Notices by Toemeat (tomey@nethole.us), page 2

@karen It's only named that because the guy who started the podcast is named Noah Genda. #fact

@shanehawkk Loud Twitter douche:

http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-garland-twitter-game-theory-russia-trump-2017-3

@why Bad water or dirty equipment would be my guess.

Worst cofe I ever had was on an American Airlines airplane. Tasted like sewage, I'm surprised I didn't get sick from it. Never again.

@isaac
Look, a sealion! I would disengage from that piece of work immediately.

@UberGeek >you cannot unilaterally change the rules for a place you move into. You do not get to decide all of the rules, just because you want to; when everyone else has agreed to them already.

Except if you're the government, of course. I'm thinking of Manifest Destiny and the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of Native Americans.

I'm on American land and not Kickapoo land. It used to be Kickapoo land, but somebody moved in and changed the rules.

@dtluna @Statismiscancer @endoffile

@gastongarciao I've been looking for a handset with a phone form-factor which doesn't have GPS or cell capabilities, since I don't use any of that. Basically, a 5 inch tablet. What I am looking for does not seem to exist.

@PapaVanTwee @yukiame @dcgirl

@UberGeek @dtluna @Statismiscancer @endoffile

"...In order to fabricate “consent” where there is none, believers in “authority” add another,
even more bizarre, step to the mythology: the notion of “implied consent.” The claim is
that, by merely living in a town, or a state, or a country, one is “agreeing” to abide by
whatever rules happen to be issued by the people who claim to have the right to rule that
town, state, or country. The idea is that if someone does not like the rules, he is free to
leave the town, state, or country altogether, and if he chooses not to leave, that constitutes
giving his consent to be controlled by the rulers of that jurisdiction.

"Though it is constantly parroted as gospel, the idea defies common sense. It makes no
more sense than a carjacker stopping a driver on a Sunday and telling him, “By driving a
car in this neighborhood on Sunday, you are agreeing to give me your car.” One person
obviously cannot decide what counts as someone else “agreeing” to something. An
agreement is when two or more people communicate a mutual willingness to enter into
some arrangement. Simply being born somewhere is not agreeing to anything, nor is
living in one’s own house when some king or politician has declared it to be within the
realm he rules. It is one thing for someone to say, “If you want to ride in my car, you may
not smoke,” or “You can come into my house only if you take your shoes off.” It is quite
another to try to tell other people what they can do on their own property. Whoever has
the right to make the rules for a particular place is, by definition, the owner of that place.
That is the basis of the idea of private property: that there can be an “owner” who has the
exclusive right to decide what is done with and on that property. The owner of a house has the right to keep others out of it and, by extension, the right to tell visitors what they
can and cannot do as long as they are in the house.

"And that sheds some light on the underlying assumption behind the idea of implied
consent. To tell someone that his only valid choices are either to leave the “country” or to
abide by whatever commands the politicians issue logically implies that everything in the
“country” is the property of the politicians. If a person can spend year after year paying
for his home, or even building it himself, and his choices are still to either obey the
politicians or get out, that means that his house and the time and effort he invested in the
house are the property of the politicians. And for one person’s time and effort to rightfully
belong to another is the definition of slavery. That is exactly what the “implied consent”
theory means: that every “country” is a huge slave plantation, and that everything and
everyone there is the property of the politicians. And, of course, the master does not need
the consent of his slave.

"The believers in “government” never explain how it is that a few politicians could have
acquired the right to unilaterally claim exclusive ownership of thousands of square miles
of land, where other people were already living, as their territory, to rule and exploit as
they see fit. It would be no different from a lunatic saying, “I hereby declare North
America to be my rightful domain, so anyone living here has to do whatever I say, If you
don’t like it, you can leave.”

"There is also a practical problem with the “obey or get out” attitude, which is that getting
out would only relocate the individual to some other giant slave plantation, a different
“country.” The end result is that everyone on earth is a slave, with the only choice being
which master to live under. This completely rules out actual freedom. More to the point,
that is not what “consent” means.

"The belief that politicians own everything is demonstrated even more dramatically in the
concept of immigration “laws.” The idea that a human being needs permission from
politicians to set foot anywhere in an entire country - the notion that it can be a “crime”
for someone to step across an invisible line between one authoritarian jurisdiction into
another - implies that the entire country is the property of the ruling class. If a citizen is
not allowed to hire an “illegal alien,” is not allowed to trade with him, is not even
allowed to invite an “illegal” into his own home, then that individual citizen owns
nothing, and the politicians own everything."

This is post #1000 whoo hoo.

@PapaVanTwee I use a Nexus 5 right now. Bought used for $40 bucks, and suits my needs fine. Can still get latest Android patches using the Lineage OS rom.

The hardware is probably compromised and back-doored, but what phone isn't these days?

@yukiame @gastongarciao @dcgirl

@UberGeek @dtluna @Statismiscancer @endoffile Guys with guns can come and put me in prison for not paying my taxes. Tax evasion is a 5 year sentence in the US.

Doesn't really seem like it's a free-choice sort of thing if the only reason somebody does it is fear of being locked in a cage. Kind of sounds like being held hostage to me.

@saltorito Pretty much.

@saltorito The people here run the gamut, it's quite the cesspool. This epic blocklist may help you find who to federate with. Hint: not the people that maintain an ever-growing blacklist.

http://telegra.ph/Instances-to-silencesuspend-on-Mastodon-06-23

@saltorito There used to be more, but they died or got banned because they were on Mastodon instances filled with whiners.

This bot seems to be active, though: https://social.jesuislibre.net/@donaldtrump

@gemlog This wouldn't be a phone per se. It would be a Raspberry Pi Zero with a touch screen that kind of looks like a phone. @seanl @bob @saper