It's not just about the social media, it's about the limits of the speech

Statue of Johannes Gutenberg at Strasbourg
(Picture I)  

http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/p/its-not-just-about-social-media-its.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

In the trial against MV-lehti and Ilya Janitskyn, is the question about the right to write about thigs, what would be not tolerated in the old fashion media, and at the same time the court is metering the limits of the writings in social media. And at the same time would somebody looking for the decision about the writer of social media right to use the name "magazine" in their homepages.  But also we are facing the problem of the journalism, what is the very complicated thing.


Normally freedom of speech is meaning, that every person has right to make that kind of writings what he or she wants, but there would be no answer, what to do when if the opinion of the writer is against the opinion of the line of the magazine. And it is problematic because the journalist is in the similar relationship for the employer as the normal worker. So if the employer wants, the content of the text should follow the line of the magazine or media house.


But is the case, where the head journalist wants that the henchman changes the content against freedom of speech? And what to do, if some journalist would make the publications same time in the magazines like MV-lehti, what are actually the social media channels? Here we must also ask another question about the publications like MV-lehti, and that is very complicated: should that channel mention, that there is a "Facebook-style" channel, and would the persons, who own that channel also have the responsibility to moderate the writings, what are published in that media.


And what to do, if some journalist would write to those social media- magazines in their free time.  That means that nothing limits the journalists work when that person is not in the office. The big question is,  would that cause the divorcing if those writings are against the line of the workplace? Those are difficult questions, and there would not be right answers for this kind of things.

Picture I

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Statue_of_Johannes_Gutenberg_on_Place_Gutenberg%2C_Strasbourg.jpg

Why must we have superiority for other persons every time, when something goes wrong?

https://sites.google.com/view/socialbehaviorsandselesteem/etusivu

http://marxjatalous.blogspot.fi/p/why-must-we-have-superiority-for-other.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When we are thinking about threats, the weak persons would normally treat to another people. Their purpose is to raise their weak self-esteem and inability to talk with other people about threats and violent behavior. Weak persons are unable to hear critics about themselves, and they are also unable to handle social situations. They are normal persons, who would always want to show their superiority to other people, and that means, they are unable to handle the social situation without looking the object downwards. They are always right in every case, and if they are in superior position for other person, they would show that to everybody. Weak persons are always want to talk with superiority and officials, if they are sometimes feel that they are right. 

People with bad self-esteem always call the boss, because they want only to show how important they are. And who cares about the person, who were responsible for the thing, what caused the violent situations. They want to show, how wealthy they are by using expensive jewelry and clothes. And of course those persons want to hear only things, what pleases them. And if the person, who is the target for hate is not even responsible for the thing, what caused the hate is same to those persons. The first thing, what those users of very expensive clothes make is to call the boss in the situation. 

This is the major problem in the everyday life. We all want to hear something, what we like. And if somebody doesn’t please us, we feel angry and hate. Sometimes I have thought that sometimes we are all those persons in expensive clothes. If some young person would make something wrong, we are lower tolerance level than with adult people. When some youngster yells to us, we would feel angry, and then we think that some 15 years old youngster is bad person. We cannot accept the situation, that some bicyclist would make scratches to our car, because this person just drives the cycle beside of our car. 

We want to call this persons parents and then call the police, who would give punishment to that youngster. But when some other adult makes the same thing to our car, we would accept the offer to repaint that piece of damaged painting. But why we must always be so adult, that we want to get some person in the court, because we want to show superiority for that person? Why we ever tell anything to some person self? Why we always must get authority from some official or superiority person, when we have some problems? The law says that we have not to tell anything to the underage person, but is it easier to give punishments behind the back? About need to be superior for other persons is clearly seen the situation, where some handicapped person makes some jobs. 

We want to see that the work, what this person does is somehow worse than our own work. This is the very interesting situation because the persons who are handicapped makes usually the same missions than so-called ”normal workers”, but their salary is normally extremely low. When some underage person would get punishment, would it be better than this person knows the reason for sending behind the bars? This might be the good thing that the person can change the behavior, but the most interesting way to get punishments is that the person would lock in some room, without telling the reason for that. 

And the learning of behavior needs that the person would know, why the punishment would given. This is the only thing, what makes person to understand where the target of the punishment made wrong movement? The philosophy of punishments is that they would be given for some reason. And when the punished person would know the reason, can this person fix the actions or behavior, and this is impossible if that person would not know the reason for punishment. But if the punishment would be automatically given, would that cause the situation, that this person doesn't even care about the behavior. 

If the punishment would come behaves that person good or bad way, would this person lost the care of the behavior. When I sometimes think about the situation, that the person would get punishment without the reason, would this also be the similar situation, that person would not be told about the reason for punishment. In some protective works the policy is, that if some person would not make the jobs well immediately, when this person came to work, the result would be kicking off. And in those cases the reason for kicks is almost ever mentioned to that person.

https://sites.google.com/view/socialbehaviorsandselesteem/etusivu

http://marxjatalous.blogspot.fi/p/why-must-we-have-superiority-for-other.html

Why North Korea wants to talk with the west?

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.fi/p/why-north-korea-wants-to-talk-with-west.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Why Kim Jong Un wants to talk with western world is a question, what is interesting about many people in the East and West. One thing what might make that leader interested to talk with the western world might be that the government of North Korea would notice, that the war might cause military take over or rebellion in that land. Another thing might be those leaders have been understood, that the nuclear strike to other nation would cause nuclear war. And that would be the end of North Korean infrastructure even if those nukes would destroy some cities in the United States.


Those attacks would cause revenge strikes to North Korea and those revenge would cause many deaths in that country, including many members of that government. But there could be one reason, what made the leader of that closed country start talking with the West. That reason could be that North Korean nuclear weapons would not act as they should in the war. Of course, those weapons could destroy civilian targets, but are they sharp enough to destroy military infrastructure like command bunkers and missile silos, what has the key role in the nuclear strike.


And the question is, how many warheads, and how ready to use the North Korean nuclear arsenal is? If those weapons were not tested properly, they might have malfunctions, and if the explosive segments would not work precisely right time, would the effect of nuclear explosion leave much weaker, than predicted or in some cases, those nukes would not even explode. And of course, the war might cause very bad damages for both sides infrastructure and the human sacrifices could be very large scale. And if 50% of people on both side of the war in Korea would die in that conflict, could that be too much even for that leader of North Korea.


https://www.mtv.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/artikkeli/miksi-pohjois-korea-on-yhtakkia-kiinnostunut-neuvottelemaan-kolme-teoriaa-kim-jong-unin-aikeista/6876616#gs.gC49Trg

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.fi/p/why-north-korea-wants-to-talk-with-west.html

Why is body language so vital part of communication between people?

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Why is body language so vital part of communication between people? That is a key element when we are investigating human intelligence. The human intelligence is the most fascinated and awesome thing of human being, and that thing makes us as human. But the intelligence of human organism makes human species the most dangerous animal on the planet. There are a people and situations where is extremely important to notice if some people are intelligent. One example is when somebody gets conviction about some crimes, and of course, there is the text in the law, that if the person's intelligent level is very low, he or she will get the soft penalty, because that person didn't understand what kind of crime he or she made. And that's the reason when some criminals play stupid in the courtroom.

About 80 percent of human communication is nonverbal. Even if the person is good to play something very liberal and funny things they might have the irreverent attitude for other person's way of life. That attitude will shine all around that person. The mark that this kind of person is sitting opposite you on the table, is that person is very calm.

They must show their adulthood with over calm attitude to another person. The behavior is for hiring the attitude that this target, and feeling that the attitude of being that this person might think that another one is less valuable than the speaker is. When some people have that attitude they must prove themselves, that other people are some kind of children and they start to play some kind of big brother or big sister. Those people have usually some training, what they think as very difficult. And of course, that makes them feel very strong against other persons.


Those people normally work with people who don't have any education, so they think that if some people have not been in school they are stupid, and that is not true. The education doesn’t make any person more intelligent than other, and this is the very important thing to know. If some person has an attitude that uneducated people are not intelligent, that might cause very great risk in some situations. The place where that attitude makes risks is the prison system. If prison guards don't realize that the person who sits behind doors might be clever, that situation might make the very bad risk to the public security. And if some people speak with slang, that doesn’t mean that this person might not have doctoral education, and some doctors like police investigators and judges don't always mention that they have doctoral grade education from some university.


 When we are talking about body language and nonverbal communication there is very easy to notice if somebody hides something. Those people will be some kind of closed and hostile persons, and if they have done something bad like setup another person to guilty for something what he or she probably would not do, they meet the bad disappointment, if that person will not kick off or put under arrest immediately. The disappointment will see all things, what that person does.


That person will become some kind of hostile, and that person will show the disappointment by being aggressive and some kind of closed or reserved. That disappointment of masterplan falling will shine all around that person. And if the person doesn’t usually get the wrong answers, what denies that person something, the result of that disappointment is very easy to detect. And this is the thing what everybody must notice if somebody has tried to set up some other person guilty of something.

Thinking about social life and skills of the people

Picture Internet
(Illustration)

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Some personality disorders are the thing, what is learned part of the personality. The reason of those so-called learned personal disorders are an abusive feedback from those persons social relationship. If everybody just tells to the person, how bad person he or she is, this feedback is influential in the rest of that person's life. Same thing happens if the person will never hear anything negative in their life, and of course, that will raise their self-esteem in the stratosphere, but that might cause very negative thing in that person's personality.


If everything, what some person does is accepted, that will cause in this person's personality one very bad thing. This person can't show any self-criticism in their behavior. And if some persons don't have any self-critics he or she will become the very stressful person. When we are talking about narcissism, it's manifestation is that person want's to satisfy his or her boss in every situation. That person will show social skills by asking his or her boss as godparents for children.


What makes that behavior very stressful, is that person always treats other people like they are air to this kind of person. Only the bosses satisfactions means something to that kind of person, and other people's mission is just somewhere else,  where this particular person is. In this part of this issue must we notice that there is one very important thing, what the people must realize when they are talking about social skills. That thing is the person must not have any kind of social skills being social.


I mean the persons who will go to children parties with alcohol or who can't even ask is smoking allowed in some homes. Also, there are many people who are very social, if they have superiority position to other people. if they are sitting on some bosses seat, they can talk all the day, how "cool" they are. But they are unable to equal competitions between other people. Those people are talking like some tape recorders if they are above other persons in social rank. They always forget that other people are their henchmen.


And that will cause some uncomfortable situations in the workplace when this kind of person asks his or her henchmen to godparents for their children, so they are opposite people than that stressful personality, what is mentioned before in this text. There is one particular part of the people, who sometimes forget their position, and that is the teacher. Those people sometimes forget that they are leaders of their classes and the students must do what they will say. Same thing happens sometimes with military leaders, who give some orders without thinking that his henchmen do what he says, and that might cause very terrible situations.