your hands and your face in the morning with soap in the washbasin?

EDIT: Probably we imply different things for “bidet”, I got South European one in mind…

Trying to get rich is the selfish version of “every man for himself”, building a more equal society is the empathetic one: in a fair society there are no threats to seek your own life.

From the wiki editor’s note in the last link:

“In a company, an organization of the Communist Party of China shall be established to carry out the activities of the Party in accordance with the charter of the Communist Party of China. The company shall provide the necessary conditions for the activities of the Party organization.”

Sounds like something all companies must comply in China.

I just visualized myself driving mad focused, mentalizing myself for the encounter, in silence with “In The Air Tonight” sounding in my head building up tension, ala Miami Vice scene…