Franklin Jones
This song isn't about the "horrors of communism" or anything like that.

This song was aimed at uncultured well-to-do self-righteous liberals who lived in an upper class white bubble, displaying a false sense of compassion and humanitarianism while blissfully unaware of the atrocities being supported by the US government in South East Asia.It isn't an attack on people who criticize America at all, if you think Jello would have written some dumb fucking hick "You dont like America? GO LIVE IN NORTH KOREA YOU COMMIE!!!" conservative argument like that, you don't know the Dead Kennedy's.

deathtokoalas
+Franklin Jones
anarchists have always been critical of marxists.

Aleesb
+Franklin Jones Pol Pot was not supported by the US; the Left like Noam Chomsky turned a blind eye to Pol Pot, the US government didn't like him, but after Vietnam it stopped messing with trying to deal with that nonsense.  Pol Pot was a friend of the Chinese Communists, Vietnam friend to the Russian Communists, when they clashed and the Vietnamese communists one,  Chinese communists tried to punish Vietnamese communists and realized just how outdated their military doctrine was.

Johnny
+Aleesb Alees...the left closed an eye..yeah..but Pol Pot was supported by the US. We have undeniable proof of that. Ddeal with it....i think that the CIA operations and the financial support is agreed upon by all historians but Im not very informed about it..I think they did it to contrast VIetnam...yeha they ONCE were allied with vietnam..but politics are politics man...

deathtokoalas
+Johnny
it's sort of complicated.

the so-called left (by which i mean influential writers, rather than workers movements) didn't turn a blind eye to pol pot, so much as they (correctly) argued that the media reports were exaggerated - either to make the enemy seem more diabolical than they actually were, or just to increase ratings.

in the 70s, something called the sino-soviet split happened. it's not an event, it's a process. this wasn't merely a break between the russians and chinese over communism, it was also an attempt for the americans to reassert control over china. this led to the united states supporting chinese-backed forces in an anti-soviet pseudo-alliance. american tolerance and aid of the khmer rouge is rooted in this policy of propping up chinese forces to defeat russian interests, but it only happened after the khmer rouge had been defeated by the vietnamese.

Johnny
+deathtokoalas "the media reports were exaggerated" nope..chomsky was fuckign wrong. Stop worshipping that old twat. EH was wrong. The genocide happened. End of the discussion. Journals exagerate EVERYTHING but its not an excuse to speak as chomsky did. I'm referring specifically to him and other leftists denyign the wrongs of communist led countries.

" it was also an attempt for the americans to reassert control over china" WHAT? AHAHAH NO! The US had nothing to do with internal communist problems ahahha are you crazy? During the cold war?

Look, the US indeed were at better relation with china after the end of the korean and vietnamese wars..but they jsut lived and let lived..the sino-urss break up after ww2 was caused by the opposing interests in the same area: Asia. The US had nothign to do with it. If you think the opposite provide me proofs of this alleged plan of the US to separate the URSS and china LOL

"the so-called left  didn't turn a blind eye to pol pot" Firstly I mean the writers too..secondly it's obvious that you don't know what we are talkign about..doid you read chomsky opinions in those days? He admitte dot be wrong himself after years..still he was wrong..you need to deal with it..Ill quote him:"the great act of genocide in the modern period is Pol Pot, 1975 through 1978 - that atrocity - I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury"

Johnny
+Aleesb chomsky is  a moron..he's always against-US..he doesn't care who he sides with...hes politicized..

Im neutral here...but I read stuff..the US asked for a UN seat for the khmer rouges even after their fall...and there's lots of people providing "proof" about US or CIA funding to the khmers...I didn't looked into it alot..but there's seems to be some connection...

Its politics in the end...its logical for the US to support the khmer since they were anti-vietnam.

Johnny
+deathtokoalas btw..chomsky is a loon.. you know what he said also?

deathtokoalas
+Johnny nobody ever argued that the genocide didn't happen. rather, several public intellectuals correctly pointed out that the reports were unreliable and that stated death tolls were grossly inflated over what actually existed on the ground.

i'm not going to get into details; none of the evidence from either side is very convincing, and it's all severely tainted by the vietnamese invasion. i'm aware of at least one author that has assigned the mass graves to the vietnamese.

we will never know the truth of what happened, but we can state with certainty that the media reports at the time were greatly exaggerated and should have been interpreted with skepticism. the lesson is that we should continue to take reports of the sort - such as the ones in syria - skeptically, as they are no doubt also exaggerated to argue for american foreign policy goals.

nor am i arguing that the sino-soviet split was engineered by the americans, so much as i am pointing out that the americans attempted to use the resulting anti-soviet alliance to further contain the soviets. the united states was weakly aligned with china against the soviet union from about 1980 to about 1995.

the americans never cared about vietnam. the point was to control the staging ground into indonesia, which is where the resources were.

nor was the cold war about communism, if you want to call what existed in asia communism. the anglo-russian conflict goes back to napoleon, and the anglo-sino conflict to the opium wars. it was all the same issues throughout the 19th century that it was throughout the 20th century: access to markets, control of strategic regions and transportation lines, control of resources...

the reason it makes sense for the americans to support the khmer rouge is that they were aligned with china, and china was in conflict with russia. my enemy's enemy is a friend.

Johnny
"nobody ever argued that the genocide didn't happen"
CHOMSKY ARGUED THAT! ALONG WITHA  BUNCH OF POLITICIZED JOURNALISTS ahahahah

He said it..check it..there's sources, youa r e a bloody fanboy denying reality!

"correctly pointed out that the reports were unreliable" NO NONONO! HE reviewed a book that PRAISED the khmer rouges..and wich used thier propaganda as a source..and while doing this he also negated another book from an author who interviewed genocide's survivors and chomsky said it was basically bullshit. you want me to find the sources or you can use google by yourself?

"we will never know the truth of what happened" oh god...you act like a holocaust denier..I don't care if its 100.000 or 1 million..its still too much and its still genocide. Its still an abominatio..but you are desperately trying to justify it..you ar esickening...

"we can state with certainty that the media reports at the time were greatly exaggerated" how can we say it "certainly" if you just said "we will never know"...you ar ebeeing intellectually dishonest..you are pushing your anti-media propaganda and you are denying an holocaust to do so..sickening...

"such as the ones in syria" let me guess.. "the US DID IT!" The US started syria too? And they made 9/11? And Lybia? Its always the US fault right? Such a smart naarrative you ahve HAHAHAHA

ok...now I know who you are..you are another politicized irrational conspiracy theorist moron

" i am pointing out that the americans attempted to use the resulting anti-soviet alliance to further contain the soviets" WHAT? I will repeat the question..show me a PROOF of this supposed US influence on a communist governament during the cold war..Im waiting...what did they ACTUALLY DO to influence cina? And in what direction? Let's be honest...you are speaking out of your ass..China's politics were not influenced by the US...China was autonomous..and it still is..its the party that decides...

"from about 1980 to about 1995." now you are randomly skipping to another era...still intellectually dishonest

deathtokoalas
i'll let you go ahead and find the sources for me.

Johnny
+deathtokoalas "if you want to call what existed in asia communism" classical no-true-scotsman fallacy...still intellectually dishonest...theya re communsit only if they follow YOUR particular flavour of communism, right? HAHAHAHA

Opium wars have NOTHIGN to do with the cold war ahahah you are going full retard!
"access to markets, control of strategic regions and transportation lines, control of resources" this is the dumbest analysis of the cold war ever..the US didn't gave a fuck about indocina's "resources"..tell that to ANY historian..he would LAUGH in your face....

" china was in conflict with russia" china was not in "conflict"...

The US just wanted the enemies fractioned..indeed they supported the khmers...

we were not talking about that..we were talking about moronic comments from leftist intellectuals in those days, politicized journalists, idolatry towards chomsky, you still denying a genocide (even if you don't openly say it),

deathtokoalas
the us influence on the khmer rouge did not happen in the 70s. it happened in the 80s, as a consequence of the sino-american alliance against the soviet union [which is what ended the "cold war"]. that's what i'm trying to correct you on. you're confusing periods.

Johnny
wtf ar eyou rambling about? i'm tlaking about the SUPPOSED US INFLUENCE ON CHINA! Not the khmers...the US supported the khmers..thats  a FACT we both agree on.

"sino-american alliance against the soviet union" wtf is this crap looney thign you tlak about?

"which is what ended the "cold war"" eh? No...there was no such thing as a sino-US alliance..you are going full retard...

deathtokoalas
i'm still waiting for your sources, btw.

i will state this again: american tolerance and aid to the khmer rouge does not date to the period of the khmer rouge regime, but rather to the period where they were exiled and existed as guerillas and paramilitaries in the depths of the jungle. this was during the 80s, not during the 70s. it was a consequence of a shift of alliances that happened about 1980, that saw the chinese and americans working together to contain russian interests. this shift in alliances was a primary factor in the russians' decision to choose to stand down.

the khmer were fighting against a russian backed army. they were the enemy of their enemy (russia), and therefore their friend.

i am not presenting obscure history. you can learn about this in any introductory text to the topic.

Johnny
And he also says that 9/11 was an act from "freedom fighters" "oppressed" by the "evil westerners", that the NATO Kosovo intervention was evil and there was no genocide there too..that the holocaust never existed..that jews are evil...do i need to go on? Seriously..youa re such a fanboy that you can't see the reality...he's a moron...

deathtokoalas
+Johnny  can you provide a source for that claim, too?

Marc Mielke
Communism fails because people are greedy shots. Just like Capitalism and Socialism, really.

Johnny
+Marc Mielke communsim fails because its a dumb collective religion with dogmas.
I didn't left religion to jump into an ideology.

Im an individual. Communism is about the welfare of the COLLECCTIVE over the welfare of the INDIVIDUAl.

Fuck that.

Private property is a GOOD thing. I want my house and my things without owing anything to the state.

You ar ento going to control me.

Extreme left is as shitty as extreme right. both authoritarian and both against all these songs stand for.

deathtokoalas
+Johnny  presuming that you mean marxism rather than communism, i think the first part of this is correct.

but, communism actually takes the position that the separation between the individual and the society is a false dichotomy, and seeks to expose it as a contradiction. it argues that the best way to achieve individual freedom is to hold property collectively.

you claim you want a house without owing anything to the state and cannot be controlled. but, how many years of slave labour are you willing to put in to pay the bank for the deed on the parcel of land?

Johnny
it has so many shades...let's call it extreme marxism ok? Because everyone has his toughts on marxism, I do appreciate some aprts of it, but it depends...

"separation between the individual and the society is a false dichotomy" exactly..because its  a collective movement...
Its an utopia, it aims for a "greater good" disregarding the consequences of actions.. the aim doesn't justify the means.

Thats why there's moderate socialists. Those that want to achieve BETTER solution (not ABSOLUTE DEFINITIVE utopian ones) throught reforms and not silly revolutions and economical failing plans...

"it argues that" yeah, they argue that..but I don't aggree with them..private property is a core value of individual freedom.
I do understand the importance of owning the means of production, but if those pass from the Rich industrialist to the "party", the collective..how am I free? i jsut changed my liege..from one single man to a collective who basically owns me....

"how many years of slave labour" that's another matter..that's about small governament vs big one...
I mean, what you mean with "years of slavery"
You don't pay the bank to build the house, you pay the CONSTRUCTION WORKERS! They need a COMPENSATION for their work...I don't see what you mean..either you build the house yourself or you need to give somethign for it...and that somethign is your work-hours

then the sick bank loan system is another matter but from your words it seems like you are against paying for a service or a job ehheeh (the land too..its not the "state's land"..its another individual's land...

We all have the right to a home, but not for free, at RESONABLE PRICES yeah, but not for free..thats why we got socialist policies about "popular homes" in EU...we get homes at calmiered prices...

then there's many extreme left (and even right in these last years lol) guys who "occupy" homes as an excuse to live off someone's else work -_-

deathtokoalas
see, this idea of the party taking over is conflating marxism with communism again. some of the strongest opposition to marxism came from communists, and the marxists slaughtered them as a consequence. we're not talking about a few dead rebels. we're talking about massacres of tens of thousands of people.

communists would oppose any centralized party committee taking over anything. the fundamental idea at the core of communism is the elimination of all rulers, to be replaced with institutions that operate on the principles of direct democracy. communism is not the pre-eminence of the state, but the abolition of it.

i wouldn't be able to build my own home, but you're creating another false dilemma in pitting the necessity of compensation for builders against the necessity of forced labour. you're articulating the mindset of a slave, as you repeat your master's propaganda.

Johnny
I never wante dto imply that marxism=communism, sorry if I passed that message.

"communism is the elimination of all rulers, to be replaced with institutions" yep, I agree 100%..but those new institution WILL BECOME basically the new governament, and they will have to IMPOSE collectivisation..so denying individualism...plus direct democracy its UTOPIA and the mere act of IMPOSIGN it as they would havr to resot to, would be a CONTRADICTION to it! ehhehe

" you're articulating the mindset of a slave, as you repeat your master's propaganda." I think you picked the wrong person here, my child...Im far from beeing a conformist or a hard worker, I despise work, I despise consumism, I despise capitalism..btu I despise collectivism and communist dogma too...

LEt's talk real please, in a communist system who will do what the state is doing now?
Who's gonna decide?
Direct democrayc is fantasy..we are too many for it but most importantly there's NO ONE to enforce decisions.
It would be mob thinking.
Who will substitute the police?
Who would decide laws? WHo would enforce it?

THats why real utopistic communism was NEVER achieved...thats why it always DEGENERATES into dictatorships (of the party or of the individual dictator)..because direct democracy cnanot be achieved and someone needs to always take decisions...

deathtokoalas
again: communism doesn't operate on the principle of a centralized power imposing it's will on the population. it operates on the principle of free association. this is not currently realistic, because it is not what people desire. this is why communists speak of something called the social revolution, which must precede the political revolution.

there will always be people that disagree, at first. but, they should not be forced into compliance. rather, they should be excluded from participation - boycotted. this process might end up very harsh, but the idea is that it is a means of justice relative to a different concept of property.

today, we punish people for stealing objects or ideas. in a communist society, we would punish people for stealing surplus value. if you think about this, you can see that they are equivalent reactions to different social norms about property. the difference is that theft in our society is often driven by need, whereas stealing surplus value is never anything more than greed. that both means it should happen less often and should be punishable by greater sanctions - such as total expulsion from social interaction.

regarding decision making, the truth is that there are only limited circumstances where it is required to make collective decisions at all: the threat of violence by outside forces, scarcity and, in today's world, the reality of climate change. we would suffer no harm if the vast majority of decisions we entrust into the care of the state were simply not made at all.

Johnny
YOu keep tlaking with philosophical hot air and theories..like marx did..and thats why communism always fails.

I asked for the PRACTICAL THING.

"there will always be people that disagree, at first. " no, there WILL ALWAYS BE. full stop. Unless you control thought. We don't want to control thought, right? ;-)

"it is a means of justice" you are scary...you sound alot like  acultist..thats what I dont like about communism..ever read machiavelli? DO the end justify the means? i don't think that it always does...

"in a communist society, we would punish people" WHO will ENFORCE THAT?
If someone does there you have a establishment institution and laws, practically a governament...so my point stands..total communism is jsut utopia and hot air...

"total expulsion from social interaction" enforcer beeing?

"there are only limited circumstances" not at all..who decides what do the community needs or doesn? Who decide when its time to build a road? And the location? And the cost? And the number of workers? etc etc etc...

Plus this communist comunity would work only in a defined space. Thats the break up between internationalist and URSS communists..those who wanted world revoltion vs those who wante dto build it up only in the URSS and maek a "national-communism".

How are you going to PRACTICALLY take decisions for ALL THE WORLD with DIRECT democracy, without institutions, both local, regional and continental decisions? How? 

deathtokoalas
on a global scale, nobody actually makes those decisions on behalf of anybody else or enforces them on anybody else. local, autonomous groups would be moving in all kinds of different directions. you're laying down premises that aren't meaningful, because you can't see beyond hierarchical organizing structures.

ostracism as justice under communism would not be decided by or enforced by an authoritative body either, it would be carried out spontaneously by people that believe in the underlying moral fabric. this may sound absurd, but it's why the social revolution is necessary first.

i don't think it's absurd as it might appear, either. when social norms become engrained, they become dominant in colouring how we perceive things. the idea of property itself is this kind of norm - a social construct. if we can construct a social norm around upholding property, we can create one around abolishing it.

this isn't a philosophical theory, so much as it's setting down preconditions that lead to desirable results as clear inferences. but, the crux of what you're saying is correct, and i've stated this on several occasions: communism is absolutely an unattainable impossibility unless the precondition of a change in social attitudes is set in place first.

Johnny
"nobody actually makes those decisions on behalf of anybody" an exempel? I don't follow you..for exempel a gasdoct..how's that not an international decision? And gas is  a NECESSITY.

"ostracism" someone still needs to enforce it...
" this may sound absurd" this IS absurd since evil people will ALWAYS exist and cooperate against your perfect fairy land paradise eheheh

"social norms become engrained" what does that MEAN? How are you going to reach that stage? Is IMPOSSIBLE unless you control minds...

"the idea of property itself is this kind of norm - a social construct" I don't aggree...your view is religious-like..you BELIVE in this things without actual proofs..you substituted religion with anarcho-communism or the fuck you belive in...
You ar edisgusting
You are actually talking abotu ARTIFICIALLY MANIPULATING SOCIETY AND MINDS!
Thats sick...that's orwellian...

"the precondition of a change in social attitudes is set in place first." WHo si going to set that? HOW? Who will guard the guards?

Its jsut hot air..you are nto speakign any PRACTICAL plan..

deathtokoalas
i don't know what a "gasdoct" is.

the question of whether this is practical is open. but, the other option is nihilism, and you'll have to excuse me for being unsatisfied with that.

we can either hope that social attitudes can slowly change - not by force but by choice through education and example - or we can give up, accept that life is pointless and sit around and get drunk. there's no use in pretending there's some acceptable middle point in some "moderate" form of slavery.

it's the famous line - socialism or barbarism. it's very much true.

Johnny
ops..pipeline I meant
"the other option is nihilism" no its not..there's not just capitalism or communism ahhaha false dichotomy.

"pretending there's some acceptable middle point" ahahah DUDE! There's shades. Nothign is as absolute as you say.

And if you think that if communism is not achievable then life is not worth living Im sorry tot ell you, but you are MENTAL! You are seriously DEPRESSED and DELUDED by communism. Its like a christian that says "without god there's no meaning". NO! Fuck that ahahah

YOU are beeing nihilist.

And cultist.

You basically said: either I have an irrational HOPE in this PERFECT communist plan or I GIVE UP.

Go see  a doctor please.

"socialism or barbarism" so you think that NOW we are barabrians LOL
And there's no difference for exemple between 1800's England and Modern England? LOL All barbarian slaves? AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

deathtokoalas
i'm not constructing a choice between capitalism or communism in terms of what we have in front of us right now. rather, i think i've been rather explicit that communism is not feasible at any time in the near future. if such a choice were to be put on the table, the only possible option at this point would be capitalism.

rather, i am telling you that i will refuse to participate in a society that is not moving in the direction of establishing real freedom. and, yes - this is a binary choice, but it is not between capitalism and communism. it is between hope and hopelessness.

there is not a compromise, in the long run. if you agree in the idea of progress, then you accept that it is a process of increasing approximations to utopia. you don't have to be hegelian about it. you just have to look at the idea of things getting better, at some rate of change, over time.

yet, if you reject the concept of progress - if you accept the end of history - then there is no longer a purpose in bothering, and there is no reason to care. if this is the best we can do, it's pretty fucking piss poor. it simply isn't worth fighting for or participating in.

the difference between modern england and nineteenth century england is the exportation of slavery. the fundamental economic facts are not at all different.

DuckieMcduck
+Franklin Jones That's your interpretation of it. To me it's clearly about taking the piss at leftists who actually benefit from right-wing policies while supporting communism by suggesting them to spend a holiday over in an actual communist country.

Kill the Poor is the polar opposite making fun of simple minded right wingers who would probably also be taken out in a cleansing.

To state TDKs is taking one side or the other with their songs is idiotic. They sparked controversy for fun, and both conservatives/liberals have things to poke fun at.

deathtokoalas
+DuckieMcduck
the discussion has kind of been lost in the flood of posts, so allow me to take the opportunity to change the topic in reiterating this.

what jello is expressing here is a very common perspective on the libertarian (anarchist) left about authoritarian communism. that is, he's attacking what is called right-wing communism from the left, in terms that leftists understand very well.

the key to understanding it is in realizing that real leftists - anarchists - consider marxism and other forms of authoritarian communism to be philosophies that exist on the right of the spectrum, because they construct their spectrum on centralization versus decentralization.

anarchists would broadly conceive of liberals and conservatives as basically being the same thing.

DuckieMcduck
+deathtokoalas Quite, analyzing thoughts from both the extremes of the spectrum it is noticeable that they sometimes go so far right/so far left they end up meeting at one point.

Johnny
+deathtokoalas Its not binary, its not abotu absolutes and middle ways exist. You simply CANNOT deny it. There's no "total freedom" as there's no "total slavery". You ar ejust putting out hot air..it means nothign PRACTICALLY.

" if you reject the concept of progress" progress is not necessarily always positive, nor coninuus, its not an absolute constant as you paint it.

"the fundamental economic facts are not at all different."
Factually wrong. I could go on for hours quoting things that are better now than then.

that real leftists - anarchists -" good old no true scotsman fallacy. i hate when people DECLARE who is what and what they should belive in order to get a certain label...

deathtokoalas
+Johnny marxists believe in centralized government. that is not left-wing, by definition.

again: the binary choice is one between hoping for something better and giving up. and, it is binary. by definition.

while the question about globalization was quite prescient, the response was much less so. this idea that we can combat multinational power through loose groups of free association and expect to win is patently absurd, and probably the dominant reason we got beat up so badly in the 90s. i mean, if you want to try and escape into temporary autonomous zones or something, that's one thing. but, that's giving up on the fight before it starts. as an actual tactic for resistance, it's a formula for catastrophic failure. imagine the soviets taking on the nazis one principality at a time. i don't think chomsky would fall for this type of thinking.

at the least, we can try and learn from this and move forward. the liquidity of capital has gotten to the point where the only possible resistance is multinational. it takes mere days to move from one country to the other, leaving behind a transformed economy and structural levels of poverty. so, there must be co-ordination on regional and global levels for any kind of resistance to be effective. otherwise, capital will move across the landscape like a jaguar moving through the night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8SbKZMo420

i've been through the trenches on this, and i'll give you a short history.

it comes out of an alliance between old school tory-style conservatives (hierarchy + religion = peaceful society) and socialists (collective ownership of production) against what they perceived as the depravity of liberalism (self-ownership). it's actually not recent. if you look up the populist and progressive movements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, you see a lot of the same sorts of things. they're coming at it from different perspectives, but socialists and conservatives have always had a lot of the same end goals. consider eradicating poverty. conservatives see it as a part of their religion for the rich to be charitable to the poor, whereas socialists see it as social progress, but they're both into doing it and can build alliances over it. it's liberals that have historically told the poor that they're on their own and that their failings are their own responsibility. the history on this is quite revealing, but few people know about it. in canada, we had a "progressive conservative party" built out of such a coalition and still have a "new democratic party" built on "prairie gospel socialism" that is out of the same ideas as the progressive and populist movements.

now, in the united states things got all mixed up in the 30s and came out completely mangled by about 1970. capitalism nearly fell apart in the depression, which forced the capitalists into two camps. one was even more market theory. the other was to look at some quasi-socialist economic ideas to try and stop the system from collapsing. the result was this horrific coalition between labour and capital, which ultimately destroyed socialism in the united states. people blame this politician or that, but the truth is that the socialists sold themselves out by merging with the democrats.

but, you have to remember that, at the time, the democrats would have been considered more "conservative" than the republicans, who had come out of the liberal whig tradition. why didn't the socialists join the republican party? after all, it was the republicans that abolished slavery and the dixiecreats running the south. the answer is that coalition between traditional conservatism and socialism against classical liberalism. the republicans retreated to their whig roots as market fundamentalists (that is, classical liberals) whereas the democrats used socialist ideas that advocated state interference (which is not inconsistent with conservatism).

this is where the definitions started to switch. the republicans wanted to maintain the market system without regulation, and so were branded conservatives. but this is the definition of economic liberalism. the democrats advocated for reform, and so were called liberals. but they wanted to reverse liberal economics and reconstruct the conservative state.

by the time the 70s came around, the reverse was largely completed and it became almost impossible to separate between the left and the traditional right. the left became about how to use power to shape the masses into what the intellectual elite desires, under the view that it's what is best for them. this is where the pc stuff about language comes from. but this is simply toryism, with the aristocracy replaced by the intelligentsia. it's certainly the absolute rejection of socialism.

through the 70s and 80s, students were brought up into this academic environment and began enforcing it very strongly in the 90s. they were called liberals, and sometimes identified as liberals, but were in truth being taught this overwhelmingly tory value system, under the false illusion that it was socialism.

so, why don't liberals support free speech? because they aren't liberals, they're coming out of a late twentieth century merging of toryism and socialism. actual liberals are largely out of the spectrum at the moment. they're largely what you could call "independents".

so, what he's saying is that he'd like to see more of a merging of socialism with liberalism, rather than a merging of socialism with toryism. which means he's an anarchist...

but, here's the thing: most of them will ultimately reject the liberal label. so, you need to take some responsibility in your attacks, which are ultimately strawmen. they've been telling you for years that they aren't liberals, and you keep calling them liberals, anyways. then, you get confused when they don't act like the liberals that they tell you they're not. it's gotta click at some point that you're attacking the collapse of your own strawman argument.

like, with obama, for example. if you ask obama, he'll tell you he's a moderate conservative. i think he's exaggerating; i think he's a radical conservative. but, then people sit around and criticize him for being draconian on speech. but, it was you that called him a liberal. he never owned that. he rejected that.

sorry - i have a third response, and i'm posting it here because i've seen this in a bunch of different articles and it needs to be addressed. i previously stated that the stuff about the lighting was right, and it is, but i meant the stuff about natural versus artificial light. that's important. maybe less important than screen contrast, but important.

however, this idea of "colour constancy" is really utter garbage. you present the rubik's cube, with the brown in two different spots and a shadow on one, and then suggest that your brain "creates" the orange to "compensate" for the shadow. in fact, it's the shadow that creates the orange by placing a filter over the cube, and your brain sees it as orange because it is orange through the shadow (like the red and green are a little darker). you want to talk about additive mixing here. and you can see something similar by attending a concert with a light show.

it's a very unscientific observation and whatnot, but you'll note in this video that the people that see the dress incorrectly are all either wearing glasses or of an advanced age, where some vision loss may be present.

you have to even wonder if being unable to see the correct colours of the dress might indicate you're at a higher risk for age-related vision loss. given that the colour is blue, i think that's actually likely, as it's common for blues to appear "washed out" for people that suffer from age related vision loss.

what's pissing me off about this is that it's being presented in this relativistic manner, as though either answer is equally correct. it's not. the colour exists. it's easily discernible. you can see it correctly or you can see it incorrectly. and, if you're seeing it incorrectly it indicates that your eyes are defective.

i still think the screen contrast is the dominant factor, globally - people tend to have their contrast very high, especially on their phones, so they can see things in the day as they're walking in sunlight. but, these videos with two people side to side seeing it differently don't indicate anything other than that there's a large percentage of the population with defective vision.

this isn't science, it's dumb hippie bullshit.

it's all about the doors of perception. open your mind to the magic of the universe. let yourself go.

ugh. we need to round up every psychiatrist in the world and take their b. sc's away from them, while pointing and laughing.

"oh. did you want that? sorry. we only give those to scientists. if you'd like to study a science, you can get it back. in the meantime, you're no longer eligible. yoink. "

contrary to the suggestions in the video, i legitimately see the dress as purple-blue and brown-orange, which are the colours in the rgb breakdown, and i'll tell you why.

1) the biggest issue is probably screen contrast. i'm looking on a laptop with low lighting and all the windows screen power stuff turned off. but, if i had the default screen settings on then the contrast would increase, and i'd see something lighter. it is of course the problem in the first place. this likely explains why so many people see the wrong colours. and they are the wrong colours.

2) the reality is that undiagnosed eye problems are epidemic in the united states, because the health care system is so useless that nobody can afford to get their eyes checked. reality: if you're standing beside somebody that sees the dress in it's correct colour configuration then you have enough controls in place to conclude that seeing it wrong indicates your eyesight is not good and you should see a doctor. seeing blue as "washed out" is a common symptom of age related vision loss. experiencing colours as "dull" may also indicate you're at risk for or already have cataracts.

stop. when was the last time you had your eyes checked?

have you ever had your eyes checked?

honestly.

scishow is brought to you by brawndo.

a proper scientific approach, here, would be to provide explanations as to why people are unable to see the correct colours - such as age related vision loss, developing cataracts, vitamin a deficiency, etc. this nonsense about "perception" belongs in a flunkie's philosophy 101 paper.

i'm done. i just want to be clear. the question is not "why do people perceive the dress differently?", which is incoherent. the question is "why are some people unable to see the dress correctly?". once you define the question properly, the answers become much more obvious.

as an aside, though: watchmaker, my ass. half the population can barely see.

just a second thought: if two people are standing beside each other and they interpret the same image from the same screen as different colours, one (or both) of them has damaged vision. it's not "subjective"; your brain is doing it wrong. 2+2=4. a better analogy is perhaps to the error your computer makes when doing arithmetic. it's widespread, and requires error-correcting, but it's not an issue of subjectivity.

there is no subjectivity in vision, or interpreting vision. that is absolute pothead nonsense, and any "doctor" suggesting it to you got their phd from the timothy leary school of dumb hippie nonsense. which is, short hand, referred to as the psychology department in most existing institutions. not science.

there are, however, a lot of undiagnosed eye conditions.

ok...the article in time magazine got it right. only one i've seen so far. off to do something else now...

Kancho
I think you are right. I looked at only a portion of a picture and it's still the same color -- gold and white-ish.

deathtokoalas
you're missing the point. what you're seeing on the screen doesn't have anything to do with your "perception", or even what colour the dress actually is - it has to do with your computer reconstructing the image differently than mine does, through a variety of hardware and software differences, and that projection on a screen interacting in the room that you're in. to put it differently, the conditions we each observe the differently constructed image (which is not real) in are not controlled. so, you're not actually looking at the same thing i'm looking at. we're looking at different imperfect copies of the same ideal form.

this is half right. the part about the lighting is accurate. but the key point is the computer screen - the confusion is an artifact of the technology, not some pothead philosophy about perception. i can tilt it from blue to white by moving my laptop screen back and forth. if the dress was in front of me, there would be no such artifact and no resulting confusion.

you can also see it as light blue and brown if you get the right tilt.

...and the truth is you can get similar results from just about any picture. google "trippy pictures", pull out anything and move your screen back and forth. blues become greens. yellows become whites. etc.

the reason this photo came out a little weird would have to do with the way it was captured by the camera.

i've read a dozen "explanations" and none of them are built around the fact that an image projected from a screen is not a physical object, and doesn't have the same properties. they all get the right kind of idea, but miss the important point.

professional photographers put huge amounts of effort into lighting and calibration to prevent this kind of thing. that's who you want to ask for clarification here in writing a better article.

ok, no. i need to maximize my opportunity. she's had a month minus a few days. i don't see any use in leaving it there an extra day.

so, i'll go on monday to see if it's done. if it is, great - maybe she wanted the weekend. if it's not, i'll have to take the forms and bring them with me on tuesday. and that'll be the stunt day.

i mean, at that point i'll have ruled out two of three possibilities, and the third will be remote.

so, it will really be an out-of-options decision.

the one thing i'll have to play by ear is if i go in there on tuesday and he decides he wants to set an appointment within a few days. but that seems unlikely. he's either going to fill the forms out or he isn't, at that point.

he might want to set an appointment for april, but that's too late.

you have to keep in mind that these people get paid by the half hour, right. so, it's like....even if they're not going to fill it out, it's worth their while to string me along.

which is basically what i think is really happening.

now, i guess if i go in on monday and she says something like "it will be done for sure by wednesday", i'll be kind of stuck. in that scenario, i guess i'll want to walk up to the odsp office and see if i can get a second set of forms.

actually, maybe i should do that anyways.

yeah.

ok. so, i'll go there first, and if i can get a second set of forms then i'll take that to the doctor on tuesday. you know, if i can get it filled out twice i can maybe take the best of the two, even.

but i can't wait longer than tuesday if neither comes back. regardless of what she says.

rip leonard nimoy

again: an important generation is entering it's twilight. spock was an awesome character, and he did it well. somehow, i don't quite think spock will ever truly die.

when you do an obvious cut and paste job in the editing like this that is clearly designed to remove context, it draws questions to what it is that you're cutting out. she seemed adamant that there were other factors, but you haven't provided us with the ability to hear what they were and come to our own conclusions on the matter.

if she's involved with racist jewish supremacist or zionist groups that fund settler activities or support the continuing genocide of the palestinian people, her ability to remain neutral on certain issues is a valid question.

i'm not saying that's the case. i'm saying the editing job makes it seem like that's probably the case.

...and it brings up the question of the depth of imperialist zionist sympathies within the administration at ucla, which is unfortunately very common in the universities on this continent, no doubt partially for financial reasons.

it turns out that rachel is involved with pro-settler groups, the concern was regarding bds and the administration did get involved for that reason.

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/11/landslide-divestment-resolution

http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/feb/20/science-questions-ukip-renewable-energy

no call this week....

i'm just getting annoyed. i don't want to have to do this, but i feel as though i have no choice.

i have an appointment on tuesday (with a different doctor). i can't tell him what i'm planning because i need an element of surprise, so it's not really a factor. if i'm done this mix by monday, i'll do the suicide attempt then. otherwise, i'll give myself a few more days to get the mix done and go whenever it is - wednesday, thursday. it's just that if it goes wrong, i don't want a half done mix sitting here....

i *do* expect to be at least almost done by monday, so i'm looking at wednesday at the latest.

most of the way through the week. ugh. i hope i get a call tomorrow or the next day.

i mean, i'm not going to just walk in and start popping pills. i'm going to need to get a response first. but unless it's "here. done." or "it'll be done tomorrow.", it's going to get messy...

like, for example, if she tries to give me the forms back? no. you said you'd fill them out. you've wasted my time. i don't have time to find somebody else. so, there are going to be consequences for that.

this somewhat ironically explains why i discarded social media and went back to traditional media.

the cat pictures were admittedly bad. the memes were worse. but what really permanently turned me off was the lack of filters, combined with a disturbing level of mass ignorance.

i was hooked up to a number of "libertarian" type political movements, most leaning towards the socialist brand of libertarianism (anarchism). occupy, idle no more, groups against tar sands development and other protest groups with similar purposes that organized large protests and generated substantial interest.

i'd guess that roughly 75% of the articles that i'd read that had gone "viral" within that political spectrum were absolute nonsense. the stuff on gmos was particularly illiterate. and, it would just get shared by dumb hippie after dumb hippie after dumb hippie. it's the perfect example of how lies can become truth if they're repeated often enough - which in this case means if they're shared over enough feeds.

i reacted, of course. you send out crap in your feed, i'm going to correct you. but, what it lead to was a lot of interpersonal tension, accusations that i wasn't on "their side" and just general close-mindedness to criticism. the meme was authoritarian truth; how dare i challenge it with my puny citations!

what i learned was that social media isn't a replacement for anything - it's merely an evolution of the mob mentality. it reminded me of how important good journalism really is, and why it can't be tossed aside as a relic of the past.

i think that free-thinking people ought to be very cautious of how social media might shape social movements in the future, mostly for the worst. it really pushes a conformist mob mentality, with little interest in fact checking.

i think we can probably blame the anti-vaccine campaign on social media.

i fear it's just the beginning.

i heard a lot about pay increases in this video, but not a word about revolutionizing the ownership of production.

the left has lost the plot.

there's some loose ends here that suggest it was orchestrated. two hours is a long time for a kid dressed like that in that weather. that's a case of hypothermia, so he likely wasn't there that long. and, whether the guy they picked was actually homeless or not, he's there earlier in the frame. my guess is that the thing was probably set up, and there isn't more footage than was uploaded.

that said...

i would've stopped. and i know i would've stopped because i have stopped. but, the message they're sending is very wrong. this isn't the kind of thing that well-meaning individuals can do anything about. i say i would have stopped, and i would have, but it would have been to try and figure out why he's on the street rather than in a shelter and to get him directions to somewhere else.

i think it's important that the issue has attention drawn to it. with the current economic and political status quo, we have millions of homeless people and millions of empty houses. but it's equally important not to trick ourselves into thinking that this is an issue of "goodwill" or that it can be solved through acts of kindness or charitable donations. giving the homeless guy $1000 dollars doesn't actually solve anything. this is a systemic economic issue, and it requires political solutions.

i've stopped on the street more than once to give people directions to the welfare office, and talk about possibly getting on disability for mental issues. i've been told flat out that it's not enough for an addiction, which is sad, but the reality. but, usually, people aren't aware that they have systemic options.

a kid that age should be helped to child welfare services; you shouldn't toss quarters at him. it's not a tale of two fucking cities out there. we're a little past that.

fucking weather. i really don't care if it's hot or cold, it'd just be nice if it could keep it steady so i'm not passing out...

i'm getting half a stomach ache. which is weird, considering that the reports are not indicating spring. but, it's a specific wrench. and my stomach is never wrong. i think what it's telling me is that the absurd cold is over, that this morning is the end of deep winter, if you will, and the beginning of a warm up to normal winter.

but we could be in for a pleasant surprise, too.

from what i can gather, it's a biological response to shifts in atmospheric pressure. i guess the high pressure could always come back. but when it gets like this, it really indicates seasonal shifts.

walls update

jessica
hi.

i've got a point form conclusion at the end. this'll be the last time i bug you about this. i just want to get my final conclusions across.

so, it looks like the worst of it is probably passed. i started off saying the walls were badly insulated, then backtracked a little when i plugged the doors and noticed a difference and am now going back to where i started, with the shift in tone to the unusual nature of the current extreme cold. they're not badly insulated relative to the expected climate, but they can't handle this weather, either..

it really seems to depend on what the temperature in the unheated part of the basement is. i think i tricked myself into thinking the walls were better insulated than they were; it seems like the temperature in the basement had risen, at the time, to something more reasonable, which slowed the heat flow out. so, it seemed well insulated when it was really just not a large enough temperature difference for serious leakage.

as the temperature has fallen over the last week and stayed low, the leakage has increased. it has reversed during brief warm-ups. i still think weatherproofing the doors are a good idea, but the temperature difference appears to be a basic, irresolvable problem from inside the unit. that is to say that this unit is heating the entire basement through convection, and so long as that is true and it is very cold then it will be expensive.

it wasn't quite as cold overnight tonight, and it was very stable around -16/-17, so i tried to turn the heat down a little. it took about four hours to go from being a little warm in here to feeling the cold radiating off the walls (which is actually the heat radiating out). so, the temperature outside is not the dominant factor in being able to reduce the heat. the basement temperature has to also increase before the unit temperature can come down.

it's a temperature *difference* thing, of course. if it wasn't so cold, there wouldn't be so much flow. judging from the fact that i didn't really have to turn the heat up until the temperature got below -20, i think that, under a normal winter, and with normal heat sources, ambient heating may even be sufficient. it's just that it's been so unusually cold...

i'm coming from ottawa, where it is often much colder than we've seen this year and last year. these are my first two years here. it seems badly insulated.....relative to what i'd expect for ottawa. and i'll say that if we start getting cold like we've seen the last two years here regularly, this is going to be structurally expensive. i'd argue that you'd have no real choice but to heat the unfinished part of the basement to a basic point (5, 10 degrees, something like that) in order to stop the flow out of here.

but, all factors considered, the walls seem to be able to keep the heat in so long as the temperature outside is not below -15 or so for a significant period of time. once it gets that cold, the walls leak hard - because the basement is unheated. heating the basement with a cheaper source would reverse the issue. but that seems to be rare here.

so, yeah - i started off saying the walls were badly insulated. it's more like they can't handle this weather, but are ok under regular circumstances.

so, final point form suggestions on ways to reduce leakage:

(1) there are big gaps in the doors, and blocking them helped a lot, so weather-proofing the doors would likely make a big difference.
(2) there appears to be a missing plastic strip around the outside of the bedrooms that would likely reduce a low-lying draft if replaced.
(3) the walls are unable to stop leakage when it is very cold, which is the result of a big temperature difference between the inside of the unit (heated) and the unfinished part of the basement (unheated). this appears to be structural, but (once the doors are blocked) is only noticeable when it is unusually cold.

the landlord
I am working on putting a new furnace into the unit next to Paul's unit. I have dropped the temp in that unit since it is vacant and this also affecting the temperature in the basement below. Hopefully within 7 days we will have the new furnace heating with cheaper heat that I can afford. I plan to put a new front and back door with good seals when I can. If you are cold let me know and I will jack the heat up in the unit above the open basement. Please be patient, money and time are available at a slower pace. I have one vacancy also.

jessica
i'm not cold, i'm just trying to get you information regarding the unit from inside of it.

the landlord
Thanks

this is actually legitimately more accurate than most of the contrary arguments, which are based in debunked pseudoscience and hippie bullshit. the reality is that your body doesn't really care what you're giving it, it just cares if it can digest it. it also cares how much of it you're giving it.

real simple formula:
energy in - energy out = energy stored

nothing more to it than that.

now, there's probably enough fuel and nutrients in that meal to last you the whole day. you don't want to eat that twice a day. ever. but if you were to eat it once a day (and nothing else) every single day and not be a total fucking couch potato, you'd probably come back absolutely healthy after a year. conversely, if you were to eat a kg of tomatoes daily while glued to your couch, you'd come back with diabetes.

the key is not what you eat. it's how much you eat.

you really shouldn't be measuring your calories with a calculator, a schedule and a government guideline. healthy people get this little feeling in their stomach that tells them it's time to eat. i'd guess most americans aren't familiar with this, but it's a great tool to use in measuring your calorie intake.

the problem isn't this. the problem is that people eat this as a lunchtime snack, then go home and eat twice as much for supper. it's the sheer bulk of food being consumed. if they were to skip the second or third (or fourth...) meal, they'd be fine with this as a basic fuel source. and, what's at the core of that is this persistent agriculture industry propaganda that we need to be eating three times a day. you evolved to be lucky to eat a significant meal once a week, while you're running around in circles (screaming, with hands in air) avoiding angry lions.

you're fat because the biggest government-subsidized industry out there told you that you need to eat three times a day in order to drive to work in an office, not because you eat high efficiency food from time to time.

i would like to propose that the next american election be devoted to a contest regarding the extent of public displays of affection for america. it should be televised, in prime time. this contest should replace the debates (which have frankly been useless for years, anyways). there should be a call-in or web vote to determine the winner, who will be immediately inaugurated, afterwards, to the tune of the miss america pageant music.

"folks, it seems like bob dole is giving the statue of liberty a handjob. that's going to be tough to beat."

listen....

there was an aircraft carrier on it's way to dock in sevastopol. the americans denied it, of course. "routine patrols". but, it was sailing in that direction.

if you consider the ramifications of a nato aircraft carrier docking in sevastopol, you understand why putin actually prevented (or at least postponed) a major war from breaking out.

it's one of those "minor details" that most people will never really be aware of, but was the dominant factor in the action.

so, you ask "what else could they have done?", but you miss the context.

well, he's a douche bag, sure. but he's not acting in any kind of a professional capacity, other than perhaps behaving in character. he's under no obligation at this point to not be a douche bag. that puts her at a disadvantage in the encounter, but she initiated the encounter...

idiots arguing with idiots...

1) there's literally absolutely zero scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic. it's actually coming from two different things.

i) a legal argument. now, it's a pretty smart legal argument. and it actually worked. the person couldn't be held liable for "sodomy" because there wasn't a choice. texas. now, i'm going to come back to this at (2), but is this really what you want, from a legal perspective?

ii) scientifically, it's a guess. the logic is something like "we can't make sense of this, so it's probably genetic". the amount of positive evidence that exists is zilch. and a little thought should demonstrate that it does not make sense to suggest that we have no agency in the matter. unless you think god made us all as snowflakes. this is what you're really getting at, here - not science, but the softer, more liberal take on christianity. the "god made us all special" kind.

2) it's far more empowering that it's a choice. i'm transgendered. i hate the idea that i didn't have any agency in this, that i was born with some defect or something. no. i woke up one day and said "i'd rather be a chick", i went to the doctor, i explained it and i got some drugs for it. that's empowerment. empowerment is not "i'd change if i could, but i can't". empowerment is "i could be straight if i wanted to, but i want to be gay, and fuck you and your god if you don't like it".

3) sexuality is fluid. you need to do the research on this. there are not categories. sexuality does change.

i don't want to argue about rhetoric. find me a peer-reviewed article, or shut the fuck up. not fucking slashdot. peer reviewed. actual science - that thing you talk about, but obviously don't know anything about.

if you actually go through this process, what you will learn is that:

(1) sexuality is not fully understood, but is thought to be a complex result of primarily environmental factors.
(2) sexuality is fluid.
(3) sexuality is an essential aspect of identity.

...meaning that what the science actually states is three-fold:

(1) sexuality is malleable.
(2) individuals choose their sexuality based on their perceived identity.
(3) it is oppressive to alter people's identity through coercion or force.

i need to be clear that i'm not interested in debating with idiots [and there's as many on the left as the right] and have no patience for patronizing tones on this topic, of which you are so wrong about, and which the actual professional literature is so clear regarding. i will delete your responses unless they include links to peer reviewed literature. and, doing this research for yourself will hopefully allow you to actually learn a few things.

you want to avoid any kind of activist groups. they're as bad as the religious groups. you want to avoid popular science literature. and you want to avoid the mainstream press.

it's a very unfortunate situation, where you have these civil rights groups taking advantage of a legal loop hole to push mass ignorance. the aims of these legal groups are admirable. and the success of the defense says a lot about the incompetence of the legal system. but, from a scientific perspective, this is all wrong. and learning that is a question of doing basic research from respectable sources.

and, as i've noted, a real liberal rights supporter would not line up with these groups. they're pushing religion by stealth.

the science aligns with the rights theory, here: we're autonomous individuals that have the right and ability to make decisions about our personal lives. real atheists should be challenging anything that attempts to contradict that. the absolute deficit of any evidence whatsoever aside, dna is not a magical force. it does not attempt to control our thoughts. the premise is incoherent.

queers need to stop hiding behind the state as a protective sheer, take responsibility for their decisions in life, build allies with other oppressed groups and mobilize against the forces that wish to restrict their personal freedom. this should be a revolutionary flashpoint. instead, it's just more fucking welfare state bullshit. successfully brainwashed.

this is the important week, coming up. the doctor has the papers. by next monday (march 1st), i will either have them completed and ready to mail or i will be forced to generate a crisis. there's no further adjustments or wait-and-sees, it's time for action.

given that i'm planning around a suicide attempt over the next few weeks, it may seem like a weird time to quit smoking. but it's just been far too cold out; bundling up for that kind of weather every hour or two just hasn't been appealing. so, i'm actually at two weeks now. and it seems like it might legitimately hold, this time. the in and out has really lost it's appeal...

we'll see if that changes when the weather warms up. but, for now, i prefer my warm blanket and don't foresee any forthcoming desire to work the constant trips outdoor back into my daily routine.

you would probably expect me to say i love norm macdonald.

and you'd be right.

i suspect that sponge bob could do a much more worthwhile parody of this guy.

this is truly awful

i had some doubts when it happened, but it does appear to be that phil hartman is, in fact, dead - as evidenced by his zombified corpse appearing in these videos.

you're all missing the greater context, here: bill should really be recognized for his war service. i think there should be a petition to get him a medal for his bravery.

i have a good name for the award:

the fletcher memorial home award for excellence in journalism

it should be accompanied by immediate admittance to the home, as a public service, free of charge.

high protein diets create heart problems, not muscle mass. if you want to save the bros, you should be taking this stuff away from them and giving them spaghetti, instead. but, personally? i'd say good riddance.

the consequences of their vanity in this regard are actually quite fitting.

that's a good analysis on the eu in the latter part of the show, i just want to connect the dots a little.

it seems crazy to call the eu "socialist". but you have to understand that the audience doesn't understand what the word means. "socialist" = "bad guys". it's not a political or ideological debate, it's just a smear tactic. they might as well be calling them "poopyheads", it carries as much depth in the discourse. what the british right dislikes about the eu is the same thing that the american right dislikes about the un - it's seen as a threat to what they call "sovereignty", which is in fact their ability to remain rogue states.

you see the same thing in the u.s., where you have these establishment spokespeople like alex jones labeling everything they don't like as "socialism". there's no meaning to it. it's built on cold war propaganda, activating this latent distrust of the red menace and whatnot.

so, you're not going to get anywhere trying to make sense of it. it's absurd, but it doesn't matter. and, perhaps a moment's reflection on how unfortunate the situation is is worthwhile, given the resources that the anglosophere continues to control.

i think you need to separate two different kinds of "mean", here. i hear what you're saying, but i think you're overgeneralizing.

i post a lot of music criticism; some of it is downright ruthless, because i have absurdly high standards. but, i'm criticizing an art form. in turn, i get a lot of hateful reactions. something i'll run into fairly regularly is that i'll post a page length critique of something, and get fifty dumb one-liner responses telling me to impale myself on something. you won't see many of them, because i have a zero tolerance policy on it and delete them on contact, but it's a routine that i need to delete twenty insults when i wake up every morning.

am i being a hypocrite? no. because i'm criticizing a form, not insulting a person. there's a tremendous difference. it doesn't often come off obviously due to the way people express themselves. but, notwithstanding the low level of discourse in the comments sections online, it remains true that "your music is dumb" is not the same thing as "you're dumb".

here's the thing: if you're going to put yourself out there (whether in the form of creating something or reacting to it), you have to expect some criticism. that criticism is fundamental to an open society and inherent in the artform itself; the simple, blunt reality is that it doesn't fucking matter if you like it or not, you've just gotta bloody deal with it. but, it's reasonable to expect that that criticism is grounded in something that's being presented for some sort of interaction and consumption, rather than something irrelevant.

so, the way i see it is that there's really not a need for people to be less mean - you have no right to tell people not to react to something you post. what there is is a need for people to be more relevant in their reactions, and more focused in their criticisms. this ultimately reduces to a failure of the public education system, which needs to be addressed at it's systemic cause, not flailed against with internet slacktivism.

social criticism is itself an artform, when done at a high level of discourse and emotional investment. it can take on the role of being an essayist, the role of performance art, the role of the comedian, the role of the social activist or the role of a punk or folk musician to name a few approaches. the comments section opens up new opportunities to fill this role. and, yes, sometimes it can be downright mean. brutally so. it can ruin people. but, this helps us come face to face with our errors and move forwards. we don't correct ourselves by getting together in these circle jerks and ignoring the outside world. this is the error of modern activism, the dominant reason it is so useless. we have to be constantly challenging our assumptions and biases, and we have to remove ourselves from our mental shelters and barriers in order to be constantly tearing down those preconceptions and assumptions.

but, yeah - i could do with a few less responses along the lines of "u r gay, die homo".

so, i think that if we follow too many rules we'll be putting ourselves on the path to a stagnant society. it's one of the main criticisms that the punk generation had of the hippie generation - that if we end up stuck in this fake huxleyan dystopia, we'll just be floating towards our demise. if you're going to throw a lot of hippie bullshit around, i'm going to have little choice but to throw molotovs at you to wake you up a little.

most of the time, when somebody insults you it's because you deserve it. let's get that point down. getting offended by an insult is consequently kind of the retarded way to react to it - and i mean that literally. it's indicative of an inability to react; the reaction of an unformed mind. it's stupidity. an insult is either an entirely wrong observation and should be ignored, or it's something to learn from. the mere concept of "being offended" is just being ignorant to the concerns of others.

but, it's necessary for the insult to be articulated well to get anything out of it. i can't learn anything from "u the gay, die smell" - well, other than that i ought to block that person. that's the crux, here. we don't need less mean. we need less dumb.

1. overdiagnose autism.
2. ?????
3. profit.

at least they're getting some answers in for 2.

reality: if this works, your kids were never autistic. they were just neglected.

seven kids is a big class size...

Johnny
Middle Eastern women are beautiful. I sincerely hope that ISIS, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban don't decide to behead this one for committing the sinful act of smiling..........

Ariq
I agree with you, but just to help you not get any hate from others in the future, call them Arabs, Arabic is language :)

Johnny
If I'm not messing something up, it's probably because I'm sleeping. Actually, now that you pointed it out, I think it's supposed to be "Arabian". Anyway, thanks for the free education my good sir....

SM-721
She is Iranian, Iranians are not arabs.

Johnny
SWEET MOLASSESS IN THE MORNING!!! You're right! OK, third times the charm. I'll go with "Middle Eastern" and hope for the best.......

SM-72
It's fine man. Middle eastern is okay. Iranian is better though. I hope I encouraged you to learn a little more about Iran (hell, start with wikipedia)

QueenSabaa
As an Iranian, ISIS has nothing to do with Iran, I am a Muslim Iranian girl who practices Islam. we do not support ISIS. Also we can smile and laugh in Iran!!, come on now, that is ignorant to say...

deathtokoalas
the iranian plateau is in a strategic fork between europe and asia, and has consequently experienced large amounts of migration, and, unfortunately, several rounds of genocide. the dominant cultural group in iran is a complex melting pot, and a good case study in separating the various aspects of a cultural group.

the earliest inhabitants would have been darker-skinned and probably migrated westwards from india. they have some descendants in persia. the keyword is balochistan. however, this substratum of iran is very deep and it's legacy today is largely subconscious.

next, there would have been a large migration into iran by people that would have looked like modern day russians. they have left their language to the region, as well as some religious customs; the jewish stories that claim abraham came from persia may have been meant to demonstrate that the monotheistic and dualistic aspects of the religion were persian in origin.

persia quickly became the dominant empire in the region, before embarking in a thousand year war with europe - first greece, then rome. rome and persia would periodically devastate each other, call a truce and then repeat. during one particularly devastating break in the fighting, arabs rose up to take advantage of the situation and conquered all of persia and most of rome at the same time. this is technically the end of the persian empire. for the next five hundred years, iran is inhabited by a primarily european people with shi'ite muslim customs.

then, the mongols appeared. what we now call iran dealt with the worst of their destruction. millions and millions of iranians were slaughtered, and replaced with advancing turkish peoples. the devastation was so severe that iran is understood as having gone through centuries of pure anarchy. and, the truth is that the continuing backwardsness in the afghan highlands is the consequence of the region never fully recovering.

around the year 1500, a new iran arises out of the destruction of the old one. the ethnogenesis mixes turkish genetics and arabic religion with the persian language and a complex cultural tradition drawing from every direction.

so, no - iranians are not arabs. they are generally very light-skinned, and have a similar ethnic background (iranian-turkish) to the great part of the russian federation.

saltyninja
Iran may have nothing to do with ISIS but your social and religious laws are still medieval. It's  crazy. Here from Wikipedia: "Bad hijab" - exposure of any part of the  body other than hands and face - is subject to punishment of up to 70 lashes or 60 days imprisonment. [11][12]  In April 2007, the Tehran police, (which is under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's supervision),  began the most fierce crackdown on what is known as "bad hijab"  in more than a decade. In the capital Tehran thousands of Iranian women were cautioned over their poor Islamic dress and several hundred arrested.[13]"

QueenSabaa
Maybe years ago but NOW there are no lash punishments if your hair is showing, you clearly don't know about Iran. I am a proud Muslim woman. Religion is a choice as mentioned in the Quran and so I don't agree with any "religious" government law but then again it is not like women get killed/lashed for showing hair...

deathtokoalas
i do believe that the laws in iran are rather harsh, if somewhat laxly enforced.

Can Yildirim
I live in middle east and you girl, are lying. it has gotten milder in capitals but harsher in general.

They cant cuz she propably isnt living in iran. and dont believe these lyin comments situation is still somewhat the same. These women has stockholm. Their parents and social environment did that to them..

deathtokoalas
throughout most of the area, the state is generally more violent than the people. so, you have these two things working against each other.

it's like marijuana in the west. there are laws against it, but they generally aren't enforced, and pretty much everybody thinks the laws should be abolished. but, if the state doesn't like your politics or your skin colour or something else then it will enforce the laws as a way to "get you" for that something else. they even use similar language in the united states, where the federal laws have become stricter under obama even as the prohibition is being locally abolished. i'm a canadian on the border. as i was getting my visa information together last year, i learned that marijuana use  (even medical use) was in a list of "immoral behaviour" that could lead to being permanently banned from the country for life. that's the language. "immoral". and, there are border guards, with guns, upholding this "morality". but, how many americans would look at the situation and react with anything but embarrassment? so, how can it really be enforced?

so, yes - the laws are terrible. but they don't really reflect the culture (except on the arabian peninsula) and are consequently not really enforced unless the aim is to punish something else.

regarding women's headdresses, i believe it's largely a generational concern that has no future but abolition. there was an absurd, conservative reaction against a type of forced liberalization. once that reaction dies off, the country should re-open from the ground up. the lesson is that you can't force people to "modernize", you have to let them make their own choices.

Pirouz Kas
+QueenSabaa Hi, I am Atheist. It is hypocrisy, that you built up an Islamic Republic by massacring apostates. I feel so sorry for the HUMANS, who have suffered or fled from their home country.
Can you Islamic Republic supporters tell me, why it is worth it??

But before answering, just read a little from these two links please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_diaspora
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight_from_Iran

deathtokoalas
i'm not a supporter of the islamic revolution, or much into foucault, but i need to caution against wiki as a source for politicized information of this nature. it's open nature and quasi-authoritarian tone makes it an ideal tool for state propaganda.

Pirouz Kas
You do not need sources for that. If you live in the west, just go and search for any Iranian. 99% high educated, 90% not religious.

deathtokoalas
all states have unjust laws, and the culture in iran is of course very different, religious or not. a lot of the issue is consequently dependent on the actual brutality of the state. and there's propaganda coming from every direction.

i don't wish to discourage the discussion. i'd just caution against sourcing from wikipedia on politicized issues.

i've never been much of a beck fan. i mean, it's hard to be a fan of high quality pop music and be unaware of his existence, but he's always struck me as more than a little bit boring. you have to respect the production work. but, when you strip it back, there's never really been very compelling songs under the gloss. he's never had anything worthwhile to say in his vocals, either, so you can't retreat to the poet defense like you can with dylan or whomever else. so, i'm not approaching listening to a beck disc with any kind of attachment. if anything, i would have relatively low expectations based on his previous output being very, very overrated.

to be blunt, i'm astounded by this. i'd have never guessed it was beck. where's the snazzy drum beats that i can write off as hipster goofiness? the ironic cool that i can look down on as trying too hard to appear to not be trying? this is just generic, boring white revivalism through the tiring veneer of the pretend 60s, as they've been sold back to us through the commercialist gloss of 90s revisionism. the grammies aren't exactly known for being current, but this is dramatically out of date. why not just drop the bullshit and give the grammy to the velvet fucking underground?

however, i think it's more than just another head scratching decision. it's reflective of something that's been happening in settler culture for several years, now. it's not white culture, exactly. i have white skin, but i can't relate to this. i'm of mixed background, but (excluding some aboriginal ancestry) have no ancestors on this continent before the year 1900 and none of them ever owned any property. they came over as labourers in the industrial period, not as colonizers. i'm an urbanite to the core, my ancestors have been urban as far as i can trace them, and i'm consequently only able to understand urban culture. so, i identify mostly with urban european art music and the north american forms that have developed out of it. while i feel no inherent connection to either of them, i understand jazz as an urban art form far better than i understand country music; as a rural form, it is entirely alien to me. so, it's an important distinction.

but, this choice is a cultural decision. it's the result of some kind of rural revival in the remnants of what could be called settler culture. it's the result of this increasing ethnogenesis of white, settler-derived america around 60s "liberalism", and the artforms that are seen as reflective of it. rock is dead, but this kind of folk carries on and will likely carry on for some time. in a cultural sense, this is american classical music - or on the cusp of becoming it.

the grammy was given to beck, but it was really given to bob dylan and lou reed and the music of the era, in general. beck is quite honestly being recognized for his whiteness, and his contributions in furthering what is perceived as a dying culture. the decision was made by people in the twilight of their lives, grasping to their own existence. it was meant to further the legacy of their generation and their culture, not to award a current album for it's excellence or importance.

kanye consequently has a valid point, even if the soundclips aren't able to articulate his position very strongly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqKeK8CIjxI

listen, i think it's a little unfair to assign all of this to racism. some of it, sure. most of it is actually entirely legit. i'm a hard leftist, and i was thinking a lot of the same things at the time about not really knowing who this guy was, who he was really working for or what we were going to get. his policy statements seemed to be entirely in contradiction with the media narrative. on the other hand, hillary was a known commodity, with decades of identifiable policy goals.

now, as a hard leftist, i wouldn't have considered voting republican. and, the truth is i probably wouldn't have been able to convince myself to actually vote for hillary, either, despite cheering her on as the lesser evil from the sidelines up here in canada. but, i certainly wouldn't have voted for obama, as i realized from the get-go that he was very right-wing. and hindsight has demonstrated that these concerns were legitimate. hillary supported single-payer healthcare, for example. i think she would have taken a far more progressive approach on a number of things, and may have even had a less aggressive foreign policy (although i know a lot of this is coming from the military, and the commander-in-chief is largely a figurehead nowadays). judging by bill's obstructionism on a few things, i don't think she's as "captured", either.

it's not quite an adlai stevenson circumstance, but i think it's rather apparent that the wrong choice was made. and, i think history will largely uphold that. obama was an unknown, and the result has been a conservative in disguise that's been a real disaster for progressive voters.

it's a legitimate question for historians to analyze, and one they'll be analyzing for a long time: how did americans make such a clearly wrong decision? and, by any objective basis, it's a wrong decision. there's a lot of excuses. hillary won the popular vote. obama was the establishment, wall street candidate. etc. but it's still a serious question that needs to be grappled with, and no doubt will be for a very long time...

again: elizabeth warren's solution to the crisis of capitalism is market theory. and this is somehow understood as left-wing? she's the textbook definition of a moderate republican. there's a really big problem when a right-leaning liberal republican like her is universally presented as "left". i mean, if this is as far as the spectrum goes then there's no answer to any of the problems in front of us...

the government tends to talk to her like she's an idiot. and, to a large extent, that's the right approach. it's a type of very hollow populism that seems geared for political mileage, but doesn't have any real answers connected to it. and, everybody in the room seems to realize it except the reporters.

lew is right. the size of the institution is not very important. that's what we learned in the 30s. you can split a cartel up, but you can't stop it from oligopolizing. much more radical solutions are required.

Gazzasore
No bail out should happen If a Bank fails close it. Jail the people that cause the problem  Look what Iceland did

deathtokoalas
did you know that, if you did that, then everybody that has their money in the bank would lose everything?

the bailouts were initially a type of social safety net. by setting up a lender of last resort, people can be sure that their money is safe when they put it in the bank. if you take that away, the entire nature of the economy shifts to one where bank runs start happening regularly, and the whole system becomes inherently unstable.

i mean, personally? if i didn't know that my money is safe in the bank through the lender of last resort, i would keep it under my mattress.

we don't need more social darwinism. we need laws that prevent the banks from gambling private savings.

se7ensnakes
Its not american taxpayers that get stuck with the bill, that is a misnomer.  The real people that get stuck with the bail out is anyone that uses money, because now you have inflation

deathtokoalas
this is correct. in fact, what we call "bailouts" are actually low interest loans and, in the end, taxpayers (in the vector of the state) actually make a profit from it.

the most current data suggests that the federal government has profited roughly 50 billion dollars (53.1 billion) on interest paid back on the loans, and there remains outstanding debt to collect. i have no idea where that money goes, but it's probably nowhere good.

the shitstorm is all media bullshit and opportunistic politics.

i'd much rather be hated and despised than loved or admired. love is mostly an illusion, driven by the false projection of idealized fantasies on to reality. love is solipsism. but hate is a real reaction, a legitimate interaction in objective existence.

psyssi
Adolf Hitler, Kaiser Wilhelm, Charles XII, and Napoleon were all men who thought they could conquer Russia in the winter.

Robert
Karl XII did not loose vs russia due to the winter. He lost because of an incompetent general, who led the last battle, and who surrendered with the bulk of the army intact, and thus because of the low morale of the army. Winter was never a matter of defeat for the swedish army vs russa.

deathtokoalas
it seems as though you need to add barack obama to that list.

José Ignacio Panario Güenaga
+Robert More to the contrary, actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_(1700)

deathtokoalas
i don't really want to get into this, but the great northern war is fundamentally different than the invasions pushed by napoleon, hitler and, now, it seems, obama. it's not a good idea to do direct comparisons. 

The Basileus
Aha yes congrats to the mongols they are the true winners they conquered a land full of A: a whole load of nothing of other incompetent horse lords and a bunch of Russian principalities that were incompetent the only nations that were challenges for them was the Muslims and the Chinese and well the mongols are the master race right look at them today lets all face it people over glorify the mongols the European powers rocketed way above the mongols and the mongols will forever in history be known as a scourge and cancer had the mongols faced a united Russian empire under someone competent

deathtokoalas
the mongols were unable to conquer japan, despite several tries over several centuries.

Nickrr1992
+psyssi To be fair to Napoleon he did reach Moscow or what was left of it. Russia adopted a scorched earth tactic, so when the French army arrived there was no supplies or anyway to maintain the army also the Russian army was raiding supply escorts and coupled with the extreme cold the French army had a massive problem. Napoleon lost due to widespread disease, malnutrition and lack  supplies to continue forward so was forced to retreat

deathtokoalas
+Nickrr1992 i think the underlying context that everybody missed - and continues to miss - is that russia has never been a wealthy country. a look at the map can be misleading. when the rich parisians and berliners made it to the heart of the transcontinental empire, they seem to have been unprepared to adjust to the frugality of existence that is necessary at the northernmost tip of civilization.

the romans never conquered arabia. it wasn't because they couldn't - it was that they felt the land was useless.

jessica murray
think it through, guys. would a group opposed to a pipeline due to the threat of spills decide to blow one up, thereby spilling oil everywhere? does that make any sense? i've been involved with these groups, and let me tell you that "highly disorganized and mostly on welfare" is the actual truth of it. unfortunately, people end up drawn to activism after they've failed at something else, and there's consequently a substantial problem with a lack of education. under that, there's a core of utopian socialists and quasi-anarchists that keep it running through creative use of limited resources. the highly organized and well-financed movement (with foreign backers) is the petroleum industry.

www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/rcmp-documents-warn-environmental-groups-could-pose-threat/45699/?ddlMonth=month&ddlYear=2016 

MH
Sure, just like the FBI saying the same about Martin Luther King and his fellow "communist" Civil Rights Workers, and the RCMP planting evidence to claim Ludwig Weibo was planning to bomb pipelines. These activists aren't "anti-Canada," they're anti-the oil and gas companies who own Harper & the Tories and will stop at nothing to increase their profits. It's Harper & his cronies who are "anti-Canada"; they'll destroy the Canadian environment and sicken or kill Canadians to make that profit.

jessica murray
if these groups had any money or structure, they'd use it to lobby parliament, like every other well-funded group (including the petroleum industry) does in our money-buys-influence "democracy". street protests are always the behaviour of the disenfranchised.

reality:
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-top-lobby-groups-in-ottawa/

KW
The groups do have substantial funding. Vivian Krause has documented the money trail at http://business.financialpost.com/2010/10/14/u-s-foundations-against-the-oil-sands/ $6 Million is not chump change to fund protest groups. As for the risk of terror activities, one only has to look at Daniel Johnson formerly on the Green Party of Sask. executive as he demonstrates how to cause train accidents through sabotaging of signal lights. http://www.genuinewitty.com/2013/08/18/saskatchewan-green-party-executive-promotes-train-sabotage-feat-daniel-johnson/

jessica murray
keith, the kind of foundations you're talking about do exist, but the purpose is largely to fund business opportunities in renewable energy and whatnot. activists on the ground consider these groups to be working against their interests in actually ending the fossil fuel economy. the anti-pipeline groups i was involved with (who advocated forms of civil disobedience like what was seen in new brunswick last year) were actively campaigning against both the green party and the ndp. that's part of the reason they're being targeted. so, the error is in connecting these groups to the protest groups. these are two very different things, with very different goals, and you can't conflate them.

one of the dominant aims of the american military establishment right now is in blocking petroleum exports to china. the article that keith posted has a little bit about that. that's not environmentalism, it's trade obstructionism. you can see some of this in the ndp's line on the pipelines, as well. it's willing to support pipelines that are connected to local refineries, and opposed to pipelines that export oil to us refineries. that's not an environmentalist position, it's a position meant to create union jobs. the grassroots organizations pushing the visible protests mostly understand all of this stuff, although they may get tricked sometimes.

the longer you think that police exist to protect the citizenry, the longer they will oppress you. that's the lie that allows the oppression to function.

the police exist to uphold class relations, and particularly to protect private property. their function is to protect the rich from the poor.

mass consciousness of this point is an absolutely necessary prerequisite to dismantling the police state.

the sad truth is that this was the second highest selling single in the us in the 60s. the only thing that outsold it was i want to hold your hand. and while it's depressing that that tune is the biggest beatles hit, it's even more distressing that this outsold all the anti-war music. by leaps and bounds.

the 60s, as they have been sold to younger listeners, are mostly a lie. the beatles were very popular. but you need to go way, way down the list to get to dylan or mitchell or anything else with any kind of social conscience. the reality is that it was a fringe counter-culture.

but, you've probably never heard of this before, have you? the counter-culture was fringe then, but it became dominant because the fringe had the balls (with all due respect to the women involved) to stand up against the market and wave it's freak flag high. now, the 60s mainstream is lost in obscurity. you wouldn't recognize more than half of the most popular songs of the era, but you'd recognize all kinds of stuff that didn't sell at all.

people complain that the market doesn't respond to a counter-culture anymore. but it never did. building a counter-culture is not a profitable business venture. if it sees a financial reward at all, it's not going to happen for years or decades. it's about changing attitudes.

see, this is legitimately ridiculous. these people have no idea what this guy's views on the illegal occupation and ongoing genocide of palestine are. he could be the world's biggest noam chomsky fan; he could have helped fund some of those flotillas. what you're seeing here is flat out stupidity.

i got the impression that the doctor i saw today was finally taking me seriously. if i'm making progress, i'd rather play the process out than freak out. it's just that i'm running out of time.

i've set a mental deadline for the first. i have an appointment on the 3rd. if i get the papers in time, great. if not, the third is the proper opportunity....

i'm essentially certain at this point that i will be overdosing on aspirin at the windsor city health centre on the afternoon of february 17th. i do not expect the doctor i am going to see to take me seriously, and, as such, i expect this to be a necessary step. in order to pre-empt any malpractice by the staff there, and ensure they are held liable for criminal negligence should it occur, i would like to clarify a few facts about what is going to happen before it happens.

1) i will not be armed with any sort of weapon, and do not plan on harming anybody except for myself. should reports surface that i was armed, these reports should be understood as false.
2) i will not consume any aspirin before i enter the center.
3) i will inform medical professionals that i am about to consume the aspirin before i consume it.

2&3 together will provide ample time for an ambulance to arrive. should the ambulance not arrive, or should it arrive too late, the only conclusion will be criminal negligence, and i will expect that the relevant staff be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

4) my goals tomorrow are not to kill myself, but merely to draw attention to the high level of incompetency in the psychiatrists that i'm dealing with. i've spoken to several, and they all believe i am bluffing when i claim i am suicidal. but, i am not bluffing. the fact that i am not bluffing is the key point i need to get across. if there are professional consequences for gross incompetence in misdiagnosis, i believe they are appropriately enforced, in context. but the important point is that i'm able to get to a doctor that understands that i am not bluffing.

abstractly, i am reversing the work or die ultimatum that the market places on all of us and directing it at the doctors. they have the choice to diagnose or be held liable for the consequences. and, i'm a smart, and creative person - i can ensure that there are dramatic consequences.

the severity of these stunts will increase until the papers are filled out. i will broadcast certain aspects of the stunt before they occur, but not so much as would prevent them.

the one thing i want to make clear is that i have no intention of harming anybody else directly, through physical means.

however, the threat to myself will increase with each stunt as the necessity of diagnosis becomes increasingly clear and the liability for the doctors becomes increasingly dramatic.

i want to be clear that the only acceptable outcomes from my perspective are getting the papers signed or committing suicide; there is no third option.

so, this is all entirely preventable, if the right choice is made to fill out the papers.

the title is indeed some kind of weird civil war era troll baiting.

"yankees try confederate food"

who the fuck talks like that...

i can't believe he's still doing this skit...

triumph may very well be the most successful sock puppet comedian in american history.

i think you need to be careful with this animal.

he was obviously expecting you to throw him meat, and turned his back on you when you didn't. intentional or not, that's teasing it, and teasing a tiger isn't a good idea. it demonstrated it's displeasure.

the big area may seem like a good idea, but you kind of can't have it both ways with a "pet" tiger. you either need to leave it in your house and treat it like a dog, or you need to leave it in an enclosure and treat it like a wild animal. the reason is that the tiger is spending it's "alone time" being a tiger, rather than being a dog or a pet, which enforces various instinctual tiger habits. like eating humans, for example, which happen to be a part of a tiger's natural diet. there's an evolutionary relationship, there; a predator-prey relationship. don't forget that. but it's not really a consequence of a tiger being "wild" - the same thing happens when you leave a dog outside all of the time.

it's easy to think "a tiger should have a big area". and maybe that's true. but, a tiger in a big area stops being a pet and starts being a tiger. what's important is that that shift in mindset is not just understood abstractly but enforced concretely.

it seems like you want to put a lot of effort into this thing. and it's easy to anthropomorphize. but i see a lot of warning signs in this video, and need to request extreme caution.

as i grew older, i'm consistently amazed at how far-reaching the satire on the simpsons truly was.

that's dr. hibbert, right there. clear as day.

it's easy to ridicule them as backwards savages or whatever, but they've got somewhat of a point. they've been eating this stuff for centuries, but it just appears now? see, there's an answer to that or there isn't; i know records in the region are likely to be scant, but there must be a way to demonstrate that transmitting disease from "bush meat" is not new.

further, there's a history of industry acting like that. example: when the auto industry shut down public transit in detroit and toronto so that people would have to buy cars. and oil. you'd have to expect industry to try and demonize the black market any way it can. waving your hands at it doesn't negate the fundamental truth.

worse, we bloody well know that whites have done some pretty terrible things regarding vaccines and viruses, much of it aimed at blacks. every once in a while, you continue to hear stories about how involuntary sterilization still happens throughout the united states and also in western canada. that's just a surface observation on a global eugenics system that can get - and has gotten - downright gruesome.

so, it's one thing to point out that they're jumping to conclusions - and it's completely correct to point it out. but, you can't write their suspicions off. every single thing i heard in this video is an entirely plausible hypothesis. and, in the end, we may very well learn that there's a level of truth in some of it.

tigers can't pass the mirror test, which means that if you raise a young tiger with dogs then it will grow up thinking that it's a dog. worse, the dogs can't pass the mirror test either, so they think the tiger is just another dog. what you're seeing is hierarchical pack behaviour; none of the animals understand the danger they're in. which means there isn't really a danger.

it's interesting to note the practice of treeing cougars, who are thought to be the cheetah's closest relative. the logic in the video seems reasonable, and it would likely hold if you're talking about a wild cheetah vs. your cute golden retriever. but, you don't have to get as big and violent as a pit bull to instill a legitimate level of fear in most species of wild cats.

i think that variation is consequently the important factor. if 100 controlled experiments were carried out, i'd guess the cheetah would win something like 70 of them. but, i think there are some pit bulls that could pull it off.

i would expect that this dog will eventually maul it's owner for the purposes of eating it. that's like owning a pet tiger, basically.

it's horrific police state violence and everything, but you have to admit the guy deserves a darwin award.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-0uqFTBclo

we don't understand the causes and consequently can't make predictions; you can't take this seriously. however, the exceedingly weak maximum we're falling from right now does suggest that we can expect another five or six years of cold weather in the northern hemisphere. that's a long way from predicting an ice age. but it's absolutely an annoyance that the mainstream models need to come to terms with, and this is consequently worth listening to - even with that caveat. it's not as simple as to say more sun = more hot (otherwise mercury would be hotter than venus, right...), even though it comes off that way if you're standing in eastern north america, but the reality is that the strength of the sun seems to have a historical effect on the path the jetstream takes over the great lakes, and that that is and will continue to be a far more dominant weather occurrence than any kind of radiative process.......

if the sun rebounds in the next cycle, the result could be massive and almost sudden warning in a way that could be flat out catastrophic. and, while it didn't happen, i was hoping that the little bump at the maximum was going to be enough to save us from the worst of it for at least this winter.

but, for now, it seems like the medium term forecast in eastern north america is going to be very cold for the next several years. as the rest of the world warms...