Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Seiji Savage, Apr 25, 2015.
Right, as believable as this may be, the questions are; where are they getting all this information? Who's supplying that sort of thing? And are such sources as trustable as they sound like? As much as I don't deny that this could possibly be a problem, I feel like they should at least cite a few sources/people cited for me to get a better idea of where they're getting all of this from. Since the video itself isn't being censored (freedom of speech is still in action), I'd presume it wouldn't be a problem to post such information, right? It certainly would gain more attention and legitimacy in the process. (Though don't quote me on what I'm saying, basing all this off the video right now.)
Also, unrelated note; at 1:14 the narrator pronounced "Fukashima" "kukashima" :P
An additional short piece to read:
I'll be digging for more.
Boy, I sure hope someone has a long-winded opinion about this.
Right, well, at least these sources have given better insight on this; I believe it's a potential problem, but, at the same time, it may just go down like the SOPA bill; a possible threat, but, smothered by opposition against it.
I've been hearing whispers of this TPP thing pretty much ever since SOPA went down, iirc. In fact, ever since SOPA went down, there have been pretty much constant attempts to replace it with something else along that same vein of thinking. Trouble is, most of these SOPA-replacements aren't getting nearly as much attention from the general public as SOPA did, so they're a lot easier to slide under the table.
Realistically, SOPA was never really shot down. Also, net neutrality was never really won. It's still a constant struggle -- politicians are just trying to get sneakier about it; that's all.
Well, that's a no brainer, simply because everyone has different views, different opinions on the matter, and different ideals on such things. Therefore it's unlikely we can ever stop stuff like that dead, what's there is there, and it's simply a matter of how much this stuff is kept under control. If some crazy policy were ever to go under the radar and all of a sudden, say, the taxes increase a ton, or suddenly, people get arrested for trivial things, it's not like such things will go unnoticed... In fact, it's more likely in scenarios such as that that the general public would rise up and protest against it then, why? Because, from what I've noticed, the general masses tend to take action upon what is reality right now than what could be a reality in the future.
Which is why we can't just assume that anything like this will just be "smothered by the opposition". Nothing similar that came before it was so easily defeated.
Well, in all seriousness, if they're that dead set on it as we think they are, and it actually gets through, the resulting public outcry will most likely undo that sorta thing anyways. Not saying I won't contribute to the cause if the need for it arises, but, so far, this sort of thing has yet to be made "official", and also; this was more of a thing in 2014 than it is now, even if it's still active, it's started to slip under the public interest radar. (Upcoming elections, various other controverseys, and conspiracies circling around, particularly polotics/equality related ones)
You seem to be contradicting yourself, here. Yes, it's slipping under the radar. That's why there aren't as many protests against it. If it's "under the radar" now, what makes you think that protests will sprout up out of nowhere as soon as it's passed? It's not like we'd get a retaliating "Hah! We win!" from the government after the fact -- it'd probably still be kept on the down low, and public awareness of it probably wouldn't rise until after it's established enough for the effects to become noticeable, if at all. Also, I'm pretty sure it's harder to change something that's already in-place than it is to stamp it out before it starts.
The thing is though, if the Government is truly dead set on such a thing now, do you really think public protests will change it? Because, right now, who says the Government still won't give us the retaliating "Hah! We win!" if we start doing it at the moment, since, by this logic, they all care only about the profits right? And seriously, how am I contradicting myself again? As much as I'd like things to stay stable, they simply will not, shit changes, people change, policies change, and, hell, even the presidency role is going to change as elections are coming up. As much as we'd all like to focus on one issue at a time, unfortunately, society as a whole isn't gonna do that; some people thing female and male equality should come first for example, while others think Climate Change should come first, and then there's the still controversial even after being established net equality, and race equality and yadda yadda yadda. I'm not suggesting we don't take action against such things, but, rather keep in mind that such things aren't the only problems that crop up.
Now, back onto the topic itself, I'd seriously like to know what sources all this information is coming from, I know wikileaks is one such source, but, who was the initial person who discovered this, and where?
Ok, hold on, I'm honestly having a hard time following your thought process, here.
You started by saying that this wouldn't be a problem because it would be "smothered by opposition". Now you're saying that if people are government are really dead-set on making it happen (which a lot of them really are, if the resiliency of this and all that net neutrality and SOPA-remakes is anything to speak of), then protesting won't matter anyway, so it won't be crushed by opposition, then.
And then you're saying that it's not worth worrying about because things change all the time -- have I got that right? Cuz, if so... that doesn't even make sense. Yes, things change all the time. How exactly should things change -- that's the question. Just because change is inevitable doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to want to fight against change that you don't want.
And then you said that people won't focus on one issue at a time -- am I reading you right? Feel free to correct me if I'm not. If that's what you're saying though, then... when did I ever say that people have to divert all their time and energy into one thing? Of course politics is a big crazy mess of a bunch of issues to focus on at once -- that's why some things slip under the radar. When did I say that this was the "only problem that cropped up"? Or that anyone should act like it is?
Right, that may be because I'm a little scattered brained, my thoughts constantly wander from the subject, and I have trouble expressing what I mean somtimes, I admit that but, here's my point; issues such as these should indeed be taken care of, yes... But, sitting here, complaining about it shouldn't be the way to go about it, I personally am not fully with the cause because I feel like there's various details missing, my opinion simply differs from the opinions of people with such a cause. However, if your belief in a cause such as this is stronger than mine, I'd say go start your own protest or something, sign a petition sure if it suits you, but, if you strongly believe in your cause, please don't wait for others to publicly proclaim their stance on this... Do it yourself, in my opinion, it would make a bigger impact on the Government and help "stamp out" issues like this before they're set in stone.
Ah, ok, I see what you're saying now. I thought you were trying to say that it's not worth worrying about because other people will take care of it later -- while that sort of attitude pretty much prevents that from happening. Yeah, arguing on the internet doesn't do a ton directly, but, at the very least, asserting that it's at least worth worrying about might help bring it to a few more peoples' attention. I'll sign any petitions that land in my email inbox in regards to this (and somehow I got on some email list for this, so uh... I get a lot of those. o.o ), but, in the meantime, it's at least worth stating that it is indeed something to do something about. *shrugs*
Yeah, it is :P I'm just in the stage where I can go ahead and sign the petition really, but, at the same time, I feel like I should test people's stances on the subject, to both see where others stand and to figure out where I stand in the situation. These things are issues, but, some people at times can blow it out of proportion depending on the scenario, and others seek to use such information for more selfish reasons, so, it's a little uncertain what sources you're supposed to listen to really.
So it's another SOPA/ACTA/whatever similiar bill deal? Yeay... >.<
But I'll be honest, I get suspicious whenever people start protesting against stuff like this with nothing more than say a video in the OP that's basically designed to scare people and get them fighting with limited information.
In other words, those movements that prey on Mob Mentality and people's emotions. I mean look back at say Kony 2012, that shit got exposed as a giant scam, and the plan itself was just lacking any foundation in logical reasoning.
But it still took people by storm, and at least in my area got posters for it plastered up everywhere.
And yes Seji I noticed your other links, I'm not saying I'm supicious of you.
Just the people who simply make one video like that, leave it and expect everyone to get on board via video alone
But also that video seems to conveniently miss one thing.
"No expiration date and no separation clause".
^They say this like the law once put in will never be able to get removed.
Want to know what other Law had no expiration date or separation clause?
The Constitution, which allowed things such as Slavery?
Which we have since overruled?
I'm not saying TPP won't be bad, I can't give an opinion on that yet since I have yet to actually dig into the sources.
But the idea that any law will be impossible to ever remove? Hogwash.
TTP is not SOPA.
It is far far worse. it's going on between nations, in secret, It will be passed.
One of the worst things the TTP allows for is businesses suing nations and governments over the loss of projected profits. Of course, these will be based on models by top economists, financiers, and over past profits, but basically what it all means is: Let's say India passes a law that requires a decent minimum wage in a bid to lower poverty levels. Many, many countries that have been out-sourcing to India for years for their drastic low manpower costs will now lose out on a large chunk of profit due to the new law. Because they lost profit due to a law being passed, TPP allows them to sue that government for what they lost.
But what does Brovo think?