Showing posts with label memes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label memes. Show all posts
Between memes and political agendas
If social networks are the daily exercise that people use today, can you trust them? Memes have become an integral part of our digital landscape, but how much they are shaping the way we communicate and express ideas in the online sphere among political agendas?
The emergence of Memes as "resuelva, atiende" can really be traced back to only an Twitter-X user like taquira (@_____xemi)? Or maybe Alejandra del Moral and her "unir es resolver" never happened? Seems that to embody a message of unity and collective action, promoting the idea that coming together leads to solutions and progress also works to provoke confrontations about the ideal man to establish a successful relationship and his highlighted importance of having goals, working hard, taking care of one's health and, most importantly for her, having the ability to resolve conflicts; And then just finish delivering a supposed answer to this with additional wordiness with an "atiende".
Are people from Mexico that easy? Alejandra del Moral utilized this slogan as a central theme in her campaign, which could also simply be an insult since by pretending that only brave people would dare to vote for the PRI. Yet the clash between the meme and del Moral encapsulates a broader conflict between different forms of a same expression, and yet on one hand, Memes "resuelva, atiende" represents a lighthearted and humorous approach to problem-solving, reflecting a sense of pragmatism and practicality but on the other hand, Alejandra del Moral's "unir es resolver" tries to embody a more serious and politically charged message, focusing on the power of unity and collective action.It is perhaps only a clash between these two figures that reflect the tension among manipulation, humor, seriousness, individualism, collectivism, digital culture, ignorance and political discourse.
In terms of impact, the rivalry between Memes "resuelva, atiende" and Alejandra del Moral's "unir es resolver" has sparked how idiotic and voided dialogues on internet can be through a complete week.
Social: Banned videos from YT no. 2
Social: Before any Pandora Paper, the stupids channels out there with support
Regardless of whether one has found a note on Spanish, what is the point of talk about "God" in the year 2021? Is it so difficult to understand that talking about it on a radio program or internet channel is a completely useless act to start a conversation? Worse, there is a bunch of people that viralize it as something relevant yet after 2 years. But to this person totally indifferent to scientists gets enough attention and "fame" to promote anything else, but the point is to post anything? what if it is just trash? What provokes talking about any topic without enough information over one? What is the point of any religious fallacy if at the beginning we can talk about politic findings?
Is it hard to believe such big shit is still out there as the Pandora Papers?
//
So, this note must be understood as a reminder of important points and the idea of why it is important understand we are in a kind of big hole only few are able to control media thanks topics as "God" plus moking ppl that should look for information about stuff like:
Francis S. Collins does not believe in the existence of god, analogically called the human genome "language of god". The principle of causality (cause and effect) does not argue for any "god" as a cause. Aristotle belonged to a time and place, and his interpretation of "supreme divine mind" classifies it as the world of animals and plants. Alfred Russel Wallacela's successful comment about natural selection as insufficient to account for the human intellect and consciousness, but pay attention that all "spiritualistic" argument is still refuted with scientific investigations and readings. Darwin's autobiography has 94 pages long and does not literally mention anything the host claims. What has he said about William D. Phillips more than absolutely nothing? George Lemaître does not reaffirm the "existence of a creator" since as the Bing-Bang theory is understood as proof that universe had a beginning and tht at no time is it pejorative or reaffirms the existence of a "creator". Speaking of "God" is defined as an intelligent force, and no dark matter or energy necessarily needs to be understood as intelligent.
//
//
Here the note: https://www.cope.es/religion/historias/noticias/asi-desarma-directo-con-argumentos-cientificos-creyente-ateo-20190402_385969
//
Here the video on youtube: https://youtu.be/y6x3AH-ZJ8s
//
//
The literal text of what is spoken:
//
Make the translation with internet. THANK YOU
//
//
00:00 danann: roberto cómo estás roberto. roberto: bien si, 00:04 vos dime sos uno de aquellos ignorantes que 00:06 en pleno siglo 21 creen en dios ¿no? danann: tan ignorante 00:10 como francis collins, si. 00:12 roberto: bueno no sé quién es pero no me importa. danann: el 00:14 padre del genoma humano simplemente. si bueno, 00:18 me chupa un huevo. a ver probarme que 00:20 dios existe. a ver. danann: ¿como? 00:22 roberto: probable que dios existe. danann: vos quieres que yo 00:25 responda a la incógnita más grande de la 00:28 historia del universo así como así en un 00:30 modesto espacio de internet 00:32 roberto. roberto: yo lo que yo lo que quiero es 00:34 que me des argumentos científicos de por 00:37 qué dios existe. danann: ok, el principio de 00:41 causalidad podría ser un argumento 00:43 científico por ejemplo, ¿sabes lo que es 00:45 el principio de causalidad? roberto: no pero 00:48 explicarme vos que hablais como si supieras. 00:51 danann: no es algo muy difícil el principio de 00:55 causalidad es el principio que 00:56 postula que todo evento debe tener una 00:58 causa. roberto: ¿ah si? danann: sí, de hecho es inviolable la 01:03 única partícula que podría violar el 01:05 principio de causalidad es el taquión, y 01:06 es una partícula 01:08 hipotética así que yo diría, que 01:10 no sé si entendés a dónde voy, pero que 01:12 el principio de causalidad y el hecho de 01:14 que es posible causalidad sea inviolable 01:15 es un buen argumento a favor del teísmo 01:18 o del deísmo. 01:20 roberto: y si es inviolable ¿quien creó a dios? ¿un 01:23 genio? 01:24 danann: no campeón las leyes de la física hasta 01:27 donde sabemos son universales al menos 01:30 segundo que sabe es la eminencia como 01:31 william davis. 01:33 obviamente el creador del universo la 01:35 fuerza creadora del universo tendría que 01:36 estar o que ser un agente externo 01:39 al universo por ende no necesariamente 01:40 tiene que regirse por las leyes 01:43 universales entonces no sé si me explico. roberto: entonces claro ya, 01:46 que las leyes físicas existen cuando te 01:48 conviene. danann: no las leyes físicas son 01:51 universales, vos me estás pidiendo una 01:53 opinión sobre un agente externo al 01:55 universo. a ver si vos maestro armas un 01:58 muñequito de plastilina y palitos, ¿te vas 02:00 a regir por las leyes de la plastilina 02:02 de los palitos o vas a seguir siendo un 02:03 ser humano? roberto: no, no, no, no. yo no creo en la magia a 02:06 diferencia de vos sobre lo de hace 3 mil años. 02:09 danann: yo no hable de magia eso es una falacia 02:11 del espantapájaros estoy hablando del 02:13 principio de causalidad y una razón por 02:15 la cual yo puedo sostener mi deísmo. ¿en 02:19 la evolución crees vos? la evolución no 02:22 es una creencia la ciencia tampoco no 02:24 son creencias amigos son hechos, son 02:25 teorías científicas que son observables. 02:27 no son cosas en las que creemos conocer 02:30 mucha gente que no crea en la evolución 02:32 que la niegue porque si es así no te 02:34 estás moviendo un ambiente no muy 02:34 científico como tanto como tanto decís. 02:38 además el padre de la evolución fue un monoteísta, sabes. roberto: darwin no fue monoteísta, burro. 02:44 danann: darwin no es el padre de la evolución maestro, 02:46 aristóteles es el padre de la evolución 02:48 además el trabajo de darwin es 02:49 absolutamente derivativo de trabajo de 02:51 wallace. eeh, uuhmm, y 02:53 por cierto wallace fue espiritista, y darwin 02:55 buen afirmaba que para que la evolución 02:56 fuera posible hacía falta detrás de ella 02:59 una mano inteligente. roberto: darwin nunca dijo eso. 03:01 danann: está en la página 92 o 93 de la 03:04 autobiografía de darwin amigo. 03:07 que vos no lo hayas leído no significa 03:10 que no lo haya dicho. 03:13 roberto: pero eso es porque los que decían que 03:15 eran ateos los perseguía la inquisición. 03:17 ningún científico podría no creer en dios 03:21 pedazo de ignorante. 03:24 danann: ¿a darwin lo perseguía la inquisición? ningún científico puede creer en dios decis. 03:25 roberto: no. danann: ¿a alexander fleming, louis pasteur, young, 03:27 william phillips y francis collins los 03:29 perseguía la inquisición también? 03:32 ¿es por eso que los perseguía la inquisición? 03:35 estoy nombrando a científicos del siglo 20 y 03:37 a 2 que están vivos; el premio nobel de 03:40 física william phillips y el padre del 03:42 genoma francis collins. ¿vos decís que a 03:44 francis collins ya william phillips los 03:46 persigue la inquisición hoy? roberto: vos la iglesia, vos 03:52 no puede darse cuenta de que la iglesia sigue teniendo poder. 03:57 danann: dale, dale maestro, muéstrame tu contraparte. tú con tu 03:59 argumento amante de las ciencias. 04:02 roberto: ¿mi contraparte? no, escúchame vos pedazo de animal 04:05 yo no tengo que probar que dios existe. los negativos para tu información 04:09 no se prueban. danann: en primera sí puedes probar un negativo 04:11 ya que se puede 04:12 demostrar que los dinosaurios no existen 04:14 simplemente recurriendo a ciencia muy 04:16 sencilla, pero no te voy a pedir que pruebes 04:17 un negativo. por supuesto que no te 04:18 voy a pedir que pruebes 04:19 que dios no existe. roberto: ¿entonces? danann: lo que 04:22 quiero es que me expliques es como surgió 04:24 a partir de que se creó y se originó el 04:27 universo. eso es lo que quiero que me expliques 04:30 tu visión de cómo se originó el universo. 04:33 mi visión es que hay una inteligencia 04:34 superior detrás, la tuya ¿cuál es? ¿como 04:37 cómo ocurrió? 04:40 ¿roberto? 04:42 roberto: estaba tomando agua. muy sencillo, se creó con el big 04:44 bang 04:46 danann: pésima elección de respuesta roberto. 04:48 el padre de la teoría del big bang fue un 04:50 sacerdote católico y físico llamado 04:51 george lemaitre. la razón de esta teoría 04:54 fue justamente probar que el universo 04:57 tuvo un comienzo como sus creencias 04:59 manifestaban y de hecho la comunidad 05:02 científica de aquel momento tildó a 05:03 georges lemaitre de ser un creacionista y tildó 05:05 peyorativamente a la teoría del big 05:06 bang' decir era una teoría creacionista. de 05:08 hecho no sé si sabías que 05:09 el término big bang' es peyorativo es 05:11 insultante. o sea el big-bang no sólo no 05:15 contradice la existencia de un creador 05:16 sino que dicha teoría fue elaborada para 05:19 reafirmar la existencia de un creador. 05:22 roberto: ¿y porque ese creador universal tiene que 05:25 ser dios es la definición por excelencia 05:27 de dios? danann: es la definición por excelencia de dios. 05:29 creador universal o hacedor del universo. 05:30 roberto: no no el universo pudo haberse creado a 05:33 sí mismo. danann: si, eso no es ateísmo, es 05:35 panteísmo. estás afirmando que sigue 05:37 habiendo una fuerza creadora. quiero que 05:39 me expliques desde tu ateísmo como 05:42 dirigir el universo sin ninguna fuerza 05:43 inteligente detrás. roberto: no sé. danann: entonces no sos 05:47 ateo, sos agnóstico. 05:49 roberto: no es que yo, te voy a explicar. danann: anda iluminame. roberto: bueno sí. 05:55 espero a que la ciencia lo descubra. danann: ¿vos esperas? 05:59 ¿como? roberto: yo espero a que la ciencia lo 06:01 descubra, que la ciencia lo pruebe. danann: entonces no 06:03 pensás mientras, no teorizas. no lo 06:05 filósofas. no lo pensás por tí mismo. tu 06:07 mérito es sentarte a esperar que alguien 06:08 más lo descubra y te lo cuente y eso te 06:10 hace un juez de la 06:11 intelectualidad ajena 06:13 y andás señalando a los demás como 06:14 ignorantes 06:18 ¿roberto? 06:20 sigo esperando tu contra argumento. 06:23 ¿cómo ya partir de qué se originó el universo 06:25 sin necesidad de un agente externo o 06:27 inteligencia creadora? 06:29 roberto: no no es que seguro puede haber una 06:32 fuerza inteligente detrás. danann: lo que estás 06:35 diciendo que consideras que hay una 06:37 fuerza o inteligencia creadora detrás 06:40 del universo. bienvenido al teísmo 06:44 roberto, ahora sos tan ignorante como yo. 06:47 roberto: aanda a romperte el culo pelotudo 06:50 danann: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
//
//
Make the translation with internet. THANK YOU
Social: Is onlyfans secure?
Can it be assured that the internet has been built on the basis of anonymous speech? Although after years of learning about who tries to investigate who can be said that privacy is something difficult to achieve speaking from how data may only have market use value for capitalist systems or large companies such as Amazon, Google, Facebook or Microsoft that collect navigation data for targeted advertisements, as well as all data that might be leaked between hackers or people of bad or inexplicable intentions, since plaintiffs in defamation cases use subpoenas to try to unmask identities of internet users who have been interrogated, arrested, tortured and sentenced to long prison terms for the "crime" of speaking critically about governments and institutions. So is it bad to want to remain anonymous? Hasn't it been a cornerstone for the same democratic expression, for example the northamerican one with the publications of the 'Federalist Papers' under the pseudonym Publius, or for the dialogues that daily users carry out or even have carried out during the Arab Spring through the network and through social networks?
\ \
On the case of the internet, it must be realized that no blog can be completely anonymous since with enough time, resources and political will, a group or government can discover the identity of the writer since there is always a risk when you say what you think to people that they cannot tolerate dissent on issues such as the corruption of a public servant, or bad procedures or protocols of fascist institutions but, is it necessary to provide biometric data even to register on platforms to buy pornography as http:// onlyfans.com does?
\ \
So, it is not only about a possible government spying on its people, it is also that with the implementation of exaggerated registries or standards in mobile telephony, possible cases of identity theft, arbitrary or abusive interference with dignity, honor, reputation, personality development, or possible intrusions to privacy and security from the data collected against any of the distortions in the market, protocol or agreement are implied with a flow of public spending reaching extremes such as extortion or favors selling. Is it possible to take control of your information online? In the day to day it seems that the only way to remain anonymous is not to use the network, which is not an option; So from the moment one turns on a computer, one must take into perspective the use of a router as instance, to mitigate the use of hackers who may be constantly bombarding IP addresses to see if it is possible to enter their system when locating an ISP provider. At the same time, those who may be somewhat careless when browsing the web, in the same way as new exploits are found or when a device fails, posibilities that the user can walk with the VPN itself leaking (https://pcmag.com/how-to/is-your-vpn-leaking) or by keeping too much personal information such as passwords; Of which, in case of priority anonymity use, any browser intended for privacy must be kept with the Javascript disabled as Tor Browser may well be.
\ \
Another factor apparently is that the only anonymous mobiles are prepaid telephones (aka a burner) that although a call log is kept from them and the user might be triangulated via GPS, it is possible to register it without associating it with the user's name and discard it, which can be said is functional when not wanting to receive calls from numbers that have one blocked with an iPhone or Smartphone, when there is also a 2014 investigation by Neophapsis Labs (http://www.zdnet.com/article/recycled- burner-number-sends-sex-workers-clients-to-security-researcher) that found companies recycle numbers quickly, meaning spam calls are still possible. It is added there is no evidence or positive correlation between a registry and the reduction of criminality in extortion since recharge systems and relatively cheap chip changes are used daily, as well as the same authority can be corrupted, a subject of which there is cloth where to sew.
\ \
Did courts recognized that the right to speak anonymously is part of the freedoms of speech, belief, of the press, of petition, and of assembly already? Although the use of the international network is rather a privilege and not a right, as on cases where a person is not authorized to use any computer, the right to personality, dialogue, the guarantee of autonomy and the information if they are, exist; So to say that by refusing to give your information the protocol will be to immediately cancel the lines of the clients without the right to reactivation, payment or compensation, it is talking about all that near to despotism, totalitarian control, and dictatorship by the simple fact of wanting to express, promote, pursue, communicate, or defend anonymously, or conserved as private, exempt and immune and/or in a unnoticed way by sometimes unstable governments and societies on changing.
\ \
Do people in general know what has happened or not about it in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Pakistan, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia?
\ \ \ \
You want to know about:
GLOBAL
The amnesia incognito live system. https://tails.boum.org
USA
Legal protections for anonymous speech
https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/legal-protections-anonymous-speech \ \ \
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)