MPs of both major parties are accomplices to this toxic, asinine, stupid legislation

[p.dath]

We have a new act of parliament today. The "Harmful Digital Communications Bill". I think this bill is worded far too widely, and is dangerous.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0168/latest/DLM5711810.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation% 40deemedreg_Harmful+Digital+Communications_resel_2 5_a&p=1

Make sure when communicating with other people on a forum you don't take any of these actions:


Principle 1
A digital communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual.
Principle 2
A digital communication should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing.
Principle 3
A digital communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.
Principle 4
A digital communication should not be indecent or obscene.
Principle 5
A digital communication should not be used to harass an individual.
Principle 6
A digital communication should not make a false allegation.
Principle 7
A digital communication should not contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.
Principle 8
A digital communication should not incite or encourage anyone to send a message to an individual for the purpose of causing harm to the individual.
Principle 9
A digital communication should not incite or encourage anotheran individual to commit suicide.
Principle 10
A digital communication should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

[Scuba_Steve]

http://i.imgur.com/ess6W8Q.gif

[bogan]

Principle 1
A digital communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual.
Principle 2
A digital communication should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing.
Principle 3
A digital communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.
Principle 4
A digital communication should not be indecent or obscene.
Principle 5
A digital communication should not be used to harass an individual.
Principle 6
A digital communication should not make a false allegation.

RIP kiwibiker

[Akzle]

fucken jews.

[mashman]

Well that's one way of procuring more funding the gcsb/sis so that they can monitor everyone's email.

[Gremlin]

Well at least you could say stuff to people in real life .... for now :crazy:

Have heard of kids complaining of being bullied at school... the other kid said I don't want to be friends... :facepalm:

[tigertim20]

RIP kiwibiker

beat me to it!

[mossy1200]

Wonder if my bike still runs.

[TheDemonLord]

The saddest part about this bill, will be the fact that it will only ever be applied AFTER something tragic has happened.

[Akzle]

The saddest part about this bill, will be the fact that it will only ever be applied AFTER something tragic has happened.

youre right, ban internet.

[RDJ]

Read it and weep - freedom, coffin, another nail courtesy of our elected representatives.

Kiwi parliament passes 'Harmful digital communications bill' outlawing online nasties

1 Jul 2015 at 03:57, Richard Chirgwin

New Zealand has become the latest country to think bad online manners are amenable to legislation.

The country last night passed a controversial bill, the Harmful Digital Communications Bill, in the hope of stemming “cyber-bullying”.

The bill creates a regime under which digital communications causing “serious emotional distress” are subject to an escalating regime that starts as “negotiation, mediation or persuasion” but reaches up to creating the offences of not complying with an order, and “causing harm by posting digital communication”.

The most serious offenders would face two years in jail or a maximum fine of NZ$50,000 (US$33,900).

After it passed by a 116-to-5 vote in New Zealand's parliament, Gareth Hughes, one of the four Greens MPs to vote against the bill, said it was overly broad and “risks limiting our freedom of expression”.

NZ Labour said it was “wedged” by the NZ government: while some of the bill was “worthy of discussion” the law has “deeply worrying” elements.

The bill covers posts that are racist, sexist, or show religious intolerance, along with hassling people over disability or sexual orientation.

There's also a new offence of incitement to suicide (three years' jail).

The regime will be enforced by a yet-to-be-established agency that will make contact with publishers and social media platforms, and if it can't resolve a complaint, the agency will be able to escalate it to the district court.

There's a safe harbour provision for Web sites, and here's where the free speech arises. A platform like Facebook or Twitter (if they bothered) can opt into the safe harbour – but only if they agree to remove allegedly offending material either on-demand or within the bill's 48-hour grace period.

New Zealand's National Business Review notes complaints that it could criminalise children over the age of 14.

InternetNZ told the outlet that the bill should be kept under review: “the risk is of unintended consequences, or chosen balances of rights not working out in practice.” ®

[mashman]

Repost police here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/175359-Harmful-Digital-Communications-Bill)... but yours has a better title ;)

[bogan]

The saddest part about this bill, will be the fact that it will only ever be applied AFTER something tragic has happened.

But perhaps it could provide a stronger template for internet moderation in the first place.

With all the hassle of tracking down internet anonymity etc, I think the application of it after something tragic has happened is the correct way to go, otherwise you end up either coming down way too hard on just few people to make examples of, or 'spot fines' all over the show which can't cover the cost of prosecution.

[Hitcher]

More worrying is the creation of an agency to oversee and enforce this nonsense. That will come at some cost for us poor, long-suffering taxpayers. I think that governments should have greater things to worry about than this.

Will this reduce New Zealand's annual (reported) suicide rate, which is currently running close to two people each day?

[Banditbandit]

[B][I]

The bill covers posts that are racist, sexist, or show religious intolerance, along with hassling people over disability or sexual orientation.



So we can't tell Honda riders they are gay any more?

[Robbo]

So we can't tell Honda riders they are gay any more?

The Fun Police are ruining our lives. :angry2:

[RDJ]

Repost police here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/175359-Harmful-Digital-Communications-Bill)... but yours has a better title ;)

Feel free to delete / merge etc.

Yes, the Govt (of either stripe, National and Labour) always feels free to spend other people's money so they can feel good about themselves. No evidence that internet bullying is uniquely responsible for the present suicide rate* - but politicians inhabit a stupidity-rich and frequently fact-free zone.

**

*NZ like for example Scandinavian countries reports high satisfaction amongst our citizens as a place to live - but like Scandinavia esp. Finland, we have a dauntingly high suicide rate. A Russian psychiatrist (I lived and worked there for a few years a decade ago) explained to me at the time that the suicide rate for Russia was far lower than that for Finland because the Finnish felt they should be happier when they weren't, so it was their fault; whereas the Russians could always find an external reason / something going wrong in their own country / city / environment, to blame their misery on. That reminded me of the aphorism "every problem has a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." But it has a superficial attractiveness as a logical explanation. For example, New Zealand and Taiwan have completely different cultures, but suicide rates fell dramatically after the earthquakes in these two countries. (That said, a year to 18 months after the earthquakes, the suicide rates start to climb again; and clearly, it's not a smart suggestion to manufacture a major crisis so fewer people kill themselves in the short term...).

It may be something as simple as the fact that there has traditionally been not a lot of publicity about suicide in NZ (other than episodically specially after teen suicides), so those who see no other way out, can work no other way out - because they don't know of another way out... but it seems more likely that there is no quick fix one size fits all solution to this tragic problem.

[Scuba_Steve]

*NZ like for example Scandinavian countries reports high satisfaction amongst our citizens as a place to live - but like Scandinavia esp. Finland, we have a dauntingly high suicide rate. A Russian psychiatrist (I lived and worked there for a few years a decade ago) explained to me at the time that the suicide rate for Russia was far lower than that for Finland because the Finnish felt they should be happier when they weren't, so it was their fault; whereas the Russians could always find an external reason / something going wrong in their own country / city / environment, to blame their misery on. That reminded me of the aphorism "every problem has a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." But it has a superficial attractiveness as a logical explanation. For example, New Zealand and Taiwan have completely different cultures, but suicide rates fell dramatically after the earthquakes in these two countries. (That said, a year to 18 months after the earthquakes, the suicide rates start to climb again; and clearly, it's not a smart suggestion to manufacture a major crisis so fewer people kill themselves in the short term...).

It may be something as simple as the fact that there has traditionally been not a lot of publicity about suicide in NZ (other than episodically specially after teen suicides), so those who see no other way out, can work no other way out - because they don't know of another way out... but it seems more likely that there is no quick fix one size fits all solution to this tragic problem.

Na it's boredom... Finland & NZ is too bubble-wrapped, Russia can still have fun

[TheDemonLord]

But perhaps it could provide a stronger template for internet moderation in the first place.

With all the hassle of tracking down internet anonymity etc, I think the application of it after something tragic has happened is the correct way to go, otherwise you end up either coming down way too hard on just few people to make examples of, or 'spot fines' all over the show which can't cover the cost of prosecution.

I am not so sure - it makes me deeply uneasy that there is a law created without the intention of pro-active enforcement or prevention, but is there solely so that after a tragedy, society can point the finger at an individual and absolve themselves of any blame or responsibility.

Especially when coupled by the seemingly limitless scope of interpretation based on the wording of the legislation.

[bogan]

I am not so sure - it makes me deeply uneasy that there is a law created without the intention of pro-active enforcement or prevention, but is there solely so that after a tragedy, society can point the finger at an individual and absolve themselves of any blame or responsibility.

Especially when coupled by the seemingly limitless scope of interpretation based on the wording of the legislation.

I guess, maybe we can get them to make an example out of some of the anti-semites on this site as a starter.

Yeh, I balked at that a bit too, but look at it from the other side, how else could you word it? And it all sounds a bit like the boyracer laws in some respects too, open to interpretation, but also to discretion.

[TheDemonLord]

I guess, maybe we can get them to make an example out of some of the anti-semites on this site as a starter.

Yeh, I balked at that a bit too, but look at it from the other side, how else could you word it? And it all sounds a bit like the boyracer laws in some respects too, open to interpretation, but also to discretion.

The issue I have with the wording is (Dons Tin Foil Hat of +10 conspiracy points) is that broadness of scope could be used to censor legitimate discussion on the internet. Even if we put the Censorship of the Internet issue to the side (suffice to say, I don't support it, in almost any form - except kiddie porn and Peadobears - I would support North Korean style tactics applied against them)

The law as it stands requires a large amount of trust on the part of the Internet user base that the Government will exercise discretion when needed and will only bring its guns to bear when there is something serious.

The second part I have trouble with is certain groups that have a professional victim complex will cling to this law to censure any dissension or opposing view in order to further their own agenda.

And it worries me.

[mashman]

Well, this is why I would do it if I were them:

With the future of robotics all but guaranteed to be taking jobs away from humans, and need must be generated that criminalises the young coming through today, so that they hit the job market marked. Discerning employers will not tolerate those with a history of colourful language use. That still leaves the issue of what to do with those who use that colourful language and are also unemployable. Therefore, I will use taxpayers money to build youth holding centers, because I can guarantee filling them and can guarantee that none will complain that their taxes are rising, because those who use such colourful language will be behind bars.

What do you think they want to do this for?

[bogan]

The issue I have with the wording is (Dons Tin Foil Hat of +10 conspiracy points) is that broadness of scope could be used to censor legitimate discussion on the internet. Even if we put the Censorship of the Internet issue to the side (suffice to say, I don't support it, in almost any form - except kiddie porn and Peadobears - I would support North Korean style tactics applied against them)

The law as it stands requires a large amount of trust on the part of the Internet user base that the Government will exercise discretion when needed and will only bring its guns to bear when there is something serious.

The second part I have trouble with is certain groups that have a professional victim complex will cling to this law to censure any dissension or opposing view in order to further their own agenda.

And it worries me.

I guess the question that springs to mind, why should we be able to say more harmful things online than we can in person?

Yeh that is true, trust in the Approved Agency though, not the govt directly.

Is that not contrary to the idea that action will only be taken after some happens though?

It worries me too, does it worry me as much as the current state of some parts of the internet though? I don't think so.

[Katman]

It worries me too, does it worry me as much as the current state of some parts of the internet though? I don't think so.

Let me guess.....

You don't like the fact that people are allowed to question official stories.

[RDJ]

I guess the question that springs to mind, why should we be able to say more harmful things online than we can in person?

Yeh that is true, trust in the Approved Agency though, not the govt directly.

Is that not contrary to the idea that action will only be taken after some happens though?

It worries me too, does it worry me as much as the current state of some parts of the internet though? I don't think so.

Whenever a government gives its bureaucrats more power, its bureaucrats will abuse it - while claiming they are not. And while billing the victims (the taxpayers) for the cost of the bureaucratic abuse.

[bogan]

What restrictions are there on what we can say in person?

Slander, hate speech, incitement to criminal acts; all off limits in person, yet all too common on here.


Whenever a government gives its bureaucrats more power, its bureaucrats will abuse it - while claiming they are not. And while billing the victims (the taxpayers) for the cost of the bureaucratic abuse.

Bit of a naive sweeping statement I think. Plenty of legislation in action that holds this society together. Yeh this stuff does seem more open to abuse than most; but I think at the very least, the intent is good.

[Katman]

Slander, hate speech, incitement to criminal acts; all off limits in person, yet all too common on here.

Really?

I haven't seen anything on here that wouldn't be thrown out of court whilst laughing, if someone took offensive of the same being said in person.

[RDJ]

Bit of a naive sweeping statement I think. Plenty of legislation in action that holds this society together. Yeh this stuff does seem more open to abuse than most; but I think at the very least, the intent is good.

Sweeping, yes. Naive, no. When you reward people for a particular behaviour, you get more of it.

[Katman]

Bit of a naive sweeping statement I think. Plenty of legislation in action that holds this society together. Yeh this stuff does seem more open to abuse than most; but I think at the very least, the intent is good.

You sound so typical of young university graduates.

Full of shit and loves to voice it.

[RDJ]

You sound so typical of young university graduates.

Full of shit and loves to voice it.

Now my next statement is definitely going to sound naive. But, why not just disagree with Bogan without all the excremental metaphors?

[Katman]

Now my next statement is definitely going to sound naive. But, why not just disagree with Bogan without all the excremental metaphors?

Sorry.

He.Is.Wrong.

Better?

[TheDemonLord]

I guess the question that springs to mind, why should we be able to say more harmful things online than we can in person?

My answer (and by all means it isn't a completely air tight one) is that the rules to my eye actually mean that we can get away with less online than we can in person. Also when factored in things like intent, body language etc. By this I mean if I was to say "Bogan, you are a cunt and I am going to kill you" online - that is in breach of the act, whether I meant it or not. In person, certainly it could be taken as a death threat (which is an existing crime and I believe online media is covered by it) but if I wasn't being serious (as in a joke amongst peers) then no charge would be laid.

The next answer is most of the act is IMO already covered in existing laws (laws about Defamation, libel etc.)


Is that not contrary to the idea that action will only be taken after some happens though?

It is - I should have been more specific - either the law will be used solely as a legal stick to hit people who cause a tragedy over the head with OR it will be clung to by various groups who will all cry harassment in order to silence their opposition - neither scenario is particularly palatable to me.


It worries me too, does it worry me as much as the current state of some parts of the internet though? I don't think so.

Fair enough - I myself am a very big proponent of the the Internet being a free and open space, The Internet flourishes on this basis and to legislate in anyway that impedes on the freedom of the Internet must be done so with great care and debate by those that understand the internet - this pretty much rules out any NZ government from ever being (IMO) capable or even worthy to legislate against the Internet.

[Katman]

Funnily enough, I could imagine Bogan as one of the first to try taking advantage of the new legislation.

Fuckwit.

[bogan]

Sweeping, yes. Naive, no. When you reward people for a particular behaviour, you get more of it.

The naive bit (perhaps not the best word in hindsight) was the idea that it would be an abuse, simply because it was bureaucratically derived power.


Really?

I haven't seen anything on here that wouldn't be thrown out of court whilst laughing, if someone took offensive of the same being said in person.

Then we'll just have to disagree on that.


My answer (and by all means it isn't a completely air tight one) is that the rules to my eye actually mean that we can get away with less online than we can in person. Also when factored in things like intent, body language etc. By this I mean if I was to say "Bogan, you are a cunt and I am going to kill you" online - that is in breach of the act, whether I meant it or not. In person, certainly it could be taken as a death threat (which is an existing crime and I believe online media is covered by it) but if I wasn't being serious (as in a joke amongst peers) then no charge would be laid.

The next answer is most of the act is IMO already covered in existing laws (laws about Defamation, libel etc.)

It is - I should have been more specific - either the law will be used solely as a legal stick to hit people who cause a tragedy over the head with OR it will be clung to by various groups who will all cry harassment in order to silence their opposition - neither scenario is particularly palatable to me.

Fair enough - I myself am a very big proponent of the the Internet being a free and open space, The Internet flourishes on this basis and to legislate in anyway that impedes on the freedom of the Internet must be done so with great care and debate by those that understand the internet - this pretty much rules out any NZ government from ever being (IMO) capable or even worthy to legislate against the Internet.

I guess so, and in another sense online stuff is recorded significantly more thoroughly too, so less to get away with due to absence of proof.

Perhaps this act also clarifies what is covered elsewhere too.

I think parts of the internet flourish, and other parts are cesspits.

I also think it comes down to being a rather big grey area relying on discretion and precedent to see it work properly. Perhaps the age for lawbringer discretion has passed, perhaps not, or perhaps we shall soon see.


Funnily enough, I could imagine Bogan as one of the first to try taking advantage of the new legislation.

Fuckwit.

I'd prefer to think of it as trying to see it enforced :shifty:


You sound so typical of young university graduates.

Full of shit and loves to voice it.

:laugh: Sounds like you need a time out, young man :baby:

[RDJ]

Sorry.

He.Is.Wrong.

Better?

Same idea of disagreement but politely put. So yes, better.

[TheDemonLord]

I think parts of the internet flourish, and other parts are cesspits.


From my very long and very involved internet career - even the parts that are Cesspits can flourish and grow Flowers (Gardening pun fully intended).

The best example is the wealth of Humour (Memes, Demotivationals etc.) that come from 4Chan (I don't go there, cause its a Cesspit) Some of which have transitioned into popular culture and are in use by people who are probably unaware of 4Chan's existence.

[5ive]

It will suck for those offended parties who find out that differing opinions online don't actually amount to harrassment once it gets to court. Might actually clean up the internet in a positive way...

[jasonu]

Sorry.

He.Is.Wrong.

Better?

That reply makes you sound slightly less of a dick.

[jasonu]

Funnily enough, I could imagine Bogan as one of the first to try taking advantage of the new legislation.

Fuckwit.

Looks like I spoke too soon.
As you were...

[mashman]

Whenever a government gives its bureaucrats more power, its bureaucrats will abuse it - while claiming they are not. And while billing the victims (the taxpayers) for the cost of the bureaucratic abuse.

It is how it has always been... as you say


Sweeping, yes. Naive, no. When you reward people for a particular behaviour, you get more of it.

There is 1 primary driver that drives that behaviour, and it's not survival, it's man made, and begins with money.

It is how it has always been... as you say


Sweeping, yes. Naive, no. When you reward people for a particular behaviour, you get more of it.

[Laava]

There is 1 primary driver that drives that behaviour, and it's not survival, it's man made, and begins with money.

It is not money, it is power.

[Ocean1]

When you reward people for a particular behaviour, you get more of it.


There is 1 primary driver that drives that behaviour, and it's not survival, it's man made, and begins with money.



It is not money, it is power.

You don't usually see power used to reward a third party, money is the usual unit.

Which is perfectly acceptable where the donor/client is using his own money and the recipient/supplier isn't extorting it through that bad behaviour.

So, a home owner paying for the services of a plumber to fix a tap is fine, good behaviour and skill is encouraged, stability reigns.

A govt paying anyone with taxpayers money to refrain from behaving badly or to fail to contribute to society is not fine, it rewards poor behaviour, which encourages more of the same. Perfect positive feedback control loop, chaos ensueth.

[Laava]

Well, this is why I would do it if I were them:

With the future of robotics all but guaranteed to be taking jobs away from humans, and need must be generated that criminalises the young coming through today, so that they hit the job market marked. Discerning employers will not tolerate those with a history of colourful language use. That still leaves the issue of what to do with those who use that colourful language and are also unemployable. Therefore, I will use taxpayers money to build youth holding centers, because I can guarantee filling them and can guarantee that none will complain that their taxes are rising, because those who use such colourful language will be behind bars.

What do you think they want to do this for?

Don't know if we are quite ready for the robot revolution yet!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=11475744

[mashman]

It is not money, it is power.

Buying power mebee. The position has the power, not the money.


Don't know if we are quite ready for the robot revolution yet!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=11475744

heh... I read that the other day and felt really sorry for the guy... right up to the point where I read, "stepped inside the safety cage". Darwin would be proud.

[mashman]

You don't usually see power used to reward a third party, money is the usual unit.

Which is perfectly acceptable where the donor/client is using his own money and the recipient/supplier isn't extorting it through that bad behaviour.

So, a home owner paying for the services of a plumber to fix a tap is fine, good behaviour and skill is encouraged, stability reigns.

A govt paying anyone with taxpayers money to refrain from behaving badly or to fail to contribute to society is not fine, it rewards poor behaviour, which encourages more of the same. Perfect positive feedback control loop, chaos ensueth.

It can be a minority of 100 in every country of the world. WTF does usual have to do with anything?

Our money or your life.

So fuckin what. The plumber isn't your usual psychotic rip off merchant.

No money = no chaos! and none of the tom fuckery associated with its accrual.

[pritch]

fucken jews.


Bogan stopped too soon. Your post appears to contravene Principle 10.

Actually this whole effort does not reflect well on the politicians and their servants in Parliament.

[Ocean1]

It can be a minority of 100 in every country of the world. WTF does usual have to do with anything?

Usual: normal, used most often. Not difficult to understand.

Our money or your life.

Meaningless response.

So fuckin what. The plumber isn't your usual psychotic rip off merchant.

Exactly, so what's your problem again?

No money = no chaos! and none of the tom fuckery associated with its accrual.

Obviously. But far more tom fuckery would result from the removal of money. That plumber isn't going to be pleased with having to accept a sack of hammers in exchange for his efforts, is he? More than likely going to engage in some form of tom fuckery as a direct result, ain't he? So it turns out money isn't the root of all evel you bleat on about, is it? More like the completely accepted unit of value society uses to allow exchanges of goods and services which is probably the single most stabilising tool humankind has invented since deciding to live in groups larger than family units, ain't it?

So by all means chuck all your money away, the rest of us are more than happy to continue living the good life that goes with modern trading systems.

[bogan]

Bogan stopped too soon.

I got a bit bored and uncertain...

[Katman]

I got a bit bored and uncertain...

It's never stopped you flapping your gums in the past.

[RDJ]

It's never stopped you flapping your gums in the past.

10 characters :corn::corn::corn:

[mashman]

Obviously. But far more tom fuckery would result from the removal of money. That plumber isn't going to be pleased with having to accept a sack of hammers in exchange for his efforts, is he? More than likely going to engage in some form of tom fuckery as a direct result, ain't he? So it turns out money isn't the root of all evel you bleat on about, is it? More like the completely accepted unit of value society uses to allow exchanges of goods and services which is probably the single most stabilising tool humankind has invented since deciding to live in groups larger than family units, ain't it?

So by all means chuck all your money away, the rest of us are more than happy to continue living the good life that goes with modern trading systems.

More tom fuckery? Quite the opposite. The plumber will do the job because he decides that he wants to, that and because he'll realise that there's an entire economy behind him doing stuff that he requires to have done, and that he cannot do during his day i.e. food, help society, police, bricky etc... because he works as a plumber. No need to get paid for a job that he's chosen to do. So no, not even remotely likely to engage in any more tom fuckery than he normally does. And if that's all that you have to point towards money being the still stabilising thing, then yer barking mad.

The rest of you? bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... there's more of me :wari:

[Ocean1]

More tom fuckery? Quite the opposite. The plumber will do the job because he decides that he wants to, that and because he'll realise that there's an entire economy behind him doing stuff that he requires to have done, and that he cannot do during his day i.e. food, help society, police, bricky etc... because he works as a plumber. No need to get paid for a job that he's chosen to do. So no, not even remotely likely to engage in any more tom fuckery than he normally does. And if that's all that you have to point towards money being the still stabilising thing, then yer barking mad.

The rest of you? bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... there's more of me :wari:

So, every civilised society in the history of humankind is wrong?

And we're all outnumbered by... you?

Go away you silly little twerp.

[mashman]

So, every civilised society in the history of humankind is wrong?

And we're all outnumbered by... you?

No. Only a fuckwit would think so narrowly... as you've aptly demonstrated. Chur.

By the looks of it yeah :woohoo:

[Akzle]

So, every civilised society in the history of humankind is wrong?

And we're all outnumbered by... you?

Go away you silly little twerp.

everything in this world is purchased by labour. And our passions are the only cause of labour.



...unless youre a poor old white cunt. whose passion is jewgold.

[Ocean1]

everything in this world is purchased by labour. And our passions are the only cause of labour.



...unless youre a poor old white cunt. whose passion is jewgold.


Dunno about your world but everyone in the real one uses money.

Also, old white cunts are the least poor demographic in the real world, no matter how you measure it.

But I'm sure it's comfy there, in your world, with all the rest of the pig ignorant, bigoted arseholes.

[RDJ]

Dunno about your world but everyone in the real one uses money.

Also, old white cunts are the least poor demographic in the real world, no matter how you measure it.

But I'm sure it's comfy there, in your world, with all the rest of the pig ignorant, bigoted arseholes.

There are certain behaviours that many old white people carry out, which tend to accrue value and frequently - not always - result in a financial cushion above that provided by welfare.

Not necessarily in this order of priority:

valuing an education and acquiring one
deferred gratification
reasonable (not necessarily always consistent) impulse control
deferred gratification
marrying and staying married
believing that one's life is determined on the basis of one's choices not on what some third-party will fund
deferred gratification
relatively low sense of entitlement
learning from the results of one's poor choices
accepting responsibility for one's destiny rather than waiting for handouts from the State or whatever fairy godmother you happen to believe in this decade


You may consider these to result in a community of bigoted a**holes. Your prerogative. But it is noticeable that when people of whatever colour and gender follow this behaviour pattern, the majority don't stay poor.

[Laava]

There are certain behaviours that many old white people carry out, which tend to accrue value and frequently - not always - result in a financial cushion above that provided by welfare.

Not necessarily in this order of priority:

valuing an education and acquiring one
deferred gratification
reasonable (not necessarily always consistent) impulse control
deferred gratification
marrying and staying married
believing that one's life is determined on the basis of one's choices not on what some third-party will fund
deferred gratification
relatively low sense of entitlement
learning from the results of one's poor choices
accepting responsibility for one's destiny rather than waiting for handouts from the State or whatever fairy godmother you happen to believe in this decade


You may consider these to result in a community of bigoted a**holes. Your prerogative. But it is noticeable that when people of whatever colour and gender follow this behaviour pattern, the majority don't stay poor.
Think you may have misunderstood Oceans post.

[RDJ]

Think you may have misunderstood Oceans post.

Certainly possible - the net is not good for nuance...

[TheDemonLord]

There are certain behaviours that many old white people carry out, which tend to accrue value and frequently - not always - result in a financial cushion above that provided by welfare.

Not necessarily in this order of priority:

valuing an education and acquiring one
deferred gratification
reasonable (not necessarily always consistent) impulse control
deferred gratification
marrying and staying married
believing that one's life is determined on the basis of one's choices not on what some third-party will fund
deferred gratification
relatively low sense of entitlement
learning from the results of one's poor choices
accepting responsibility for one's destiny rather than waiting for handouts from the State or whatever fairy godmother you happen to believe in this decade


You may consider these to result in a community of bigoted a**holes. Your prerogative. But it is noticeable that when people of whatever colour and gender follow this behaviour pattern, the majority don't stay poor.


Stop posting sense! this is KB!

[Ocean1]

Certainly possible - the net is not good for nuance...

So read it again.

Tip: it was in reply to...
...unless youre a poor old white cunt. whose passion is jewgold.

[RDJ]

Stop posting sense! this is KB!

I know, what was I thinking? My bad!!

[Laava]

So read it again.

Tip: it was in reply to...

You wouldn't be able to give tips in an RBE!

[mashman]

You wouldn't be able to give tips in an RBE! :nya:

of course you would... and no, I don't mean "it's looking cloudy out, you may need an umbrella".

[Akzle]

Dunno about your world but everyone in the real one uses money.

Also, old white cunts are the least poor demographic in the real world, no matter how you measure it.

But I'm sure it's comfy there, in your world, with all the rest of the pig ignorant, bigoted arseholes.

poor old white cunt.

[TheDemonLord]

:nya:

of course you would... and no, I don't mean "it's looking cloudy out, you may need an umbrella".

But the Waitress is meant to blow me, not the other way around.

[mashman]

But the Waitress is meant to blow me, not the other way around.

Funny waitress if she has a dick like.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJQT-9LVEAAh1KD.jpg

[TheDemonLord]

Funny waitress if she has a dick like.


Been to Thailand much?

[mashman]

Been to Thailand much?

lol... no.

[husaberg]

everything in this world is purchased by labour. ..

Just what nano percentage of fuck all is brought by your Labour..............:2thumbsup