What do you think, should the researchers read texts, what are supporting their own opinions or texts, what is introducing the opponent opinion?

What do you think, should the researchers read texts, what are supporting their own opinions or texts, what is introducing the opponent opinion?

To be or not to be that's the question, what we might ask again and again. And the result is that we can think this question about comfortable texts, that researcher is working, while this inmate reads some texts and looks the videos for finding sources for their own texts. That means that if we are using that point of view in our work, we might face another thing, and that is the texts, what the researcher makes are not always please those professionals.

But the purpose of that kind of action is that the researcher would find out the reason, why somebody is against their opinion. That little bit uncomfortable way to act is also uncovering the agenda of the opposite side. If the agenda is that they simply don't like the researcher's personality, that thing might be not a very scientific way to knock out the results, what researchers have found out.

There are many actors in the field of justice and in the rule of government, who are telling people, that they are willing to make compromises and discuss things. But at the same time, those actors would put the conditions, what other people are not willing or they cannot accept. Sometimes in those cases, those actors are willing to discuss things only if they are above the opposite side.

There are two versions to put the scientific results in the garbage, and the first one is to make a very popular blog or something like that and then simply level those results by claiming that the researcher is a joker when everybody laughs. And the other way is to get the better results of the investigations by using more effective and more modern tools for getting that data.

Radicalism and its relationship with media

Radicalism and its relationship with media

When we are looking at history, we are facing the chain of the cases, where the protest movements have risen in the power of the government. After that, they have made a decision, to stay in power, because they have been the best and only real choice for the people. The name of the rulers have been changed, but methods are the same. The hardcore police will terminate every attempt to say something in that country, which would not please those rulers.

The radical wing of political movements is a good object for media because the political radicals are so-called colorful people. When we are thinking about politicians, they are normally "quite grey" people, who don't use strong words and then comes politician, who speaks like "real people", that means that those people are like ordinary men and women. This guarantees their popularity in the elections.

Many times those people are promising very good things, but then they would get the power in the government. And then the history repeats itself. When the Bolsheviks rise the power in Russia, they established the proletarian dictatorship, which means that they replaced the emperor with the new emperor, who got the title "Prime secretary of the communist party". In fact, they hired many members of "Okhrana" emperors political police in their lines, and those persons built the secret police organization, what was the most powerful tool, what any government has ever seen before. But if we would meet Bolshevists in some cafeteria in Vienna, in the late 19th. century, those people would be very nice.

Power can change the nature of the person

Many times in history populists were so-called nice guys until they got the power in the state, and then "the state needs them", what means that they kept the power in their hand's rest of they lives. There are many examples of the real popular politicians, who have made that kind of decision, that they are only persons, who will make their nation proud again. And here I must ask, who told that thing to those persons? Why they are the only possible leaders to their people?

Power would corrupt and change the person. This is what we must remember when we are looking at the rulers of the governments. The thing is that populists are people, who normally want only a good salary. And they have a simple solution for everything. That is full-scale censorship, and of course, popularity is guaranteed, when those people are offering beef and beer to the people, who tell, how nice they are. The persons who will get those offers have been the key-journalists, who would tell, how nice those leaders of the states or MC-gangs have been.

When we are thinking about things, what somebody wants to keep silent, we must understand that only in the Eastern block can happen things, that people can buy factory by billing the price of the hamburger. Of course, this is a legal act, because the parliament has given the legitimization for this kind of privatizing. There are nothing problems, and in those countries is not censorship.

The thing is that in those countries those politicians own the media and if some journalists publish something, what have been embarrassing the owners of the company, they would be kicked off. And the media doesn't just publish that information. At last, I must say, that the algorithms, what are collecting data about the people, can use to track the political resistant from the Internet.