ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

"I crossed the line". You think????!!!

Kathy Griffin sorry for decapitated Trump head photo after igniting fierce outrage; 'I crossed the line'

   

Silikon Veli nije mogao bolje odabrati tajming za svoju prošlonedeljnu epizodu...


This Anti-Aging Start-Up Is Charging Thousands of Dollars for Teen Blood

Američki policajci prvo pucaju u afroameričke muškarce pa onda postavljaju pitanja... čak i kad su rečeni afroamerički muškarci i sami policajci. Ovo nije smešno ali jeste apsurdno, praktično na nivou satire... Crni policajac u Sent Luisu bio izvan dužnosti ali video masivan sudar i pritrčao da pomogne kolegama. Prvo su ga naterali da legne na zemlju sa rukama na leđima ali su ga onda prepoznali - jer ipak čovek jedanaest godina radi u policiji, pa su mu dozvolili da priđe i pridruži se. E, onda se jedan od belih policajaca (sa osam godina iskustva), očigledno neupućen jer je tek stigao, "osetio ugroženim" i izvadio pištolj i upucao čoveka. Doduše u ruku, niko nije mrtav, ali zaboga, ZABOGA, pa šta ih uče na toj obuci???


O istom trošku, nešto što svi znaju, ali nije loše da se i zvanično potvrdi:



Most Terrorists in the U.S. Are Right Wing, Not Muslim: Report

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 24-06-2017, 06:24:37
Američki policajci prvo pucaju u afroameričke muškarce pa onda postavljaju pitanja... čak i kad su rečeni afroamerički muškarci i sami policajci. Ovo nije smešno ali jeste apsurdno, praktično na nivou satire... Crni policajac u Sent Luisu bio izvan dužnosti ali video masivan sudar i pritrčao da pomogne kolegama. Prvo su ga naterali da legne na zemlju sa rukama na leđima ali su ga onda prepoznali - jer ipak čovek jedanaest godina radi u policiji, pa su mu dozvolili da priđe i pridruži se. E, onda se jedan od belih policajaca (sa osam godina iskustva), očigledno neupućen jer je tek stigao, "osetio ugroženim" i izvadio pištolj i upucao čoveka. Doduše u ruku, niko nije mrtav, ali zaboga, ZABOGA, pa šta ih uče na toj obuci???


O istom trošku, nešto što svi znaju, ali nije loše da se i zvanično potvrdi:



Most Terrorists in the U.S. Are Right Wing, Not Muslim: Report

Očekivati da drotovi nešto znaju, i to na dubokom jugu je isto kao i očekivati da frižider podgreva večeru. Ili, isto kao kada se očekuje da "levi" korisni idioti uopšte bilo šta shvate, jer im naravno mediji kažu da nema išljamskog terorizma i da su išljamci ugroženi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hubT6i30WDE

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 08-07-2017, 19:29:49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hubT6i30WDE

Pa da, a šta se drugo moglo očekivati od "progresivista". Polako ali sigurno ostala su samo tri tabua koje treba srušiti: incest, mekrofilija i naravno pedofilija. Posle toga nema dalje. Kada to urade, kreće histerija napada raspomamljenih SJW na svakog ko se usudi da kaže da rušenje tih  tabua nije normalno.

Rorty je, vele, svojom knjigom od pre dve decenije lepo predskazao aktuelni politički krajolik u SAD. Naravno, par godina pre toga u Beogradu drugu je pesmu pevao 


The Book That Predicted Trump's Rise Offers the Left a Roadmap for Defeating Him

sve tačno, mada fali da je to očigledno tržište proizvelo ljude opsjednute identitetom, bitnije je dal si lgbt nego dal ti plata mala, i što je najgore, ako slučajno loše živiš, prekarni si radnik ili nezaposlen, ti si kriv i čak treba da to sebi priznaš.

Sve je to povezano s pretjeranim individualizacijama, koje su zapravo lažne. Biti gej praznih džepova. Bolje da si pederčina punih džepova.

U drugim vestima:

Republicans increasingly think colleges are harming the U.S.

Quote
A new survey from the Pew Research Center finds that a majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (58 percent) now think that colleges and universities are having a negative impact on the United States. That's up from 45 percent last year.
For comparison, most Democrats and Democratic leaners (72 percent) think that institutions of higher learning are having a positive effect on the country, which is consistent with poll results from recent years.
Republican positions on colleges and universities changed drastically over a relatively short period.
Less than two years ago, in September 2015, 54 percent of Republicans thought colleges and universities were having a positive impact on the U.S. Only 37 percent thought otherwise. Last year, Republicans were split on the impact of these schools (43 percent positive versus 45 percent negative).
This is the first time a majority of Republicans expressed disapproval of higher education since the Pew Research Center started asking this question in 2010.
Between 2015 and 2017, Republicans with positive views of higher education's impact on the nation dropped 18 percentage points, from 54 to 36 percent. The drop affected most demographic and ideological groups within the Republican Party. There was little change in opinion based on the level of educational achievement.


Large majorities of Democrats, on the other hand, viewed the impact of colleges on the U.S. positively, though there was a slightly higher percentage among those with more education.
It should come as no surprise to anyone reading contemporary conservative literature that Republican voters have issues with the current state of higher education. Attacks on free speech, political bias among professors and demonstrations seeking to cancel invitations to speakers with unpopular views have all become talking points among conservative pundits. Among the right, "safe spaces," "trigger warnings" and "micro-aggressions" have become shorthand for thin-skinned liberal students who cannot handle opposing points of view.
The official 2016 Republican Party Platform outlines several of the GOP's objections to American higher education. It says the excellence of the current university system is undermined by a "deeply entrenched" "ideological bias."
According to the platform, trustees at state schools have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that their investment is not "abused for political indoctrination."
"We call on state officials to preserve our public colleges, universities, and trade schools as places of learning and the exchange of ideas, not zones of intellectual intolerance or 'safe zones,' as if college students need protection from the free exchange of ideas," it reads. "A student's First Amendment rights do not end at the schoolhouse gates. Colleges, universities, and trade schools must not infringe on their freedom of speech and association in the name of political correctness."
The Republican platform also condemns the "unsustainable trajectory" of rising tuition costs. Citing the crisis of student debt and college graduate underemployment, the platform calls on public policymakers to acknowledge that other options — such as technical institutions and online schools — may be preferable to traditional universities for some students.


The GOP opposes the federal government's role in providing student loans and argues that this contributes to the problem of high prices.
For contrast, the official 2016 Democratic Party Platform does not mention political bias on college campuses and claims that a postsecondary degree is "increasingly required" for jobs that pay middle-class wages. Just like the Republicans, the Democrats express frustration with exorbitant tuition prices, but they offer different solutions.
The Democratic platform calls on schools to "hold the line" on costs while the federal government makes "bold new investments." It also outlines its intentions to provide student debt relief, support universities that traditionally serve minority communities and crack down on "predatory for-profit schools."
Robert L. Shibley, the executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), said Americans traditionally see universities as bastions of free speech and that schools are conspicuously failing to live up to this ideal, which is leading to a loss of confidence in those institutions.
"I think it's because we saw that rash of incidents with conservative and libertarian speakers in the spring, it makes sense that people with those views or close to them would be quicker to lose confidence in whether or not colleges are serving their function and helping the country," Shibley told Yahoo News.
In March, students at Middlebury College in Vermont successfully shut down a speech by controversial author Charles Murray. The University of California, Berkeley, canceled speeches by conservative firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos in February and right-wing pundit Ann Coulter in April following protests. The violent demonstrations against Yiannopoulos caused $100,000 in damage to the campus, catching national media attention.


Shibley said FIRE defends First Amendment rights on college campuses, which include free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of expression.
"Certainly we've been watching this growth recently in violent reactions to speakers coming on campuses," he said. "And in some cases, like in Evergreen State, we've been concerned to see this growth in violent or intolerant reactions to people who dissent from the campus mainstream."
It's not just conservatives who take issue with the trend of silencing dissenting voices on college campuses.
In September 2015, then-President Barack Obama criticized liberals who "maybe even agree with me on a bunch of issues" but are not willing to listen to conservative voices. "I've heard of some college campuses where they don't want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative. Or they don't want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans. Or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women," Obama said at a town hall in Des Moines, Iowa.
At the end of that school year, in May 2016, Obama rebuked students from the graduating class of Rutgers University in New Jersey for having successfully pressured former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to drop her scheduled commencement address at the school's graduation two years earlier.
"I don't think it's a secret that I disagree with many of the policies of Dr. Rice and the previous administration. But the notion that this community or this country would be better served by not hearing a former secretary of state or not hearing what she had to say — I believe that's misguided," Obama told the graduates.
For the most recent survey, the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan "fact tank" in Washington, D.C., polled 2,504 adults from June 8 to June 18. All participants were at least 18 years old. They came from all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
Among the survey's other findings were that Democrats are more likely to have positive views of labor unions while Republicans are more likely to have positive views of churches and banks.
Democrats were mixed on the impact of the news media on the country (44 percent positive to 46 percent negative). Republicans have consistently shown a negative opinion of the news media, and this year was no different, 85 percent negative to 10 percent positive.

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 11-07-2017, 14:28:01
sve tačno, mada fali da je to očigledno tržište proizvelo ljude opsjednute identitetom, bitnije je dal si lgbt nego dal ti plata mala, i što je najgore, ako slučajno loše živiš, prekarni si radnik ili nezaposlen, ti si kriv i čak treba da to sebi priznaš.

Sve je to povezano s pretjeranim individualizacijama, koje su zapravo lažne. Biti gej praznih džepova. Bolje da si pederčina punih džepova.

E tooo!

In Our Cynical Age, No One Fails Anymore — Everybody 'Pivots'

Quote
Last month, the right-wing media personality Mike Cernovich announced that he was conducting a ''big pivot'' away from the fringes of the news ecosystem. The move was unexpected, as Cernovich had carved out a comfortable niche for himself — railing against coastal elites and feminism, peddling conspiracy theories and self-help books. But Cernovich appeared to have decided that it was ''bad for business'' to, for example, keep pushing rumors of pedophilia in the Democratic leadership. Instead he wanted to capitalize on the relationships he had developed with Trump-administration officials in order to present himself as a new kind of journalist.
Cernovich's announcement may have seemed like typical digital-age image management, but a few days after his declaration, a somewhat generous profile appeared on the website of New York magazine. Its (admittedly tongue-in-cheek) headline: ''Mike Cernovich Pivots From Pizzagate to Not-So-Fake News.'' In the article, Cernovich told the magazine that he was a ''nonfiction writer,'' which may have been news to the various enemies he has casually accused of being child abusers, or to Hillary Clinton, who Cernovich claimed during the election cycle was suffering from a terminal illness. While acknowledging Cernovich's toxic history, the article still gave him credit for his ability to break news from Trump's advisers. And like that, the pivot was complete. Cernovich had changed his narrative by announcing his intention to do so.
The ''pivot'' has assumed a peculiar place in our common lexicon. A word once used to describe a guard angling for position on the basketball court is now in wide circulation in politics and business. That's especially the case in Sili­con Valley, where pivoting has become the new failure, a concept to describe a haphazard, practically madcap form of iterative development. With its sheen of management-speak, pivoting is well suited to our moment. And like any act of public relations, pivoting is also a performance. A key part of the act is acknowledging that you are doing it while trying to recast the effort as something larger, more sophisticated, highly planned. The pivot, though it arises from desperation, is nevertheless supposed to appear methodical.
The word seems to have first gained currency in Silicon Valley through the efforts of Eric Ries, author of ''The Lean Startup.'' Ries defines pivoting as ''a change in strategy without a change in vision.'' Many successful start-ups now claim a pivot as their origin story. Slack began its life as a video-game company before realizing that its actual value might lie in a chat app the company used to communicate internally. The company is now considered to be worth at least $5 billion, putting it among the most successful pivoters of all time. (Other web staples — YouTube, Groupon, Instagram — began life in vastly different iterations before pivoting into their current forms.) There's a promise of technocratic efficiency with pivoting, that all you require is a good business plan, and perhaps another injection of venture capital, and you can transform yourself overnight.
It was inevitable that the word would eventually creep outward from Silicon Valley. Recently, it has found a home in online media, where pivoting is now seriously in vogue. Following the cue of Mashable, Vocativ and other digital outlets, Cory Haik, the publisher of Mic, announced her company's pivot in August. Haik acknowledged that Mic was acting out ''the much-lamented and much-snarked-about . . . 'pivot to video.' '' For the uninitiated, this entails essentially dumping your editorial staff in favor of cheaply produced, shareable videos favored by advertisers and newsfeed algorithms. This is precisely what Mic did — the company laid off 25 editors and writers — but Haik claimed that this time was different, that this move was part of a greater transformation, namely ''the early stages of a visual revolution in journalism.'' Mic wasn't just pivoting to survive, according to its publisher; it was doing so because it saw great opportunity — and ad dollars — in another medium. Or at least, these are the promises peddled to worried shareholders and disaffected media critics.
The pivot may be a tech-age phenomenon, but it has an antecedent in another rhetorical maneuver favored by Beltway types: ''evolving'' on an issue. Once poli­ticians would emptily pretend to have thought about an issue and ''evolved'' toward a new position, even as it was obvious to all observers that the move was strategic. (Barack Obama's evolution on gay marriage is the ne plus ultra here.) Now politicians are freer to be openly cynical; like the business pivot, the political pivot is a product of expediency and pragmatism, rather than of some shift in deeply held ideals. The political pivot is more obviously compromised, focus-grouped, more of a performance about changing ''optics'' or a media narrative.
Which brings us to Donald Trump, a man who many commentators believe to be constitutionally incapable of pivoting. Indeed, it does now seem very unlikely that some urgent event could foment a shift to a more mature, presidential attitude on the part of our splenetic, unpredictable commander in chief. At age 71, Trump has proved himself incapable of change, at least in the eyes of most credible observers. ''He didn't pivot; he merely pirouetted, and then he dug into the same political ground he has already claimed,'' John Cassidy wrote in The New Yorker after Trump's relatively sober Feb. 28 speech to Congress — a description that could be applied to all of Trump's flirtations with polite behavior. Members of the never-Trump right also gave up on the pivot idea long ago: ''We are in the last days of the 'He can pivot!' fantasy,'' Jonah Goldberg wrote last year in National Review.
But the truth is that Trump is pivoting constantly. Or perhaps more accurately, the man is so erratic that he has no baseline of behavior against which to pivot. For instance, Trump seemed to change his mind last month on the war in Afghanistan, adopting a very Obama-like policy of deploying more troops into the country. While he once presented himself as against nation-building, Trump as commander in chief has proved amenable to any number of military adventures placed in front of him. That he now approves of the extension of the 16-year war in Afghanistan can be explained by his taste for violence and his deep attention to how he is treated by the media, who have mostly lauded the move. If pivoting is a media phenomenon as much as any kind of grand strategy, then Trump owes credit to a credulous press that tends to grant the mantle of maturity to any president who decides to bomb another nation.
A cynical gesture for a cynical age, pivoting is designed for a public sphere where bad faith is a given and attention, of any kind, is the ultimate commodity. Trump knows how to profit from the attention economy, but he is not playing the multidimensional chess with which his enemies (and allies) occasionally credit him. Instead, he seems to be a creature of pure id, making impulsive, superficial decisions based on what he sees around himself. Trump sometimes changes his mind, but he rarely manages to act in any strategic sense. The mistake the media sometimes make is crediting Trump with strategic brilliance when he's capable of nothing of the sort. But it can seem as if Trump's behavior is so venal, so beyond pale and precedent, that it must reflect some kind of plan. Who would act this way otherwise?
Trump's innovation is to have mined a deeper vein of cynicism, exhausting the weary tropes of polite political discourse. He is the ultimate pivoter, aimlessly following his own impulses as his administration is mired in daily absurdities. In Trump, the hopelessness and institutional gridlock of our system find their efflorescence; his nihilistic malleability lays bare the fact that all our poli­ticians' supposedly canny pivots are, at root, pivots to nowhere.

''That he now approves of the extension of the 16-year war in Afghanistan can be explained by his taste for violence and his deep attention to how he is treated by the media, who have mostly lauded the move.''

How yes no.

Kažu, opreznost je majka mudrosti.

https://www.vice.com/rs/article/a33m94/policija-brine-da-ce-film-to-probuditi-nove-jezive-klovnove

Policija brine da će film ,,To" probuditi nove jezive klovnove

Policija u Pensilvaniji je izdala hitno saopštenje kojim traži od građana da im se obrate ukoliko im se desi da vide ,,jezive klovnove"...

Martin Škreli će malo da mardelja, zbog toga što je nudio pare u zamenu za pramen kose Hilari Klinton. Znam.


   'Pharma bro' Shkreli ordered to jail over internet harassment

Vrlo dobro naciljan editorijal na Džezbelu koji prepoznaje boles' savremene simbioze VC investiranja i Silicon Valleyjeve opsednutosti apovima i "mašinskim učnjem".

What Is Wrong With People?

Hillary Clinton je napisala knjigu o tome kako je izgubila izbore.

Evo kako tviter na to reaguje:





A evo i malo ozbiljnija analiza:


Hillary Clinton Doesn't Get It

eto, nači nisu neonacisti krivi no lažni ljevičari, fala bogu!!!

Svi su krivi. Osim Hilari. Ona je žrtva...

Oh how the tables have turned...

https://youtu.be/-mDl8GqRxuw

Las Vegas...http://www.alo.rs/pucnjava-u-blizini-mandala-bej-kazina/125345

Ali da je publika bila naoružana...
kako li je penzos uneo oružje, pušketinu, u prometni hotel-kazino?

Pedeset mrtvih, jebote.... Naravno, pošto je belac još se ne pominje reč na "t"...

Oglasio se ISIS, preuzeli odgovornost. Kažu da je osumnjičeni uredno prešao u religiju mira pre nekoliko meseci.

jbt 10 pušaka

Quote from: S.U.B.A. on 02-10-2017, 20:13:23
Oglasio se ISIS, preuzeli odgovornost. Kažu da je osumnjičeni uredno prešao u religiju mira pre nekoliko meseci.

Moguće je i da lažu.

Sent from my TCL S 720 using Tapatalk

mi smo imali jednog
ko god prne on preuzima krivicu

Boles'

http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/10/988592-cbs-legal-executive-disgusting-reason-feels-no-sympathy-towards-las-vegas-shooting-victims/

Ako Ameriku ne unište mangupi (sa automatskim oružjem) u sopstvenim redovima, možda je uništi rastuća ekonomska nejednakost:


Insanely Concentrated Wealth Is Strangling Our Prosperity


(Ovaj tekst je, uzgred, dosta detaljan odgovor na pitanje Borisa Begovića (i sličnih neoliberalnih ekonomista) a postavljeno u Politici u nekoj od njegovih prošlogodišnjih kolumni, za koje je on sigurno mislio da je retoričko - Zašto se uopšte nejednakost pominje kao nešto loše?)

Alal vera za čestiti napad u Las Vegasu. Konačno jedan lik koji je iskoristio sve kapacitete a ne ko jajara da ubije 10-15 ljudi. Rispekt!

Quote from: Meho KrljicNaravno, pošto je belac još se ne pominje reč na "t"...

The White Privilege of the "Lone Wolf" Shooter

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 02-10-2017, 14:33:09
Pedeset mrtvih, jebote.... Naravno, pošto je belac još se ne pominje reč na "t"...

Mda,  da nije to zbog white privilege? Koji je razlog što jhe poubijao te persone?  Teroristi po definiciji imaju svoj cilj, ma koliko debilan bio. Tako da, ovaj odlepljeni penzos nije terorista, ma koliko se pahuljice i BLM branitelji trudili da mu to pripišu....

Беле привилигије?
Могу само да замислим како би фејк медији баљезгали да је уместо посетилаца кантри концерта побио посетиоце неког реп дешавања...

Уместо да брифингују о борби против џихадиста, они брифингују о куртонима и вештачким китама...

Spuki!


EXCLUSIVE: US Preparing to Put Nuclear Bombers Back on 24-Hour Alert

I sve to samo zato što se samoubeđuju da su im Rusi brljali po izborima?

Ovaj Đeneral što je citiran u tekstu, zapravo kaže da se ne spremaju za konkrentu pretnju već za "realnost globalne situacije" i kaže da više nije u pitanju situacija "Mi protiv SSSR" već da ima drugih igrača itd.  Verovatno je to vojska SAD koristi celu tu priču sa Severnom Korejom i njihovom retorikom da sebi malo da na važnosti.

Ajde na popravni.

The Most Shocking Revelations from the Newly Released John F. Kennedy Assassination Files

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 28-10-2017, 06:05:25
The Most Shocking Revelations from the Newly Released John F. Kennedy Assassination Files

Na stranu što je naslov ko iz Informera i Kurira, ali ništa se novo nije saznalo, niti će se saznati. Zašto? Pa mora da se održi mit o usamljenom luđaku koji je iz čiste želje za slavom ubio predsednika, a sam dva dana kasnije ubijen od strane Džeka Rubija, koji je uzgred budi rečeno tvrdio da je to uradio u afektu i da spreči da se Džeki maltretira na suđenju.
Koliko je želja da se zvanična verzija održi jaka može se videti i iz romana Steve Kralja "Dalas 1963" u kome glavni junak putuje kroz vreme da bi sprečio Osvalda u nameri da ubije Kenedija...

Da notiramo teroristički akt u Njujorku, po uzoru na neke recentne evropske: kamion kao smrtonosno oružje, islamistički ekstremizam kao verovatna podloga.

How the deadly New York City truck attack unfolded

A onda, belac, bivši vojnik, upadne u crkvu u Teksasu i ubije 26 ljudi:

26 dead, 20 injured in massacre at rural Texas church in worst mass shooting in state's history

Nikako mi se ne dopada podtekst kojim opšiješ svoje poruke. Zlo je zlo.

Naravno, nego da se vidi da dolazi sa svih strana.

E, pa ja želim da se vidi i ono što misliš da se ne vidi. Svi mi koji bismo da pametujemo na društvenim mrežama moramo da znamo da ih ne prate samo pametni nego i svi ostali. Pa se među ostalima nađe i onih koji poveruju. Tako uzrokujemo štetu koja ima teške posledice, jer inspirišemo takve u uverenju da zlo uvek ima neko opravdanje. Neću i ne mogu sa time da se složim. Zato želim da kad god pomisliš da je nešto korisno da se sazna pomisliš i kakvu štetu praviš. 

Šta je to što treba da vidimo, a što sad ne vidimo? Budimo konkretni.

Da su neki postovi obojeni političkim uverenjem, a neki nisu. Recimo da ste Uroš i ti izazvali reakciju koja nikome na ZS nije bila potrebna.

Kakvu su to reakciju izazvali???

Valjda da kad bledoliki amer zapuca to nije terorizam, iako su pobili više od čupavih islamista

Je li to? Ili je nešto drugo?

Ne znam pojma, štas drugo radio?