Grandma Roses
Why does anyone believe that using conventional warfare against a non-state enemy would have any effect?
Why does anyone believe that creating more martyrs for 'the cause' will have a negative effect on ISIS? If anything, it will make ISIS more determined.
booyakasha
That's why you kill all of them.
jessica murray
to carry out this plan, funerals are the best targets. you have to make sure you get the kids, first and foremost. that's getting to the root cause.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/g20-syria-paris-attacks-1.3319701
Sunday, November 15, 2015
wait a second, here.
i'm not convinced it was isis, and trudeau may not have been fully informed about the nature of the mission, but for brevity let's go with the dominant media narrative.
bill maher made headlines last night by suggesting that the attacks on paris were a consequence of the attacks on isis. he articulated a opinion that is actually fairly widely shared by liberals - that the attacks can only make things worse. and, was this not trudeau's argument in the first place? if he argued the attacks only make things worse, and then the attacks produce a terrible response, that suggests he was right. it in no way suggests he should modify his proposals; to the contrary, it suggests he should stick to them.
if you hold to the dominant media narrative, the obvious conclusion with the mission is that we're fighting with one hand behind our back. isis is a bunch of hoodlums operating on some kind of medieval ideology (if that...). if has no chance of withstanding a serious nato offensive. but, nato has been unwilling to go in all the way and really bludgeon them.
(which certainly begs the question as to *why*, but we're sticking with the dominant media narrative, here)
trudeau's logic could lead to a continuation of bombing if it's also an escalation of bombing. that is, if the americans want to take the lead in seriously bombing these idiots into a crater, then it could very well seriously destroy them, and that would be entirely rational from the perspective he's argued from. but, his logic absolutely rejects continuing the kind of half-serious attacks that nato has been pushing, which accomplish nothing besides further radicalization and an escalation of the problem.
the idea behind focusing on training instead of bombing is that it's more likely to actually work. it's not a "dove" position. it's simple pragmatism.
what happened in paris doesn't - and won't - change anything unless the americans seriously evaluate how they're fighting this. and even that might not be convincing.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/paris-attacks-trudeau-isis-1.3319277
RonRaygin
No it's only "piecemeal" attacks to the toenails that make things worse. We have to believably threaten of attack the heart.
We have not yet threatened the only thing they truly care about, and cannot lose. And, that is obviously not their lives, or their childrens lives.
jessica murray
well, it will be a cold day in hell when i take advice from the gipper. but, think about what you're saying.
i agree - and pointed out in this post - that a serious, all-out total blitz on isis with the intent of absolute annihilation is consistent with trudeau's position. it's also a call for genocide.
you could imagine a cartoon strip, with some academics talking with some politicians.
academic: every time you kill a terrorist, you create five more. it's a culture that roots itself in feudal perceptions of honour and the subsequent deduction of revenge. have you seen the princess bride? you're creating a bunch of inigo montoyas, all looking for their six-fingered men. 'you killed my father. prepare to die.'. you need to get to the root cause of this, which is the radicalization.
politician: get to the root cause, huh.
the next still would show them dropping a nuclear bomb, and building a fence around the area to prevent survivors from escaping.
if you follow the logic of excessive force through, that is what you get: the extermination of entire villages. vietnam-style mass aerial slaughter. fire-bombings of cities, or, dare i say it, actual nuclear attacks. there's no middle point.
the cold reality is that it might work - if it is barbaric enough. but, then what have we become?
again: the tactic of sending in advisers is not pacifist. it's pragmatic. we either need to convince them, or we need to start thinking in terms of committing atrocities. the status quo is a failure. and both approaches may be consistent with the argument that the status quo is a failure. but, you'll excuse me for preferring the former.
i don't see any reason why we should tie ourselves to failed strategies that target ourselves without getting to the root causes.
i'm not convinced it was isis, and trudeau may not have been fully informed about the nature of the mission, but for brevity let's go with the dominant media narrative.
bill maher made headlines last night by suggesting that the attacks on paris were a consequence of the attacks on isis. he articulated a opinion that is actually fairly widely shared by liberals - that the attacks can only make things worse. and, was this not trudeau's argument in the first place? if he argued the attacks only make things worse, and then the attacks produce a terrible response, that suggests he was right. it in no way suggests he should modify his proposals; to the contrary, it suggests he should stick to them.
if you hold to the dominant media narrative, the obvious conclusion with the mission is that we're fighting with one hand behind our back. isis is a bunch of hoodlums operating on some kind of medieval ideology (if that...). if has no chance of withstanding a serious nato offensive. but, nato has been unwilling to go in all the way and really bludgeon them.
(which certainly begs the question as to *why*, but we're sticking with the dominant media narrative, here)
trudeau's logic could lead to a continuation of bombing if it's also an escalation of bombing. that is, if the americans want to take the lead in seriously bombing these idiots into a crater, then it could very well seriously destroy them, and that would be entirely rational from the perspective he's argued from. but, his logic absolutely rejects continuing the kind of half-serious attacks that nato has been pushing, which accomplish nothing besides further radicalization and an escalation of the problem.
the idea behind focusing on training instead of bombing is that it's more likely to actually work. it's not a "dove" position. it's simple pragmatism.
what happened in paris doesn't - and won't - change anything unless the americans seriously evaluate how they're fighting this. and even that might not be convincing.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/paris-attacks-trudeau-isis-1.3319277
RonRaygin
No it's only "piecemeal" attacks to the toenails that make things worse. We have to believably threaten of attack the heart.
We have not yet threatened the only thing they truly care about, and cannot lose. And, that is obviously not their lives, or their childrens lives.
jessica murray
well, it will be a cold day in hell when i take advice from the gipper. but, think about what you're saying.
i agree - and pointed out in this post - that a serious, all-out total blitz on isis with the intent of absolute annihilation is consistent with trudeau's position. it's also a call for genocide.
you could imagine a cartoon strip, with some academics talking with some politicians.
academic: every time you kill a terrorist, you create five more. it's a culture that roots itself in feudal perceptions of honour and the subsequent deduction of revenge. have you seen the princess bride? you're creating a bunch of inigo montoyas, all looking for their six-fingered men. 'you killed my father. prepare to die.'. you need to get to the root cause of this, which is the radicalization.
politician: get to the root cause, huh.
the next still would show them dropping a nuclear bomb, and building a fence around the area to prevent survivors from escaping.
if you follow the logic of excessive force through, that is what you get: the extermination of entire villages. vietnam-style mass aerial slaughter. fire-bombings of cities, or, dare i say it, actual nuclear attacks. there's no middle point.
the cold reality is that it might work - if it is barbaric enough. but, then what have we become?
again: the tactic of sending in advisers is not pacifist. it's pragmatic. we either need to convince them, or we need to start thinking in terms of committing atrocities. the status quo is a failure. and both approaches may be consistent with the argument that the status quo is a failure. but, you'll excuse me for preferring the former.
i don't see any reason why we should tie ourselves to failed strategies that target ourselves without getting to the root causes.
at
02:49
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
what’s being lost in this discussion is the underlying idea that training local forces to fight on the ground will be more *effective* than aerial strikes. i know, i know – when people hear the word “liberal”, they think of anti-war activists. but has canada so quickly forgotten what the term “liberal” actually means?
this isn’t a question of engagement or withdrawal. it’s a question of smart tactics that might work versus stupid tactics that clearly haven’t, and there’s no reason to think magically will. when something fails, doing more of it isn’t an “evidence-based” response.
www.macleans.ca/news/canada/deadly-attacks-renew-debate-over-trudeau-warplane-strategy/
this isn’t a question of engagement or withdrawal. it’s a question of smart tactics that might work versus stupid tactics that clearly haven’t, and there’s no reason to think magically will. when something fails, doing more of it isn’t an “evidence-based” response.
www.macleans.ca/news/canada/deadly-attacks-renew-debate-over-trudeau-warplane-strategy/
at
02:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Saturday, November 14, 2015
14-11-2015: vampire belt (detroit)
their music:
http://www.cor-sano.com/vampirebelt/
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23UboXAEw60
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/14.html
http://www.cor-sano.com/vampirebelt/
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23UboXAEw60
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/14.html
at
22:55
Location:
Detroit, MI, USA
these are my notes to the 1892 introduction of socialism: scientific and utopian. the introduction is sometimes split into it's own text, and given the title of on historical materialism.
===
this cursory delve into the mainstream philosophical questions of the day aside, the text is actually primarily a brief history lesson. it places the three major battles of the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy within the context of the english and continental approaches to religion. central to marxist history is, of course, the idea of class struggle, particularly between three classes: the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. also keep in mind that the purpose of religion within a marxist framework is, of course, to control the population....
the first battle between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie was the reformation. marx keys in on two of the many reformers, luther and calvin, in order to contrast what happened in england with what happened in germany. in germany, the aristocracy won handily; lutheranism became, like roman christianity, a deeply feudal religion. calvin, on the other hand, produced republican movements in holland, scotland and england, the latter of which led to the second struggle, the "glorious revolution". this "glorious" revolution, however, was somewhat of a failure; the english aristocracy had actually defeated the upstart bourgeoisie, placed it back under its own subservience and left it in philosophical ignorance. enlightened philosophies such as materialism continued to be hoarded by the aristocracy; the bourgeoisie languished in the ignorance of christianity. on the continent, however, materialism flourished and with it came the third battle, the french revolution. according to engels, the french revolution was the first time that the bourgeoisie successfully usurped power from the aristocracy (for a brief time).
while the french revolution was occurring in france, the industrial revolution was occurring in england. by definition, the primary beneficiaries of the industrial revolution would be the english bourgeoisie, who finally saw their power eclipse the aristocracy - through peaceful, financial means and not through violent class struggle. the bourgeoisie then used that newfound financial power to gain political power by passing bills through parliament, such as the reform act. in other words, they legislated themselves into power; however, they were never able to push the aristocracy out of power. a second conclusion of the industrial revolution was the creation of a new class, the proletariat, which began for the first time to organize politically through the creation of new parties, such as the chartists in england. all of that led to the first uprisings of the proletariat, in 1848, which were crushed not by the bourgeoisie but by the aristocracy. interestingly, engels notes that the british aristocracy responded to these uprisings by increasing funding for religious proselytization across the country side.
the years after 1848 saw increasing unrest amongst the proletariat throughout europe, especially in germany. again, engels points out that the bourgeoisie and aristocracy came to the common conclusion that, in order to prevent the "destruction of society", the working class must be evangelized. in england, no such approach was necessary because the british aristocracy had already spent lavishly on maintaining a religious proletariat and bourgeoisie; engels comes to his key statement of the essay while discussing this,
They had come to grief with materialism. "Die Religionmuss dem Volk erhalten werden" — religion must be kept alive for the people — that was the only and the last means to save society from utter ruin. Unfortunately for themselves, they did not find this out until they had done their level best to break up religion for ever. And now it was the turn of the British bourgeoisie to sneer and to say: "Why, you fools, I could have told you that 200 years ago!"
engels ends the essay by deducing that germany, not england, will be the scene of the first proletarian revolution.
====
now, this is not to specifically endorse the marxist position, so much to point out that marx would actually agree with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc
the correct marxist analysis of the situation is that the elite have determined that if white people will no longer submit to religion, they must be replaced by people who will - or society will "collapse" into communism.
or, to put it another way: white people make shitty slaves.
the way for leftists to address this is through continuing to actively fight against religion through persuasion. that is, to take the position of a dawkins or a hitchens in trying to win the intellectual battle. a true leftist would not see these artificial boundaries of nation-states and seek to erect walls; they would see the struggle against religion as global, and take the opportunity to combat it when it's in front of them. the most important lesson the left ought to have learned from the 20th century is that communism cannot be local to be effective.
===
this cursory delve into the mainstream philosophical questions of the day aside, the text is actually primarily a brief history lesson. it places the three major battles of the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy within the context of the english and continental approaches to religion. central to marxist history is, of course, the idea of class struggle, particularly between three classes: the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. also keep in mind that the purpose of religion within a marxist framework is, of course, to control the population....
the first battle between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie was the reformation. marx keys in on two of the many reformers, luther and calvin, in order to contrast what happened in england with what happened in germany. in germany, the aristocracy won handily; lutheranism became, like roman christianity, a deeply feudal religion. calvin, on the other hand, produced republican movements in holland, scotland and england, the latter of which led to the second struggle, the "glorious revolution". this "glorious" revolution, however, was somewhat of a failure; the english aristocracy had actually defeated the upstart bourgeoisie, placed it back under its own subservience and left it in philosophical ignorance. enlightened philosophies such as materialism continued to be hoarded by the aristocracy; the bourgeoisie languished in the ignorance of christianity. on the continent, however, materialism flourished and with it came the third battle, the french revolution. according to engels, the french revolution was the first time that the bourgeoisie successfully usurped power from the aristocracy (for a brief time).
while the french revolution was occurring in france, the industrial revolution was occurring in england. by definition, the primary beneficiaries of the industrial revolution would be the english bourgeoisie, who finally saw their power eclipse the aristocracy - through peaceful, financial means and not through violent class struggle. the bourgeoisie then used that newfound financial power to gain political power by passing bills through parliament, such as the reform act. in other words, they legislated themselves into power; however, they were never able to push the aristocracy out of power. a second conclusion of the industrial revolution was the creation of a new class, the proletariat, which began for the first time to organize politically through the creation of new parties, such as the chartists in england. all of that led to the first uprisings of the proletariat, in 1848, which were crushed not by the bourgeoisie but by the aristocracy. interestingly, engels notes that the british aristocracy responded to these uprisings by increasing funding for religious proselytization across the country side.
the years after 1848 saw increasing unrest amongst the proletariat throughout europe, especially in germany. again, engels points out that the bourgeoisie and aristocracy came to the common conclusion that, in order to prevent the "destruction of society", the working class must be evangelized. in england, no such approach was necessary because the british aristocracy had already spent lavishly on maintaining a religious proletariat and bourgeoisie; engels comes to his key statement of the essay while discussing this,
They had come to grief with materialism. "Die Religionmuss dem Volk erhalten werden" — religion must be kept alive for the people — that was the only and the last means to save society from utter ruin. Unfortunately for themselves, they did not find this out until they had done their level best to break up religion for ever. And now it was the turn of the British bourgeoisie to sneer and to say: "Why, you fools, I could have told you that 200 years ago!"
engels ends the essay by deducing that germany, not england, will be the scene of the first proletarian revolution.
====
now, this is not to specifically endorse the marxist position, so much to point out that marx would actually agree with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc
the correct marxist analysis of the situation is that the elite have determined that if white people will no longer submit to religion, they must be replaced by people who will - or society will "collapse" into communism.
or, to put it another way: white people make shitty slaves.
the way for leftists to address this is through continuing to actively fight against religion through persuasion. that is, to take the position of a dawkins or a hitchens in trying to win the intellectual battle. a true leftist would not see these artificial boundaries of nation-states and seek to erect walls; they would see the struggle against religion as global, and take the opportunity to combat it when it's in front of them. the most important lesson the left ought to have learned from the 20th century is that communism cannot be local to be effective.
at
12:04
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Friday, November 13, 2015
seems like the russians just reacted pre-emptively in paris.
(everybody knows that isis is a proxy front for the saudi-nato alliance, right?)
http://www.latinopost.com/articles/27191/20151113/isis-threatens-russia-kremlin-will-be-ours.htm
(everybody knows that isis is a proxy front for the saudi-nato alliance, right?)
http://www.latinopost.com/articles/27191/20151113/isis-threatens-russia-kremlin-will-be-ours.htm
at
20:29
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'm sorry, but these are not logical targets. josh homme may be the master of desert rock, but that alone doesn't make him a target for religious extremists. rather, this strikes me as a disgusting attempt to derail the climate talks. the only question in my mind is whether it's being derailed by nato or russia - and i would suggest russia is the more likely culprit, given their history of this (see climategate).
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-shooting-attacks-explosion-1.3318444
--
still no claim of responsibility.
when a terrorist group carries out an attack, the first thing they do is claim responsibility. this is true of every terrorist group, from the ira to aum shinrikyo. if it was isis, or al qaeda, we'd know by now - because they'd have told us.
terrorism is not about committing a crime and then trying to get away with it. it's about brazenly creating a disruption, then trying to draw as much attention to the cause as possible. it's a protest tactic.
there are a number of possible other suspects that may have motives that are more stealth, but understand this: every single one of them is going to stage it as an attack by muslims. if it's some kind of excuse to create a police state for the cop21 [i doubt that - this is far too extreme], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists. if it's some kind of attempt by the oil industry to derail cop21 [i doubt that - this is the thing of science fiction], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists. if it's an operation by russian black ops to derail the cop21 [this is my guess....and perhaps with other goals as well], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists.
on it's own, this consequently suggests nothing of value - other than that whomever organized it set it up to look like an attack by muslim extremists.
i think the russians are the only really serious suspect, right now. the organization. the kalashnikovs. chechens? they've derailed climate talks before but not like this. and, there's a much broader scope in which to put this in context.
in the end, we may be fed the line that it's al qaeda, even though we'd have expected them to claim responsibility by now - and the fact that they haven't all but rules them out.
but, i think this is far more than it appears.
www.cbc.ca/news/world/paris-shooting-attacks-explosion-1.3318444
--
still no claim of responsibility.
when a terrorist group carries out an attack, the first thing they do is claim responsibility. this is true of every terrorist group, from the ira to aum shinrikyo. if it was isis, or al qaeda, we'd know by now - because they'd have told us.
terrorism is not about committing a crime and then trying to get away with it. it's about brazenly creating a disruption, then trying to draw as much attention to the cause as possible. it's a protest tactic.
there are a number of possible other suspects that may have motives that are more stealth, but understand this: every single one of them is going to stage it as an attack by muslims. if it's some kind of excuse to create a police state for the cop21 [i doubt that - this is far too extreme], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists. if it's some kind of attempt by the oil industry to derail cop21 [i doubt that - this is the thing of science fiction], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists. if it's an operation by russian black ops to derail the cop21 [this is my guess....and perhaps with other goals as well], they'd set it up as a threat by muslim extremists.
on it's own, this consequently suggests nothing of value - other than that whomever organized it set it up to look like an attack by muslim extremists.
i think the russians are the only really serious suspect, right now. the organization. the kalashnikovs. chechens? they've derailed climate talks before but not like this. and, there's a much broader scope in which to put this in context.
in the end, we may be fed the line that it's al qaeda, even though we'd have expected them to claim responsibility by now - and the fact that they haven't all but rules them out.
but, i think this is far more than it appears.
at
18:08
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
what if i told you that i thought it was the russians?
evidence:
- too organized for a terrorist group
- pattern fits with russian operations
- who else gets kalashnikovs into france?
anybody doing this would set it up to look like a muslim attack. if it was france trying to create a police state for cop21, they'd make it look like muslims. if it was the oil industry trying to create a diversion for cop21, they'd make it look like muslims. if it's nato trying to create an excuse to increase the attacks on syria, they'd make it look like muslims.
but, ironically, we can be pretty sure that it's not - because they didn't take responsibility. isis has no motive to kill people in france, unless everybody knows it was isis. now, isis may take responsibility for something they didn't do, sure. but, they'd never carry out an attack and then deny it. that would make no sense, relative to how they operate.
so, we can actually rule out immediately that it's not isis or al qaeda.
that doesn't mean we won't be told it is, or that nato won't use it as an excuse to further their own goals.
motives for the russians:
- to pre-empt increasing threats of terrorist attacks in russia
- to divert attention from cop21
- to create pressure for france to pull back from syria. are the french prepared for the consequences of further involvement, or will they pull back like spain did?
- to give their allies in france (like the national front) an opportunity to campaign against muslims.
if the russians were going to do something like this right now, the reality is that france is the most strategic target.
jessica
+Michael P none of the previous attacks in france have been like this.
and, i don't think 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, either. i actually think it was....the germans. no, really. i know that's out of nowhere, but if you look at the information carefully, it all points to berlin. the motive was to crash the dollar.
i don't know if this was ever figured out. and, i don't expect to hear anybody blame the russians, even if it's understood that they did this. nato reacted to 9/11 by carrying out plans it wanted to do anyways - afghanistan is strategic, and iraq had nothing to do with it. as mentioned, i could very well see america reacting to this similarly. or, perhaps, you could interpret escalation in syria as a direct response, anyways.
Michael P
+jessica ISIS claimed responsibility now...that part of the russion conspiracy?
jessica
as i stated: isis will take responsibility for things that they did not do, but they will not deny things they did do.
i don't feel that isis has the capability to pull this off, and i think they would have taken credit immediately if they were actually responsible. they're taking credit for somebody else's work.
but, this is what the russians wanted. it's up to american intelligence to work it through, if they want to. it may serve their own aims to have people think it was isis, too.
there are other reasons to doubt the narrative. if you understand the real dynamics on the ground, the idea that it was isis doesn't really make any sense.
i'll give you a condition to look out for in the upcoming days and weeks: if nato responds by increasing pressure on assad (or even taking him out directly), you'll know what the claim of responsibility is really about.
and, i'd keep an eye on how the french public reacts to what marine le pen has to say about this. that's what the russians would really be angling for. we'll see if it works.
Michael P
+jessica How exactly do you "understand the real dynamics on the ground"?
You are making connections without connecting them...Just because nato responds a certain way does not mean your vague theory is correct unless you can actually connect the dots with something more than a hypothesis.
I just gave you a list of the "dynamics on the ground" by the way.
jessica
+Michael P i want to be clear that i'm not making authoritative claims about who is responsible. there are other explanations, too. we are at the whim of what we're told. we'll never really know.
what i'm arguing is that the russians are the most likely culprit, for the reasons i'm suggesting, and that isis is a very unlikely culprit - even if they took responsibility after the fact, after nobody else did, and after they took the time to prepare a statement.
understanding what's happening in the region of the middle east is very complicated. there's about ten wars happening at the same time. but, the biggest war that's happening is a struggle between a handful of american allies (mostly the saudis and turks - who are themselves in conflict with each other over who is taking the lead) and the russians for control over syria. this relies on the neo-con perspective that russia is weak due to the collapse of the soviet union and must be dismantled before it can regain it's power. removing assad from power is a part of the greater post cold war geo-political struggle between russia and the united states that, until recently, was a process of the americans knocking off russian client states.
isis exists within this context. it's an organization that is funded at arms length by saudi oligarchs to increase their own control in the region. the saudi long plan is the collapse of the borders in the region and the establishment of a larger, integrated arab-sunni state that includes most of iraq, jordan, kuwait, egypt and syria. in the short run, this would operate basically as an arab league. this goal itself goes back to the first world war.
the conflict you're seeing is far too complicated, and yet far too transparent, to call a conspiracy. it's more like a tactic to break the region up. and, france is ultimately in the alliance that is in favour of this.
an isis attack on france would be an attack on their own benefactors.
yet, it makes sense for them to claim responsibility, too, even if they did not do it - if it results in increased pressure on assad.
we live in a world where the conflicts that exist around us are kept obscure so that we do not understand them, because if we did understand them then we would oppose them.
it's consequently very hard to have these discussions in a medium such as this, as there is so much disinformation to cut through.
but, the dynamics on the ground - along with the way events have unfolded, and the complexity of the attack - all but rule isis out, despite what the media says, and what they say themselves, and how the military reacts.
you can surely agree that responding to these attacks by stepping up pressure on assad has no clear causal basis.
so, you should agree that i'm on to something if that is, in fact, what happens.
Michael P
+jessica I'm not buying any of this. You're a person on their computer postulating and theorizing. It's all very clever and imaginative and would make for a great alex jones video. You talk about all this disinformation....your comment is a big part of that disinformation. Others read it, it sounds cool and scandalous, but its nothing but imagination and theories, and then it gets repeated, and it soon becomes misinformation.
jessica
+Michael P well, i actually think that alex jones is a russian spy, too.
i don't claim it's more than theorizing, but we don't have another option if we want to understand what's happening. if you're serious about understanding world events, you have to begin with the basic starting point of being skeptical about official explanations and then try and deduce what's happening from there.
but, i do think that my perspective is educated. i'm not talking about aliens or new world orders. it's all very rooted in well understood academic themes. further, i've provided you with a predictive empirical test to check whether what i'm saying makes sense or not. we'll find out in a few days.
Michael P
+jessica Islamic terrorists coordinated an attack on French civilians and then admitted to it. Same as last time and the time before and the time before. There is really not much to it. And obviously since the attackers were Islamic terrorists claiming allegiance to ISIS that world leaders will put more pressure on Assad. Thats the logical progression. It doesnt mean some wild conspiracy theory is proven true. That is not an empirical test.
jessica
+Michael P so, the way to combat isis is to help them carry out their goals? intriguing.
the logical response would be to co-ordinate with assad in helping him stamp out isis.
evidence:
- too organized for a terrorist group
- pattern fits with russian operations
- who else gets kalashnikovs into france?
anybody doing this would set it up to look like a muslim attack. if it was france trying to create a police state for cop21, they'd make it look like muslims. if it was the oil industry trying to create a diversion for cop21, they'd make it look like muslims. if it's nato trying to create an excuse to increase the attacks on syria, they'd make it look like muslims.
but, ironically, we can be pretty sure that it's not - because they didn't take responsibility. isis has no motive to kill people in france, unless everybody knows it was isis. now, isis may take responsibility for something they didn't do, sure. but, they'd never carry out an attack and then deny it. that would make no sense, relative to how they operate.
so, we can actually rule out immediately that it's not isis or al qaeda.
that doesn't mean we won't be told it is, or that nato won't use it as an excuse to further their own goals.
motives for the russians:
- to pre-empt increasing threats of terrorist attacks in russia
- to divert attention from cop21
- to create pressure for france to pull back from syria. are the french prepared for the consequences of further involvement, or will they pull back like spain did?
- to give their allies in france (like the national front) an opportunity to campaign against muslims.
if the russians were going to do something like this right now, the reality is that france is the most strategic target.
jessica
+Michael P none of the previous attacks in france have been like this.
and, i don't think 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, either. i actually think it was....the germans. no, really. i know that's out of nowhere, but if you look at the information carefully, it all points to berlin. the motive was to crash the dollar.
i don't know if this was ever figured out. and, i don't expect to hear anybody blame the russians, even if it's understood that they did this. nato reacted to 9/11 by carrying out plans it wanted to do anyways - afghanistan is strategic, and iraq had nothing to do with it. as mentioned, i could very well see america reacting to this similarly. or, perhaps, you could interpret escalation in syria as a direct response, anyways.
Michael P
+jessica ISIS claimed responsibility now...that part of the russion conspiracy?
jessica
as i stated: isis will take responsibility for things that they did not do, but they will not deny things they did do.
i don't feel that isis has the capability to pull this off, and i think they would have taken credit immediately if they were actually responsible. they're taking credit for somebody else's work.
but, this is what the russians wanted. it's up to american intelligence to work it through, if they want to. it may serve their own aims to have people think it was isis, too.
there are other reasons to doubt the narrative. if you understand the real dynamics on the ground, the idea that it was isis doesn't really make any sense.
i'll give you a condition to look out for in the upcoming days and weeks: if nato responds by increasing pressure on assad (or even taking him out directly), you'll know what the claim of responsibility is really about.
and, i'd keep an eye on how the french public reacts to what marine le pen has to say about this. that's what the russians would really be angling for. we'll see if it works.
Michael P
+jessica How exactly do you "understand the real dynamics on the ground"?
You are making connections without connecting them...Just because nato responds a certain way does not mean your vague theory is correct unless you can actually connect the dots with something more than a hypothesis.
I just gave you a list of the "dynamics on the ground" by the way.
jessica
+Michael P i want to be clear that i'm not making authoritative claims about who is responsible. there are other explanations, too. we are at the whim of what we're told. we'll never really know.
what i'm arguing is that the russians are the most likely culprit, for the reasons i'm suggesting, and that isis is a very unlikely culprit - even if they took responsibility after the fact, after nobody else did, and after they took the time to prepare a statement.
understanding what's happening in the region of the middle east is very complicated. there's about ten wars happening at the same time. but, the biggest war that's happening is a struggle between a handful of american allies (mostly the saudis and turks - who are themselves in conflict with each other over who is taking the lead) and the russians for control over syria. this relies on the neo-con perspective that russia is weak due to the collapse of the soviet union and must be dismantled before it can regain it's power. removing assad from power is a part of the greater post cold war geo-political struggle between russia and the united states that, until recently, was a process of the americans knocking off russian client states.
isis exists within this context. it's an organization that is funded at arms length by saudi oligarchs to increase their own control in the region. the saudi long plan is the collapse of the borders in the region and the establishment of a larger, integrated arab-sunni state that includes most of iraq, jordan, kuwait, egypt and syria. in the short run, this would operate basically as an arab league. this goal itself goes back to the first world war.
the conflict you're seeing is far too complicated, and yet far too transparent, to call a conspiracy. it's more like a tactic to break the region up. and, france is ultimately in the alliance that is in favour of this.
an isis attack on france would be an attack on their own benefactors.
yet, it makes sense for them to claim responsibility, too, even if they did not do it - if it results in increased pressure on assad.
we live in a world where the conflicts that exist around us are kept obscure so that we do not understand them, because if we did understand them then we would oppose them.
it's consequently very hard to have these discussions in a medium such as this, as there is so much disinformation to cut through.
but, the dynamics on the ground - along with the way events have unfolded, and the complexity of the attack - all but rule isis out, despite what the media says, and what they say themselves, and how the military reacts.
you can surely agree that responding to these attacks by stepping up pressure on assad has no clear causal basis.
so, you should agree that i'm on to something if that is, in fact, what happens.
Michael P
+jessica I'm not buying any of this. You're a person on their computer postulating and theorizing. It's all very clever and imaginative and would make for a great alex jones video. You talk about all this disinformation....your comment is a big part of that disinformation. Others read it, it sounds cool and scandalous, but its nothing but imagination and theories, and then it gets repeated, and it soon becomes misinformation.
jessica
+Michael P well, i actually think that alex jones is a russian spy, too.
i don't claim it's more than theorizing, but we don't have another option if we want to understand what's happening. if you're serious about understanding world events, you have to begin with the basic starting point of being skeptical about official explanations and then try and deduce what's happening from there.
but, i do think that my perspective is educated. i'm not talking about aliens or new world orders. it's all very rooted in well understood academic themes. further, i've provided you with a predictive empirical test to check whether what i'm saying makes sense or not. we'll find out in a few days.
Michael P
+jessica Islamic terrorists coordinated an attack on French civilians and then admitted to it. Same as last time and the time before and the time before. There is really not much to it. And obviously since the attackers were Islamic terrorists claiming allegiance to ISIS that world leaders will put more pressure on Assad. Thats the logical progression. It doesnt mean some wild conspiracy theory is proven true. That is not an empirical test.
jessica
+Michael P so, the way to combat isis is to help them carry out their goals? intriguing.
the logical response would be to co-ordinate with assad in helping him stamp out isis.
at
17:10
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
well, that was fairly "presidential".
i like bernie...
....but i still don't know who the bank is running to beat hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCvvODhy1xM
i will say this though...
canadians pride themselves on...how can i say this...on differentiating themselves from americans. don't get me wrong: canadians are broadly pretty similar to americans. if you were to take a bunch of surveys, in aggregate, you'd find there's not a lot of differences. but, the few differences that do exist are things we hold very close to ourselves. it's a complicated, multidimensional thing. there's an outward manifestation that we state openly, like i am in this post. but, there's an inward manifestation that is only truly observed from a distance, too - things we innately live, without fully even realizing.
with the rise of the xenophobic rhetoric from the republicans, it's easy to draw parallels and craft a political strategy that learns from the recent election in canada. but, it's an open question as to whether such a strategy will be effective.
hey: if america wants to prove this canadian wrong, it'll be the most delicious crow i've ever had.
i like bernie...
....but i still don't know who the bank is running to beat hillary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCvvODhy1xM
i will say this though...
canadians pride themselves on...how can i say this...on differentiating themselves from americans. don't get me wrong: canadians are broadly pretty similar to americans. if you were to take a bunch of surveys, in aggregate, you'd find there's not a lot of differences. but, the few differences that do exist are things we hold very close to ourselves. it's a complicated, multidimensional thing. there's an outward manifestation that we state openly, like i am in this post. but, there's an inward manifestation that is only truly observed from a distance, too - things we innately live, without fully even realizing.
with the rise of the xenophobic rhetoric from the republicans, it's easy to draw parallels and craft a political strategy that learns from the recent election in canada. but, it's an open question as to whether such a strategy will be effective.
hey: if america wants to prove this canadian wrong, it'll be the most delicious crow i've ever had.
at
11:49
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
nononono, you don't get it.
see, there's a hierarchy. white people are at the top of it. black people are at the bottom of it. it's the natural order of things, and can't be altered.
therefore, black people cannot be racist - because they're inferior. when black people say racist things, they're just being uppity.
get it?
Issac Hopson
+jessica Wrong spokesman for white superiority.
jessica
+Issac Hopson well, perhaps i'm making the error of excluding the middle. but, in context, i don't think it's irrational. if one is inherently and irreversibly inferior, it certainly follows that they can never genuinely express feelings or perceptions of superiority, does it not? if one follows these perspectives closely, and i have, it does appear that this is legitimately the crux of the argument.
fwanksajerk
+jessica "black people cannot be racist - because they're inferior" Poor wording. Sounds like something I would write.
jessica
+fwanksajerk you may want to read between the lines a little. i tried to make it pretty obvious.
Lo Cas
+fwanksajerk oblivious much?
eye emoji
+jessica no. a hiearchy has nothing to do with racism. racism means thinking your race is better than others. if i, a mexican, were to say ''fuck those blacks'' i would be RACIST. if a white person said ''fuck the muslims!'' then they would be racist. and if a black person said ''fuck those spics!'' they would be racist. i don't know who made up the whole black people cant be racist because they're the systematically most oppressed blahblahblah because that's a whole other type of racism.
jessica
+eye emoji well, i actually think they're on to something in differentiating between what could be called "casual racism" (they toss this aside as discrimination) and really meaningful "systemic racism" (which they elevate to the status of Real Racism).
i mean, there's obviously a difference between somebody slowing down in a car and yelling something at somebody and somebody firing or refusing to interview somebody. the second option can seriously limit somebody's positive freedom. the first is really just harmlessly being an asshole.
it even makes sense to suggest that in certain societies - like the apartheid systems in the american south and in south africa - that racism against whites (in the second sense) is basically impossible, because the systemic realities are such that it really can't occur.
the error that arises is two-fold:
1) the american south is far from an egalitarian society, but it's not the hierarchically enforced system of white supremacy that it once was. it's consequently disingenuous to continue the same arguments. there are blacks with real power in the southern states, and they're every bit as capable of abusing it as whites are.
2) to jump from "whites cannot be meaningfully discriminated against in an apartheid society" to "racism against whites is universally impossible" is a tremendous leap of specious logic that, when heard, broadly suggests that the speaker is not truly familiar with the source material, but is carrying on slogans that they heard second hand.
see, there's a hierarchy. white people are at the top of it. black people are at the bottom of it. it's the natural order of things, and can't be altered.
therefore, black people cannot be racist - because they're inferior. when black people say racist things, they're just being uppity.
get it?
Issac Hopson
+jessica Wrong spokesman for white superiority.
jessica
+Issac Hopson well, perhaps i'm making the error of excluding the middle. but, in context, i don't think it's irrational. if one is inherently and irreversibly inferior, it certainly follows that they can never genuinely express feelings or perceptions of superiority, does it not? if one follows these perspectives closely, and i have, it does appear that this is legitimately the crux of the argument.
fwanksajerk
+jessica "black people cannot be racist - because they're inferior" Poor wording. Sounds like something I would write.
jessica
+fwanksajerk you may want to read between the lines a little. i tried to make it pretty obvious.
Lo Cas
+fwanksajerk oblivious much?
eye emoji
+jessica no. a hiearchy has nothing to do with racism. racism means thinking your race is better than others. if i, a mexican, were to say ''fuck those blacks'' i would be RACIST. if a white person said ''fuck the muslims!'' then they would be racist. and if a black person said ''fuck those spics!'' they would be racist. i don't know who made up the whole black people cant be racist because they're the systematically most oppressed blahblahblah because that's a whole other type of racism.
jessica
+eye emoji well, i actually think they're on to something in differentiating between what could be called "casual racism" (they toss this aside as discrimination) and really meaningful "systemic racism" (which they elevate to the status of Real Racism).
i mean, there's obviously a difference between somebody slowing down in a car and yelling something at somebody and somebody firing or refusing to interview somebody. the second option can seriously limit somebody's positive freedom. the first is really just harmlessly being an asshole.
it even makes sense to suggest that in certain societies - like the apartheid systems in the american south and in south africa - that racism against whites (in the second sense) is basically impossible, because the systemic realities are such that it really can't occur.
the error that arises is two-fold:
1) the american south is far from an egalitarian society, but it's not the hierarchically enforced system of white supremacy that it once was. it's consequently disingenuous to continue the same arguments. there are blacks with real power in the southern states, and they're every bit as capable of abusing it as whites are.
2) to jump from "whites cannot be meaningfully discriminated against in an apartheid society" to "racism against whites is universally impossible" is a tremendous leap of specious logic that, when heard, broadly suggests that the speaker is not truly familiar with the source material, but is carrying on slogans that they heard second hand.
at
11:29
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this guy is throwing around so much bullshit, i don't even know where to start. i mean, do i want to get into a discussion about the euro crisis on this thread? probably not. suffice it to say that greece's problem is not that they're "broke". it's that they lost sovereignty over their banking institutions to the ecb.
universities charge a fee to enter, and it gets paid as it is. how can there be less money than they collect in fees? i believe that pewdiepie should have really been on this panel to address this issue. really. a subset of gdp is greater than gdp. that's not even ordinal. you'd need a new system of logic to get your head around this.
demagogues pick their battles wisely. they have to! i hear his next interview will be a discussion of planetary mechanics with the hula champion in a local kindergarten class. he'll show her good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o
the way the system currently works is that you put people into debt when they're young and have them pay that debt off - + interest - when they graduate.
the proposal would need to be to put the money down first, and then collect it in taxes when they graduate.
all that that does is remove the interest on the loan, which is really just a deadweight on the economy. it also socializes the investment, and along with that it socializes the losses - meaning those that do well will pay education costs for those that do not. this would ultimately be equivalent to a stimulative tax cut for low to middle wage earners at the expense of the bank. that's about the only effect you'd see, in terms of accounting.
if you did it intelligently, you'd set the system up so that tax revenue = theoretical debt - theoretical interest. so, the student (after graduation) would have their new income equal to their old income minus the interest. that is,
new income = previous income - (theoretical debt - taxes = 0) + theoretical interest
which is a net benefit.
then, they'd no doubt spend that and we get an economic stimulus out of it.
so, the simple way to think of it is that the government steps in to take the role of the bank, in collecting taxes instead of loan payments. it's really a very minor tweak from the fiscal side. but, it would open up opportunities on the youth side.
that said....this kind of model works best when standards are higher. "free" education is not the same thing as "universal" education. i do support "free" education, but i don't support "universal" education - or at least not at this level. this is how most countries with state-funded education function: they basically give everybody who deserves one a scholarship, and abolish the fee-for-entry status quo for those that do not.
universities charge a fee to enter, and it gets paid as it is. how can there be less money than they collect in fees? i believe that pewdiepie should have really been on this panel to address this issue. really. a subset of gdp is greater than gdp. that's not even ordinal. you'd need a new system of logic to get your head around this.
demagogues pick their battles wisely. they have to! i hear his next interview will be a discussion of planetary mechanics with the hula champion in a local kindergarten class. he'll show her good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o
the way the system currently works is that you put people into debt when they're young and have them pay that debt off - + interest - when they graduate.
the proposal would need to be to put the money down first, and then collect it in taxes when they graduate.
all that that does is remove the interest on the loan, which is really just a deadweight on the economy. it also socializes the investment, and along with that it socializes the losses - meaning those that do well will pay education costs for those that do not. this would ultimately be equivalent to a stimulative tax cut for low to middle wage earners at the expense of the bank. that's about the only effect you'd see, in terms of accounting.
if you did it intelligently, you'd set the system up so that tax revenue = theoretical debt - theoretical interest. so, the student (after graduation) would have their new income equal to their old income minus the interest. that is,
new income = previous income - (theoretical debt - taxes = 0) + theoretical interest
which is a net benefit.
then, they'd no doubt spend that and we get an economic stimulus out of it.
so, the simple way to think of it is that the government steps in to take the role of the bank, in collecting taxes instead of loan payments. it's really a very minor tweak from the fiscal side. but, it would open up opportunities on the youth side.
that said....this kind of model works best when standards are higher. "free" education is not the same thing as "universal" education. i do support "free" education, but i don't support "universal" education - or at least not at this level. this is how most countries with state-funded education function: they basically give everybody who deserves one a scholarship, and abolish the fee-for-entry status quo for those that do not.
at
11:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
you want to know why trump is the best bet for republicans?
because he has the best chance of swinging the most democrats.
the republican party does not have a monopoly on stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmi6a-Q29AA
because he has the best chance of swinging the most democrats.
the republican party does not have a monopoly on stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmi6a-Q29AA
at
10:16
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
serial killers seem harmless when they're toddlers, too.
Rose Red
+jessicaThank you for not drinking the kool-aid. <3
Gabby TheBest
Serial killers weren't born murderous their peers or caretakers taught them how to murder
jessica
+Gabby TheBest
i was unaware that there were serial killer classes. is that a ba or a bsc?
we would like to proudly announce this year's recipient for the jeffrey dahmer memorial scholarship...
Lizeth GonzaleZ
Stop comparing dogs to humans
jessica
+Lizeth GonzaleZ
you're right. we have far greater control over our emotions.
before i delete another stupid comment, ask yourself this question before posting:
why wouldn't you raise a wolf pup?
UghIt'sEmily
Oh and also it depends on how they are raised. Just like humans. If a child was raised around an abusive, hurtful family it would maybe have mental health issues. And a dog that is abused may become aggressive or scared around people because their past experiences. :)
jessica
+UghIt'sEmily
there is an underlying truth to what you're saying, but it's not some kind of causal law. it's not as though you can predict somebody's behaviour as an adult by their childhood. plenty of psychopathic assholes, some of them serial killers, have idyllic childhoods; some people that go through hell as children grow up into very generous, free-spirited adults.
likewise, you can't really predict a dog's behaviour by the way you treat it. if it was that easy, there wouldn't be a problem - and you could go ahead and have wolves and mountain lions and bears for pets, so long as you make sure they get lots of hugs when they're young.
pit bulls are bred for violence. over time, it can be bred out. as it is, they need to be approached with caution - or not at all.
Massive Fox
+jessica because you have to tame a wolf, but same with a bob cat, dogs aren't like yhe stereotypes that are passed around, "dogs are dangerous" pinché! thats all lies!
jessica
+Massive Fox
a wolf is a specific breed of dog. a pitbull is a specific breed of dog. a retriever is a specific breed of dog. dogs are individuals, but characteristics cluster along breed lines.
josephine vargas
Pitts were originally a breed that took care of children in Europe back in the day. They we are known as the "Nanny" dog
jessica
+josephine vargas
see, i actually took the time - ~10 minutes - to determine the veracity of this claim, and it should be pointed out that what we call a "pit bull" is an american invention.
it may be true that the old terrier breeds were reliable family dogs, but that is not what the pit bull in front of you is. not at all.
Rose Red
+jessicaThank you for not drinking the kool-aid. <3
Gabby TheBest
Serial killers weren't born murderous their peers or caretakers taught them how to murder
jessica
+Gabby TheBest
i was unaware that there were serial killer classes. is that a ba or a bsc?
we would like to proudly announce this year's recipient for the jeffrey dahmer memorial scholarship...
Lizeth GonzaleZ
Stop comparing dogs to humans
jessica
+Lizeth GonzaleZ
you're right. we have far greater control over our emotions.
before i delete another stupid comment, ask yourself this question before posting:
why wouldn't you raise a wolf pup?
UghIt'sEmily
Oh and also it depends on how they are raised. Just like humans. If a child was raised around an abusive, hurtful family it would maybe have mental health issues. And a dog that is abused may become aggressive or scared around people because their past experiences. :)
jessica
+UghIt'sEmily
there is an underlying truth to what you're saying, but it's not some kind of causal law. it's not as though you can predict somebody's behaviour as an adult by their childhood. plenty of psychopathic assholes, some of them serial killers, have idyllic childhoods; some people that go through hell as children grow up into very generous, free-spirited adults.
likewise, you can't really predict a dog's behaviour by the way you treat it. if it was that easy, there wouldn't be a problem - and you could go ahead and have wolves and mountain lions and bears for pets, so long as you make sure they get lots of hugs when they're young.
pit bulls are bred for violence. over time, it can be bred out. as it is, they need to be approached with caution - or not at all.
Massive Fox
+jessica because you have to tame a wolf, but same with a bob cat, dogs aren't like yhe stereotypes that are passed around, "dogs are dangerous" pinché! thats all lies!
jessica
+Massive Fox
a wolf is a specific breed of dog. a pitbull is a specific breed of dog. a retriever is a specific breed of dog. dogs are individuals, but characteristics cluster along breed lines.
josephine vargas
Pitts were originally a breed that took care of children in Europe back in the day. They we are known as the "Nanny" dog
jessica
+josephine vargas
see, i actually took the time - ~10 minutes - to determine the veracity of this claim, and it should be pointed out that what we call a "pit bull" is an american invention.
it may be true that the old terrier breeds were reliable family dogs, but that is not what the pit bull in front of you is. not at all.
at
09:47
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Thursday, November 12, 2015
see, the third question is what i think the first question was trying to get at. and, to address the point i think it's important to recognize that some people that claim to hold a scientific worldview have only a limited understanding of it, and do in fact take it on authority. if you're somebody like dawkins, you might not realize that, because you're just not really exposed to it.
we could speak of the age of the earth, for example. some monk or something calculated it was 6000 years based on the bible, and we ridicule this as preposterous. but, to the average person, the calculation that it is 4.5 billion years old based on the calculations of some geologist or something is not any less authoritative. the monk claims his calculation is based on the evidence in the bible, and he can lay it out with perfectly valid rules of inference. the geologist claims his calculation is based on the evidence in the quarry, and he lays out with the same rules of inference. the differentiation is consequently not actually a discussion of evidence, but a discussion of what evidence is and which evidence is more convincing. they are both basically inferences.
if you understand a little about geological processes, and why digging down a certain way can allow you to estimate how old some rock is by comparison to the rock around it, you're doing science on inferences on empirically gathered evidence. but, if you're reading it out of a book, and you don't have a clue about any of that, then you're not truly interpreting it differently than a kid in sunday school. if anything, the biblical inference is a lot easier to actually understand.
she wasn't able to articulate herself well, and i think that's why the decision was made to move on. but, i think this is kind of an example of the ivory tower not being able to see outside of itself. it's unfortunate, but she is making a valid point: most people are only able to interpret science as a system of statements that they don't fully understand the reasoning behind, and are forced to leave their derivation to experts and then put faith in the veracity of the conclusions of those experts. appeals to the contrary are themselves a sort of faith-based reasoning. and, so, for many people, science becomes just another type of religion.
there's another point to bring up about axiom systems. it's not valid for the entirety of science; it's more about the more obscure theoretical reaches. the classical v. modern physics part is a good way to discuss this. you can do most classical physics with your bare hands; you throw something at a wall and you measure it, or whatever. experiments, observations, results. that's what science is supposed to be, right?
but if you look at relativity, it doesn't work like that. it's an axiomatic system. light shalt move at c in all inertial reference frames. there shalt be no particle that moves faster than c. light shalt have no mass whatsoever. [these are equivalent statements]. and, yes, it's a reasonable assumption, and i offer no empirical contradiction, but put this in your pipe: i don't believe the third assertion. now, what? then i have little faith in the absolute truth of your deductions, even if i'll admit they're probably pretty close.
i'm not going to argue that that brings religion from the brink; rather, i'm going to argue that it puts a lot of what we call science in the realm of what should be called philosophy. kant be damned; it's not how science is supposed to work. and, doing science like this really opens up a lot of valid space for attack.
i'm not convinced that that is what she was getting at, but the truth is that this line between something that is a story and something that makes predictions isn't quite as clear as is being suggested. it's just....
don't look at religion in a better light because of this. rather, be more critical of what we allow ourselves to call science.
we could speak of the age of the earth, for example. some monk or something calculated it was 6000 years based on the bible, and we ridicule this as preposterous. but, to the average person, the calculation that it is 4.5 billion years old based on the calculations of some geologist or something is not any less authoritative. the monk claims his calculation is based on the evidence in the bible, and he can lay it out with perfectly valid rules of inference. the geologist claims his calculation is based on the evidence in the quarry, and he lays out with the same rules of inference. the differentiation is consequently not actually a discussion of evidence, but a discussion of what evidence is and which evidence is more convincing. they are both basically inferences.
if you understand a little about geological processes, and why digging down a certain way can allow you to estimate how old some rock is by comparison to the rock around it, you're doing science on inferences on empirically gathered evidence. but, if you're reading it out of a book, and you don't have a clue about any of that, then you're not truly interpreting it differently than a kid in sunday school. if anything, the biblical inference is a lot easier to actually understand.
she wasn't able to articulate herself well, and i think that's why the decision was made to move on. but, i think this is kind of an example of the ivory tower not being able to see outside of itself. it's unfortunate, but she is making a valid point: most people are only able to interpret science as a system of statements that they don't fully understand the reasoning behind, and are forced to leave their derivation to experts and then put faith in the veracity of the conclusions of those experts. appeals to the contrary are themselves a sort of faith-based reasoning. and, so, for many people, science becomes just another type of religion.
there's another point to bring up about axiom systems. it's not valid for the entirety of science; it's more about the more obscure theoretical reaches. the classical v. modern physics part is a good way to discuss this. you can do most classical physics with your bare hands; you throw something at a wall and you measure it, or whatever. experiments, observations, results. that's what science is supposed to be, right?
but if you look at relativity, it doesn't work like that. it's an axiomatic system. light shalt move at c in all inertial reference frames. there shalt be no particle that moves faster than c. light shalt have no mass whatsoever. [these are equivalent statements]. and, yes, it's a reasonable assumption, and i offer no empirical contradiction, but put this in your pipe: i don't believe the third assertion. now, what? then i have little faith in the absolute truth of your deductions, even if i'll admit they're probably pretty close.
i'm not going to argue that that brings religion from the brink; rather, i'm going to argue that it puts a lot of what we call science in the realm of what should be called philosophy. kant be damned; it's not how science is supposed to work. and, doing science like this really opens up a lot of valid space for attack.
i'm not convinced that that is what she was getting at, but the truth is that this line between something that is a story and something that makes predictions isn't quite as clear as is being suggested. it's just....
don't look at religion in a better light because of this. rather, be more critical of what we allow ourselves to call science.
at
06:05
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
so, i'll be watching brookings institute videos while i eat lunch for the next few weeks. let's see how this goes.
i understand what the brookings institute is and why it's going to present certain narratives that may be a little bit elastic regarding certain facts, so let's take a step back here.
let's begin by acknowledging that, regardless of the facts that followed, saddam was very useful to the united states in the 1980s, because he launched an absolutely brutal war against the iranians on their urging. now, skip forwards a few decades and realize that the geo-strategic aim of installing a shia leadership in iraq was to attempt to create competition for control over shia islam. there was no deficit of voices at the time that pointed out that this was naive. but, the intent was that iraq would compete with iran for influence and if they got into a firefight here or there, hey, nobody in the state department is crying about it.
rather, what happened was that the shi'ite leadership in iraq valued co-operation with other shi'ite powers, in competition with sunni powers, over competition with each other. oops.
so, at the time [things have changed a lot in the last year], you had americans going after maliki for not being "inclusive", which is a type of code that means to say that he's not doing what he was supposed to do. he was supposed to be fighting with iran, not working with it. in reaction to this failed policy, you've got saudi-backed militants running in, trying to take him down and put their own guy in place. of course, we blame it on him for not doing what he's told, rather than on ourselves for following through with a policy that was widely panned as naive.
so, what happens when you partition the state? what you do is relinquish the opportunity for saudi-influence in the shia areas, as well as the kurdish areas. further, you permanently move the front in the saudi-iranian proxy war away from the iran-iraq border and into the middle of iraq. that sounds like a great idea - if you're iran. it doesn't sound like such a great idea if you're saudi arabia.
the only way the saudis can regain their influence is if they put a sunni back in charge of a unified state. for that reason, partition will remain anathema to us policy - it would be forfeiting the most valuable parts of iraq to iran.
so, how do you fix this, then?
well, at the moment, it appears that the saudis have settled upon ethnic/religious cleansing as the preferred solution. there's obviously some problems with that tactic; although, if it continues, the harsh truth is that it may do the job.
personally, i'm in favour of regime change in saudi arabia followed by the saudis relinquishing their desire for control, but that's easier to suggest in the abstract than it is to put in place.
but, i do think the analyst is at least right in suggesting that there's not an easy answer and that there's no real end to this conflict in sight.
i understand what the brookings institute is and why it's going to present certain narratives that may be a little bit elastic regarding certain facts, so let's take a step back here.
let's begin by acknowledging that, regardless of the facts that followed, saddam was very useful to the united states in the 1980s, because he launched an absolutely brutal war against the iranians on their urging. now, skip forwards a few decades and realize that the geo-strategic aim of installing a shia leadership in iraq was to attempt to create competition for control over shia islam. there was no deficit of voices at the time that pointed out that this was naive. but, the intent was that iraq would compete with iran for influence and if they got into a firefight here or there, hey, nobody in the state department is crying about it.
rather, what happened was that the shi'ite leadership in iraq valued co-operation with other shi'ite powers, in competition with sunni powers, over competition with each other. oops.
so, at the time [things have changed a lot in the last year], you had americans going after maliki for not being "inclusive", which is a type of code that means to say that he's not doing what he was supposed to do. he was supposed to be fighting with iran, not working with it. in reaction to this failed policy, you've got saudi-backed militants running in, trying to take him down and put their own guy in place. of course, we blame it on him for not doing what he's told, rather than on ourselves for following through with a policy that was widely panned as naive.
so, what happens when you partition the state? what you do is relinquish the opportunity for saudi-influence in the shia areas, as well as the kurdish areas. further, you permanently move the front in the saudi-iranian proxy war away from the iran-iraq border and into the middle of iraq. that sounds like a great idea - if you're iran. it doesn't sound like such a great idea if you're saudi arabia.
the only way the saudis can regain their influence is if they put a sunni back in charge of a unified state. for that reason, partition will remain anathema to us policy - it would be forfeiting the most valuable parts of iraq to iran.
so, how do you fix this, then?
well, at the moment, it appears that the saudis have settled upon ethnic/religious cleansing as the preferred solution. there's obviously some problems with that tactic; although, if it continues, the harsh truth is that it may do the job.
personally, i'm in favour of regime change in saudi arabia followed by the saudis relinquishing their desire for control, but that's easier to suggest in the abstract than it is to put in place.
but, i do think the analyst is at least right in suggesting that there's not an easy answer and that there's no real end to this conflict in sight.
at
05:34
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
all these comments are just greek to me. but, here's something that gets through translation:
how long will we believe in a light so dim?
time is all we have.
so, take the time to make the time.
truer words have never been spoken.
how long will we believe in a light so dim?
time is all we have.
so, take the time to make the time.
truer words have never been spoken.
at
04:29
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
he's being careful to keep to a specific narrative; and these are some pretty pointed questions, which he did a good job of deflecting. they start off by asking him about the supposed incoherence of american mideast policy, and rather than answer it he gives them a history lesson. but, then he gets peppered with questions about ramifications of that supposed incoherence, and he just keeps changing the topic to fit the narrative. you know, you expect this from a state department briefing, but it kind of brings up the question: what was brookings hoping for, here? did you expect this guy to answer a question like that?
in fact, american policy in the middle east may seem impossible to unravel from a distance, but it's very easy to understand (and often easy to predict) if you understand the basic principle, which is to maintain as many divisions as possible. it's not divide and conquer, really. it's divide and subdue. the aim is to ensure strong bilateral relations with each and every state that ensures they all remain reliant on america in isolated and unique ways (they don't want multiple states bringing the same concerns at the same time), and then to encourage conflict amongst all the players in such a way that ensures they're all fighting each other, but prevents any from establishing a regional hegemony. so, they may arm both sides in the isis conflict, as they armed both sides in the iran-iraq war. so long as they are constantly fighting each other, and nobody can ever win, they are all equally in the position of accepting american hegemony. it is only when a specific state actor rejects hegemony that a serious conflict erupts to reinforce it. he kind of got to that a little, when he talked of the relationships between egypt, israel, turkey, iran and the saudis.
so, these arrangements appear bizarre - but it's because there's this unquestioned assumption, which murphy did much to perpetuate, that america desires an end to conflict, that they want certain actors to be victorious, that they want stability and peace,etc. it is the opposite that is true. that's why some people take it upon themselves to call america the great satan, after all.
in truth, putting aside colourful language, it's more comparable to the strategy that byzantine rome used against the tribes to their north, which prevented constantinople from being sacked for a good thousand years. i remember reading through that stuff and just being floored by the tactics, and how they consistently squirmed their way out at the last minute, due to finding some way to pit some barbarian against some other barbarian. it is quite truly the case that the romans held out in a castle by the sea for so long because they were constantly outsmarting their enemies, in ways their enemies often didn't even realize.
it's delicate. and it's often brutal. but it's not complicated, if you get it.
in fact, american policy in the middle east may seem impossible to unravel from a distance, but it's very easy to understand (and often easy to predict) if you understand the basic principle, which is to maintain as many divisions as possible. it's not divide and conquer, really. it's divide and subdue. the aim is to ensure strong bilateral relations with each and every state that ensures they all remain reliant on america in isolated and unique ways (they don't want multiple states bringing the same concerns at the same time), and then to encourage conflict amongst all the players in such a way that ensures they're all fighting each other, but prevents any from establishing a regional hegemony. so, they may arm both sides in the isis conflict, as they armed both sides in the iran-iraq war. so long as they are constantly fighting each other, and nobody can ever win, they are all equally in the position of accepting american hegemony. it is only when a specific state actor rejects hegemony that a serious conflict erupts to reinforce it. he kind of got to that a little, when he talked of the relationships between egypt, israel, turkey, iran and the saudis.
so, these arrangements appear bizarre - but it's because there's this unquestioned assumption, which murphy did much to perpetuate, that america desires an end to conflict, that they want certain actors to be victorious, that they want stability and peace,etc. it is the opposite that is true. that's why some people take it upon themselves to call america the great satan, after all.
in truth, putting aside colourful language, it's more comparable to the strategy that byzantine rome used against the tribes to their north, which prevented constantinople from being sacked for a good thousand years. i remember reading through that stuff and just being floored by the tactics, and how they consistently squirmed their way out at the last minute, due to finding some way to pit some barbarian against some other barbarian. it is quite truly the case that the romans held out in a castle by the sea for so long because they were constantly outsmarting their enemies, in ways their enemies often didn't even realize.
it's delicate. and it's often brutal. but it's not complicated, if you get it.
at
04:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
i have a math degree, and completed most of a master's as electives while i was working on a second degree in computer science (although i never applied to graduate). i decided a credit short of the second degree that i didn't want to spend the rest of my life doing mathematics. i went back a little later for financial reasons to study law for a few years, while i was waiting for a disability ruling. today, i live on disability and am waiting to be declared "severely permanently disabled" in order to get my loan wiped out. over the many years i was in school, my gpa averaged out to about 10.5/12.
i feel i'm better off on disability. happier, certainly.
i'll grade a few parts of this and add a few parts.
1) marked without really reading it. that is actually absolutely accurate, but i've blamed it on the process of assigning work to ta's. what's even a bigger problem - especially in math, although i saw this in law, too - is grading a paper without understanding it. when you're doing math, you can express answers correctly in multiple different ways. and, when you're doing advanced math you can often be asked to prove statements, in which case there may be multiple correct answers. more often than not, teaching assistants will apply absolutely no effort into the process and merely mark relative to the provided solution sheet. so, if you express something differently - even if it's equivalent - or if you provide a proof that is different than expected, you will more often than not be marked wrong. thankfully, this is usually easily dealt with - you bring the paper to the prof. but, it's very inefficient and really just shouldn't happen.
2) curving grades is a thing that happens, in both directions. it would bother me less in law, as there's a process of subjectivity. in math, it makes no sense to me. i remember one course where i got a test back with 115% - because i aced it (95%) and then got a 20% bump on the curve. now, that indicates i drastically outperformed the class on that particular test. but, here's the thing: if i could get 95% on it, i don't think the kid that got 45% should have been curved up to 65%. it clearly wasn't impossible. that kid failed, dammit. i've also officially received 100% on exams (several times...) that i know i got at least one question wrong on. it's not exactly the same as averaging out, of course, but it's a pretty ridiculous thing to do in any kind of stem course. yet, it absolutely does happen.
3) i know of at least one example where a female's test scores were orchestrated to be higher than they actually were (that is, the department organized cheating on the test) in order to justify putting her in a teaching assistant position because the school had a deficit of female teaching assistants. i know this because i happen to have overheard the conversation about it. my understanding is that she was seen as a strong student, but they wanted the case to be stronger.
broadly speaking, the video is of course ridiculous. and, little of what i'm saying is connected to the sjw strawman - the first issue is due to the difficulty of finding qualified tas willing to work at or below minimum wage, while the second is a consequence of professors being evaluated on their test scores. but, this video does touch on some points worth considering, albeit largely accidentally.
jbizzybrown
+deathtokoalas Sounds like you don't really want to work and surfed from student loan welfare to the golden goose of "disability"
deathtokoalas
+jbizzybrown yeah, that's about right - although it's hardly a "golden goose".
i decided i'd rather focus on my art, and i was willing to live in poverty to do it. call it a cost-benefit analysis, if you'd like. but, it was just an honest assessment of what drives me. i'd rather be poor and spend my time doing fulfilling things than wealthy and miserable because i feel like i'm wasting my time doing something i don't care about.
i mean, if you want numbers, it works out to about 50% of what i'd make if i were working a full time minimum wage job in this province. and, i'm confident i could do a lot better than minimum wage. so, it's a huge trade-off. i've got nothing but time, but i've got very little cash to spend. but, i'd rather have a lot of time and very little money than a lot of money and very little time.
i would support a guaranteed minimum income and put it at about that - half of minimum wage. that's enough to give people like me that just don't see the point of it a way out, while still maintaining strong incentives to engage in the labour force.
jbizzybrown
+deathtokoalas ya, thank your neighbors or your "cash" and "time" because it is coming from them, scumbag flea.
deathtokoalas
+jbizzybrown that's a very unscientific concept of the accounting. i could just as easily deduct it from taxes paid by investors, who legitimately actually really do just skim wealth off the top.
i really don't see any benefit to the society around me in forcing me to make somebody sandwiches. sorry.
you may find my offering of music and writing insufficient, but it's what i have to offer - and i don't feel it's less substantial. to the contrary.
george_505
+deathtokoalas Don't complete meaningful work then don't get paid :D
deathtokoalas
+george_505 well, i'll let you know when i agree to let you decide what meaningful work is.
in the mean time, i'll suggest an essay by oscar wilde called the soul of man under socialism.
Stefan Crapper
+deathtokoalas I sense trolling. Are you really admitting that you're leeching of welfare when you're more than capable intellectually of holding a job? lol
deathtokoalas
+Stefan Crapper yup. and, i'm even suggesting this should be normalized and everybody should do it.
one thing i just want to add, though, is that i'm not rejecting labour despite of ability and intelligence. rather, i'm rejecting labour because of ability and intelligence. if i was your average dipshit, i'd be happy pushing rocks up the hill. right?
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not duty, obligation and the obedience to norms. i'm sorry. fuck your worker hive.
jbizzybrown
+deathtokoalas you are just mad because you know deep in side that you are a completely worthless person.
deathtokoalas
+jbizzybrown that's actually not entirely inaccurate, except i would extend a caveat - we are all useless, life is useless and everything they've got us doing to waste our time is useless. it's kind of a way to try to break the cycle of uselessness.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas "Everybody should do it"
Then where is the money coming from? Holy crap you're entitled.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM i'd actually like to get rid of money altogether, if you want to walk down the line a few steps. in the mean time, i'm ok with printing it.
but the entitled thing is like...
sure. whatever. fuck your protestant work ethic, too.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas So we get rid of money, instead relying on each other. Yet you have chosen art as your calling over something that would actually sustain a money-less system.
Yep, still entitled.
george_505
+deathtokoalas Socialism, really? When you state such an ideology and yet you sit at home and don't work or do anything meaningful, instead are here drawing attention to yourself. A socialist society would have place for a person such as yourself.
jbizzybrown
+deathtokoalas Justify it to yourself however you want. You feel like shit because you are shit.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM you're not allowing yourself to think in a post-propertarian sense. the abolition of currency is desirable precisely because it allows for people to spend their time more freely.
take a look at the labour that exists around you. do we need store managers? restaurants? shop keepers? cashiers? all of these people are wasting their lives, because they are enslaved by a system of currency.
and, what is emancipation from currency? it is the freedom to live as one truly desires. to create art. to play in the snow. whatever.
jbizzybrown
+deathtokoalas so some people should just be slaves without money so that you can do whatever the fuck you want all day while being supported by them? Nice "care," you dipshit libtard
deathtokoalas
+george_505 i'm what you call an anarchist, which does not take the position that the state should assign people to accomplish certain tasks. i seek the abolition of property, of currency, of hierarchical relationships and of markets in exchange, but it is all to attain higher freedom of individual choice - because these things restrict individuality.
the wilde essay is really a very enjoyable read. he's not a dry writer. it's available online from several sources. please do give it a read, as he lays it all out there very well.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas So you'll gather your own food will you? Make your own clothes? Somehow provide yourself with basic hygiene?
Or are you expecting others do it for you while you run around painting your feelings?
Realistically, you want rid of money because you are in a crap load of debt with no job
deathtokoalas
+jbizzybrown i've explained this as well as i can to you, but you're clearly too much of an idiot to understand and i do not wish to communicate with you further.
*plonk*.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM the solution is to automate most mindless labour, and allow the rest of it to occur by volunteers. again: please read the literature i provided you with before you comment further.
george_505
+deathtokoalas you're describing everything that makes a society run, you just sit at home and do shit all everyday, day in and day out, get a job and have a purpose. Don't quote other people and state how much more intelligent you are than them because at the end of the day you're the one here sitting on your arse not working due to a 'disability'
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas Ok. What you are describing is a utopia. Yes, that would be wonderful but we aren't exactly there are we? We can't automate all mindless labour right now. It just simply isn't possible.
I just realised something. You have a maths degree. 2 years of CS. You want the technology for a utopia and your answer is to do art.
10/10 best troll world.
deathtokoalas
+george_505 i work very hard at what i do, actually. and, as stated, i feel it's more valuable work than i could accomplish through any kind of employment.
but, even if i didn't, i don't really see what your argument is. if you'd like to be a slave, that's your choice. i think it's regrettable. but, your choice to be a slave is not binding on me.
if you enjoy what you do, then we're even. if you don't, follow my lead and go on strike. but don't tell me that your decisions are binding on me. that's bullshit.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM 19.5/20 credits on the computer science, actually - on top of the four year math degree, and seven math credits at the graduate level (five is a master's).
there really aren't any barriers to automation at this point besides a political will to put it forth, so long as you're willing to throw away the vast majority of the economy that is entirely useless to survival.
in order to implement my ideas, i'd need to build awareness first. i suppose i could write a book, but there's quite a few out there. and, if you won't read a short essay, i'm left to conclude you won't read a book. i got prodded on this - i didn't intend this discussion to go in this direction - but there's plenty of posts all over the internet where i am initiating this kind of discussion.
but, it's a cost-benefit analysis, ultimately. i don't think this can be accomplished in my life time. we're going to have to go through an economic crisis first. this is something to talk about in the 2030s. maybe. in the mean time, i have a life to live, and i'd like to spend it doing what i want, right now - not fighting for the future, so the next generation can live how i wish i did, and didn't.
i mean, i'd have a different attitude if i was getting a different attitude back. but, when i offer a strategy for emancipation and all i get is "you're trying to get out of being a slave, that's not fair!", it's easy to snicker and tell you to fuck off.
i'm a rational agent. i'm trained to be. and, if the option is to be enslaved or enslave others, however contrived of a false dichotomy that is? i'll be the slave master. fuck you. sorry.
it's your responsibility to change your attitude if that pisses you off.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas You're deluded
Adam russek
+Chameleon EDM I agree or she's just trolling. She's not truly an anarchist if she's living off of everyone else's wealth. I'm an anarchist as well but that just means a voluntary society with no rulers/masters. But unfortunately humanity in its current condition doesn't have the will or personal responsibility (like deathtokoalas) to create that increase in freedom. Any society that wants to remain ignorant and immoral will inevitably end up in chains
deathtokoalas
+Adam russek anarchism rejects the concept of other people's wealth. it puts property in common. i dispute the idea that i'm living off anybody else's wealth, because i reject the idea that the wealth belongs to them in the first place.
as mentioned, i don't have a large subsidy. 65% of it goes to the landlord, and about 25% of it goes to basic necessities like food. the remaining 10% invariably gets spent on the work of other artists.
i'm only truly given enough to survive. but i've decided that's all that i need or i want.
the crux of the debate, in an anarchist framework, isn't even the value of art. virtually everybody agrees it has some value. even wingnuts like rand. the question is how that value should be determined, or if it should be determined at all.
so-called ancaps (who are really just classical liberals; anarchism necessarily rejects property rights, at the very least) will argue that art is a product to be determined by the market.
the anarchist argument against this is articulated very well in the essay i posted by wilde. but, the conclusion is that it should not be determined and that so long as artists are producing something or other then they are working and should be entitled to basic income, at least.
there's a twist in this: a lot of classical liberals (like milton friedman, for example) have argued in favour of basic incomes because they recognize the coercive nature of so-called free markets. whatever the value of markets are for however many people, they come with the defect that they produce a class of people who can only ever be enslaved by them, because their products can not be sold on them due to lack of demand. that is, markets are unable to put a meaningful price on some things - and art is the primary example. they came up with a generalized income to compensate for this. even the most ardent advocates of markets do understand the flaw that i represent, and do have ideas to make the situation more fair.
but if this meandering mess of producerist nonsense has a point, it's in that wilde essay. please do read it. wilde was an important author from the nineteenth century and lays out the argument for anarchism from the perspective of somebody in the artisan class (rather than somebody in the working class, which is where it often comes from) with refreshing clarity and insight. it's very, very much worth reading - even if you end up disagreeing dramatically with the points in it.
Lee Schneider
+deathtokoalas I understand where you are coming from, why spend your life pursuing something that is meaningless to you, but you need to consider the collective. If every capable person decided to drop their responsibilities then society wouldn't function; In assuming a role below your capacity you disenable someone less capable the right to that role.
deathtokoalas
+Lee Schneider i really strongly disagree; i feel that i do not need to consider the collective. individualism isn't necessarily selfish. i'm an advocate of reciprocal altruism (mutual aid), which is an example of how self-interest can benefit everybody if it's approached in the right way. true self-interest means respecting the people around you. but, i don't feel the responsibility you're implying i should. it strikes me as irrational.
but, i don't think the idea that i've dropped responsibilities to mathematics is accurate, either. i am a better musician than i am a mathematician. i'm not alexander grothendieck. i would feel i was dropping my responsibility to music by continuing to half-heartedly pursue math.
that said, i will come back to it. there is an age limit for composition, determined both by physical deterioration and intellectual evolution. i give myself another five years, maximum, of music as a dominant pursuit.
but, i'll let you in on something: mathematicians think a lot like artists do. the basic pressures are not altered. the truth is that it won't change my outlook much.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas You think you have a creative window? I am so glad I do not have your brain, it seems flawed.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM we start losing our hearing in our 20s. by the time we're 40, we've lost a substantial amount of our hearing range, especially on the high end. what i do is very conscious of spectrum - it's very impressionist, very much into the idea of creating the surreal out of frequencies. there will be a time when i will be unable to hear well enough to create what i imagine.
self-awareness is thought by cognitive scientists to be an advance, but it is probably a flaw - and a tragic one. i'm aware that i do not have a lot longer left to create within. denial is pointless.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas On listening to your music I'm sure you'll be fine with loosing some frequencies in the high end. Regardless, after listening to you music I'm just going to let you get on with life. You seem troubled enough.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM there's a great deal of detail in the high end; it's the kind of thing you need quality headphones and time to listen actively (and some marijuana helps, too) to be able to understand well. the granulated guitar overdubs at the start of my second symphony are a good example. in ten years, i likely won't be able to hear the harmonics anymore.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas I'm always stoned, I have AKG's. A lot of what you are hearing is in your head only, thats why your mixes appear to change when you do not change them at all. At least from looking at what you comment.
Oh, and I make neuro. So im plenty trained in listening to and for high harmonics.
Get Rich TV
+deathtokoalas I have to chime in and agree with much of your argument here, I really find that most of what we have here is a peoples fear of taking a risk in change, which is understandable but not necessarily right. People put so little value in arts but then I have to argue with them about when the last time it was that they didn't ingest some form of artistic media. The answer is pretty close to never. Visual arts, music, sculpture, writing, videogames, memes, etc. are all an ongoing feed of artistic export made by creatives... without it we'd be absolutely crushed under the weight of pure utilitarian duty, survival, responsibility and work.
I am currently working a low hour job that actually serves to sustain me financially but have been opting quite hard to push towards my true passion which is the pursuit of creative expression. I'm working on a webcomic (which I can definitely assure you is not an easy undertaking) while also trying to develop a recognizable universe in which to construct other media through, such as animation, games, writing and even going so far as to making interesting products that will extend that world into the real tangible world we live in. All to create an environment of wonder and whimsy. Without creatives living in poverty just to express themselves I doubt that many would be able to continue in the crushing grind of the workforce.
I'm glad that there are still some who believe that this current socio-economic world is a construct and has no more validity than anything else. We can disassemble, alter and upgrade it however we want and can design. Unfortunately, many will fight tooth and nail to preserve their inertia with the illusion that there is only one way, the current way.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM i resolved my driver issue last night. it turns out that there was a bug in the install package.
i'm not going to post graphs.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas It doesn't change the fact that a lot of what you're hearing up there your mind is creating fictitiously.
Chameleon EDM
+Get Rich TV Hey, don't get me wrong. I love the arts, I create music myself. I just don't reject the entire idea of money and having a job in order to create art while living off of other people. What you do? fantastic! Keep going!
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM i'm not sure if you're aware of how complicated a point this is, or if you're just trying to suggest i'm a little crazy.
not every song is the same. some start as experiments. others come out of jams. but, pretty much everything i make has an aspect of projection. i don't want to suggest i'm spontaneously hearing sound; that's not something that any composer really experiences. but, mental composition through triggers is a really big part of writing. so, yes: sometimes, it comes entirely out of my head, even if it's driven by an existing idea. more often, i'm starting with something and create arrangements in my mind by listening to it over and over. string or horn parts. guitar solos. effects collages.
the challenge of being a sound artist is trying to create what you hear in your head - to convert the sounds you hear into your mind into something real that others can also hear. it's what the process is, what the point is. so, you're entirely right in saying that what i'm hearing is in my head, on some level. but, the struggle i was having was that what i was hearing was not the same as what was in my head,
the fact that i just spent 4.5 months freaking out over a broken driver (i simply couldn't determine what the problem was; the answer turned out to be both devastatingly simple and almost impossible to guess...i figured it out by accident) suggests that the separation between what i want to hear and what i do hear is actually pretty strong. if i was merely tripping out, i would have walked down a different path than that.
my larger works can have upwards of three hundred parts in them. it's a lot of work, and requires a lot of careful attention. that interplay between imagination and reality is vital. but, the bounds are clear - and have to be. i have to ensure they are, at all times. otherwise, i'm just living in my head.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas Everything you say sounds absolutely mad
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM sigh. perhaps my diagnosis is not so arbitrary after all, then. i don't think that's true, but it's probably good for my image to come off just a little unhinged.
Alba Whiteman
+deathtokoalas ...A friend of mine was a computer programming lecturer at university and HAD to lower the pass mark level to pass more foreign students, by order of the faculty head. This is simply business for getting more asian students.
StephCurry WithTheShot
+deathtokoalas The crazy thing is, I'm starting to feel the same way you do. I bust my ass for my family. I work 70 hours a week while going to college for computer science. It's something I'm interested in, but not a passion of mine. I see it as a high salary job where I could use my brain and not my feet. Problem is, this grading process is a joke, not to mention that the material taught is being dumbed down so even the dumbest person who clearly isn't ready can pass and move on. Simple material is being repeated over and over again because the same idiots keep falling behind and I can't say anything because it will hurt their feelings and i'm supposed to be a "team player". I finish all the homework on time and I score 85-100s on tests and I get a B letter grade because I lose 10-15% on "class participation". Like, I'm sorry I don't want to be an asshole by answering everything for the rest of the class. What happens to the 10 students who never finished half the homework assignments with finals being 2 weeks away? Professor gives them all a free pass and lets them make up 3 months worth of assignments with no grade deduction. Not to mention they drop the 2 lowest test grades. I'm sitting on an A or B+ so I'm not worried about anything except my mother's mortgage. Finals come back and I got a B+ while half the class got an A. Gotta love college.
At the end of the day, knowledge is more valuable than a GPA but looking average will not get me into MIT or Berkeley. I feel like dropping out and purposely getting myself fired for unemployment so I can have the free time to self teach myself everything I would never learn with those classrooms. At the same time, with the books I read at work about coding jobs, I discovered that your team might not be that bright either. Apparently they can work 100 hour weeks with no salary increase if they are constantly behind. Maybe it's time I find a disability of my own...
deathtokoalas
+StephCurry WithTheShot ah, participation marks. that's something i forgot.
i've seen it set as high as 30% in third year, although that was a law class. gotta make sure they get their money's worth, right? see, but what it does is reward obedience. it's corporate training for the work environment. even at the university level, this is what the main purpose of schooling is.
depending on your goals, i would agree that you'll learn far better on your own than through a school. the thing is that you'd better be focused on self-employment, at least for the start.
the best way to get something out of school nowadays is through co-op. i'd even go so far as to suggest you're wasting your time, otherwise.
i feel i'm better off on disability. happier, certainly.
i'll grade a few parts of this and add a few parts.
1) marked without really reading it. that is actually absolutely accurate, but i've blamed it on the process of assigning work to ta's. what's even a bigger problem - especially in math, although i saw this in law, too - is grading a paper without understanding it. when you're doing math, you can express answers correctly in multiple different ways. and, when you're doing advanced math you can often be asked to prove statements, in which case there may be multiple correct answers. more often than not, teaching assistants will apply absolutely no effort into the process and merely mark relative to the provided solution sheet. so, if you express something differently - even if it's equivalent - or if you provide a proof that is different than expected, you will more often than not be marked wrong. thankfully, this is usually easily dealt with - you bring the paper to the prof. but, it's very inefficient and really just shouldn't happen.
2) curving grades is a thing that happens, in both directions. it would bother me less in law, as there's a process of subjectivity. in math, it makes no sense to me. i remember one course where i got a test back with 115% - because i aced it (95%) and then got a 20% bump on the curve. now, that indicates i drastically outperformed the class on that particular test. but, here's the thing: if i could get 95% on it, i don't think the kid that got 45% should have been curved up to 65%. it clearly wasn't impossible. that kid failed, dammit. i've also officially received 100% on exams (several times...) that i know i got at least one question wrong on. it's not exactly the same as averaging out, of course, but it's a pretty ridiculous thing to do in any kind of stem course. yet, it absolutely does happen.
3) i know of at least one example where a female's test scores were orchestrated to be higher than they actually were (that is, the department organized cheating on the test) in order to justify putting her in a teaching assistant position because the school had a deficit of female teaching assistants. i know this because i happen to have overheard the conversation about it. my understanding is that she was seen as a strong student, but they wanted the case to be stronger.
broadly speaking, the video is of course ridiculous. and, little of what i'm saying is connected to the sjw strawman - the first issue is due to the difficulty of finding qualified tas willing to work at or below minimum wage, while the second is a consequence of professors being evaluated on their test scores. but, this video does touch on some points worth considering, albeit largely accidentally.
jbizzybrown
+deathtokoalas Sounds like you don't really want to work and surfed from student loan welfare to the golden goose of "disability"
deathtokoalas
+jbizzybrown yeah, that's about right - although it's hardly a "golden goose".
i decided i'd rather focus on my art, and i was willing to live in poverty to do it. call it a cost-benefit analysis, if you'd like. but, it was just an honest assessment of what drives me. i'd rather be poor and spend my time doing fulfilling things than wealthy and miserable because i feel like i'm wasting my time doing something i don't care about.
i mean, if you want numbers, it works out to about 50% of what i'd make if i were working a full time minimum wage job in this province. and, i'm confident i could do a lot better than minimum wage. so, it's a huge trade-off. i've got nothing but time, but i've got very little cash to spend. but, i'd rather have a lot of time and very little money than a lot of money and very little time.
i would support a guaranteed minimum income and put it at about that - half of minimum wage. that's enough to give people like me that just don't see the point of it a way out, while still maintaining strong incentives to engage in the labour force.
jbizzybrown
+deathtokoalas ya, thank your neighbors or your "cash" and "time" because it is coming from them, scumbag flea.
deathtokoalas
+jbizzybrown that's a very unscientific concept of the accounting. i could just as easily deduct it from taxes paid by investors, who legitimately actually really do just skim wealth off the top.
i really don't see any benefit to the society around me in forcing me to make somebody sandwiches. sorry.
you may find my offering of music and writing insufficient, but it's what i have to offer - and i don't feel it's less substantial. to the contrary.
george_505
+deathtokoalas Don't complete meaningful work then don't get paid :D
deathtokoalas
+george_505 well, i'll let you know when i agree to let you decide what meaningful work is.
in the mean time, i'll suggest an essay by oscar wilde called the soul of man under socialism.
Stefan Crapper
+deathtokoalas I sense trolling. Are you really admitting that you're leeching of welfare when you're more than capable intellectually of holding a job? lol
deathtokoalas
+Stefan Crapper yup. and, i'm even suggesting this should be normalized and everybody should do it.
one thing i just want to add, though, is that i'm not rejecting labour despite of ability and intelligence. rather, i'm rejecting labour because of ability and intelligence. if i was your average dipshit, i'd be happy pushing rocks up the hill. right?
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not duty, obligation and the obedience to norms. i'm sorry. fuck your worker hive.
jbizzybrown
+deathtokoalas you are just mad because you know deep in side that you are a completely worthless person.
deathtokoalas
+jbizzybrown that's actually not entirely inaccurate, except i would extend a caveat - we are all useless, life is useless and everything they've got us doing to waste our time is useless. it's kind of a way to try to break the cycle of uselessness.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas "Everybody should do it"
Then where is the money coming from? Holy crap you're entitled.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM i'd actually like to get rid of money altogether, if you want to walk down the line a few steps. in the mean time, i'm ok with printing it.
but the entitled thing is like...
sure. whatever. fuck your protestant work ethic, too.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas So we get rid of money, instead relying on each other. Yet you have chosen art as your calling over something that would actually sustain a money-less system.
Yep, still entitled.
george_505
+deathtokoalas Socialism, really? When you state such an ideology and yet you sit at home and don't work or do anything meaningful, instead are here drawing attention to yourself. A socialist society would have place for a person such as yourself.
jbizzybrown
+deathtokoalas Justify it to yourself however you want. You feel like shit because you are shit.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM you're not allowing yourself to think in a post-propertarian sense. the abolition of currency is desirable precisely because it allows for people to spend their time more freely.
take a look at the labour that exists around you. do we need store managers? restaurants? shop keepers? cashiers? all of these people are wasting their lives, because they are enslaved by a system of currency.
and, what is emancipation from currency? it is the freedom to live as one truly desires. to create art. to play in the snow. whatever.
jbizzybrown
+deathtokoalas so some people should just be slaves without money so that you can do whatever the fuck you want all day while being supported by them? Nice "care," you dipshit libtard
deathtokoalas
+george_505 i'm what you call an anarchist, which does not take the position that the state should assign people to accomplish certain tasks. i seek the abolition of property, of currency, of hierarchical relationships and of markets in exchange, but it is all to attain higher freedom of individual choice - because these things restrict individuality.
the wilde essay is really a very enjoyable read. he's not a dry writer. it's available online from several sources. please do give it a read, as he lays it all out there very well.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas So you'll gather your own food will you? Make your own clothes? Somehow provide yourself with basic hygiene?
Or are you expecting others do it for you while you run around painting your feelings?
Realistically, you want rid of money because you are in a crap load of debt with no job
deathtokoalas
+jbizzybrown i've explained this as well as i can to you, but you're clearly too much of an idiot to understand and i do not wish to communicate with you further.
*plonk*.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM the solution is to automate most mindless labour, and allow the rest of it to occur by volunteers. again: please read the literature i provided you with before you comment further.
george_505
+deathtokoalas you're describing everything that makes a society run, you just sit at home and do shit all everyday, day in and day out, get a job and have a purpose. Don't quote other people and state how much more intelligent you are than them because at the end of the day you're the one here sitting on your arse not working due to a 'disability'
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas Ok. What you are describing is a utopia. Yes, that would be wonderful but we aren't exactly there are we? We can't automate all mindless labour right now. It just simply isn't possible.
I just realised something. You have a maths degree. 2 years of CS. You want the technology for a utopia and your answer is to do art.
10/10 best troll world.
deathtokoalas
+george_505 i work very hard at what i do, actually. and, as stated, i feel it's more valuable work than i could accomplish through any kind of employment.
but, even if i didn't, i don't really see what your argument is. if you'd like to be a slave, that's your choice. i think it's regrettable. but, your choice to be a slave is not binding on me.
if you enjoy what you do, then we're even. if you don't, follow my lead and go on strike. but don't tell me that your decisions are binding on me. that's bullshit.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM 19.5/20 credits on the computer science, actually - on top of the four year math degree, and seven math credits at the graduate level (five is a master's).
there really aren't any barriers to automation at this point besides a political will to put it forth, so long as you're willing to throw away the vast majority of the economy that is entirely useless to survival.
in order to implement my ideas, i'd need to build awareness first. i suppose i could write a book, but there's quite a few out there. and, if you won't read a short essay, i'm left to conclude you won't read a book. i got prodded on this - i didn't intend this discussion to go in this direction - but there's plenty of posts all over the internet where i am initiating this kind of discussion.
but, it's a cost-benefit analysis, ultimately. i don't think this can be accomplished in my life time. we're going to have to go through an economic crisis first. this is something to talk about in the 2030s. maybe. in the mean time, i have a life to live, and i'd like to spend it doing what i want, right now - not fighting for the future, so the next generation can live how i wish i did, and didn't.
i mean, i'd have a different attitude if i was getting a different attitude back. but, when i offer a strategy for emancipation and all i get is "you're trying to get out of being a slave, that's not fair!", it's easy to snicker and tell you to fuck off.
i'm a rational agent. i'm trained to be. and, if the option is to be enslaved or enslave others, however contrived of a false dichotomy that is? i'll be the slave master. fuck you. sorry.
it's your responsibility to change your attitude if that pisses you off.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas You're deluded
Adam russek
+Chameleon EDM I agree or she's just trolling. She's not truly an anarchist if she's living off of everyone else's wealth. I'm an anarchist as well but that just means a voluntary society with no rulers/masters. But unfortunately humanity in its current condition doesn't have the will or personal responsibility (like deathtokoalas) to create that increase in freedom. Any society that wants to remain ignorant and immoral will inevitably end up in chains
deathtokoalas
+Adam russek anarchism rejects the concept of other people's wealth. it puts property in common. i dispute the idea that i'm living off anybody else's wealth, because i reject the idea that the wealth belongs to them in the first place.
as mentioned, i don't have a large subsidy. 65% of it goes to the landlord, and about 25% of it goes to basic necessities like food. the remaining 10% invariably gets spent on the work of other artists.
i'm only truly given enough to survive. but i've decided that's all that i need or i want.
the crux of the debate, in an anarchist framework, isn't even the value of art. virtually everybody agrees it has some value. even wingnuts like rand. the question is how that value should be determined, or if it should be determined at all.
so-called ancaps (who are really just classical liberals; anarchism necessarily rejects property rights, at the very least) will argue that art is a product to be determined by the market.
the anarchist argument against this is articulated very well in the essay i posted by wilde. but, the conclusion is that it should not be determined and that so long as artists are producing something or other then they are working and should be entitled to basic income, at least.
there's a twist in this: a lot of classical liberals (like milton friedman, for example) have argued in favour of basic incomes because they recognize the coercive nature of so-called free markets. whatever the value of markets are for however many people, they come with the defect that they produce a class of people who can only ever be enslaved by them, because their products can not be sold on them due to lack of demand. that is, markets are unable to put a meaningful price on some things - and art is the primary example. they came up with a generalized income to compensate for this. even the most ardent advocates of markets do understand the flaw that i represent, and do have ideas to make the situation more fair.
but if this meandering mess of producerist nonsense has a point, it's in that wilde essay. please do read it. wilde was an important author from the nineteenth century and lays out the argument for anarchism from the perspective of somebody in the artisan class (rather than somebody in the working class, which is where it often comes from) with refreshing clarity and insight. it's very, very much worth reading - even if you end up disagreeing dramatically with the points in it.
Lee Schneider
+deathtokoalas I understand where you are coming from, why spend your life pursuing something that is meaningless to you, but you need to consider the collective. If every capable person decided to drop their responsibilities then society wouldn't function; In assuming a role below your capacity you disenable someone less capable the right to that role.
deathtokoalas
+Lee Schneider i really strongly disagree; i feel that i do not need to consider the collective. individualism isn't necessarily selfish. i'm an advocate of reciprocal altruism (mutual aid), which is an example of how self-interest can benefit everybody if it's approached in the right way. true self-interest means respecting the people around you. but, i don't feel the responsibility you're implying i should. it strikes me as irrational.
but, i don't think the idea that i've dropped responsibilities to mathematics is accurate, either. i am a better musician than i am a mathematician. i'm not alexander grothendieck. i would feel i was dropping my responsibility to music by continuing to half-heartedly pursue math.
that said, i will come back to it. there is an age limit for composition, determined both by physical deterioration and intellectual evolution. i give myself another five years, maximum, of music as a dominant pursuit.
but, i'll let you in on something: mathematicians think a lot like artists do. the basic pressures are not altered. the truth is that it won't change my outlook much.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas You think you have a creative window? I am so glad I do not have your brain, it seems flawed.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM we start losing our hearing in our 20s. by the time we're 40, we've lost a substantial amount of our hearing range, especially on the high end. what i do is very conscious of spectrum - it's very impressionist, very much into the idea of creating the surreal out of frequencies. there will be a time when i will be unable to hear well enough to create what i imagine.
self-awareness is thought by cognitive scientists to be an advance, but it is probably a flaw - and a tragic one. i'm aware that i do not have a lot longer left to create within. denial is pointless.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas On listening to your music I'm sure you'll be fine with loosing some frequencies in the high end. Regardless, after listening to you music I'm just going to let you get on with life. You seem troubled enough.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM there's a great deal of detail in the high end; it's the kind of thing you need quality headphones and time to listen actively (and some marijuana helps, too) to be able to understand well. the granulated guitar overdubs at the start of my second symphony are a good example. in ten years, i likely won't be able to hear the harmonics anymore.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas I'm always stoned, I have AKG's. A lot of what you are hearing is in your head only, thats why your mixes appear to change when you do not change them at all. At least from looking at what you comment.
Oh, and I make neuro. So im plenty trained in listening to and for high harmonics.
Get Rich TV
+deathtokoalas I have to chime in and agree with much of your argument here, I really find that most of what we have here is a peoples fear of taking a risk in change, which is understandable but not necessarily right. People put so little value in arts but then I have to argue with them about when the last time it was that they didn't ingest some form of artistic media. The answer is pretty close to never. Visual arts, music, sculpture, writing, videogames, memes, etc. are all an ongoing feed of artistic export made by creatives... without it we'd be absolutely crushed under the weight of pure utilitarian duty, survival, responsibility and work.
I am currently working a low hour job that actually serves to sustain me financially but have been opting quite hard to push towards my true passion which is the pursuit of creative expression. I'm working on a webcomic (which I can definitely assure you is not an easy undertaking) while also trying to develop a recognizable universe in which to construct other media through, such as animation, games, writing and even going so far as to making interesting products that will extend that world into the real tangible world we live in. All to create an environment of wonder and whimsy. Without creatives living in poverty just to express themselves I doubt that many would be able to continue in the crushing grind of the workforce.
I'm glad that there are still some who believe that this current socio-economic world is a construct and has no more validity than anything else. We can disassemble, alter and upgrade it however we want and can design. Unfortunately, many will fight tooth and nail to preserve their inertia with the illusion that there is only one way, the current way.
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM i resolved my driver issue last night. it turns out that there was a bug in the install package.
i'm not going to post graphs.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas It doesn't change the fact that a lot of what you're hearing up there your mind is creating fictitiously.
Chameleon EDM
+Get Rich TV Hey, don't get me wrong. I love the arts, I create music myself. I just don't reject the entire idea of money and having a job in order to create art while living off of other people. What you do? fantastic! Keep going!
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM i'm not sure if you're aware of how complicated a point this is, or if you're just trying to suggest i'm a little crazy.
not every song is the same. some start as experiments. others come out of jams. but, pretty much everything i make has an aspect of projection. i don't want to suggest i'm spontaneously hearing sound; that's not something that any composer really experiences. but, mental composition through triggers is a really big part of writing. so, yes: sometimes, it comes entirely out of my head, even if it's driven by an existing idea. more often, i'm starting with something and create arrangements in my mind by listening to it over and over. string or horn parts. guitar solos. effects collages.
the challenge of being a sound artist is trying to create what you hear in your head - to convert the sounds you hear into your mind into something real that others can also hear. it's what the process is, what the point is. so, you're entirely right in saying that what i'm hearing is in my head, on some level. but, the struggle i was having was that what i was hearing was not the same as what was in my head,
the fact that i just spent 4.5 months freaking out over a broken driver (i simply couldn't determine what the problem was; the answer turned out to be both devastatingly simple and almost impossible to guess...i figured it out by accident) suggests that the separation between what i want to hear and what i do hear is actually pretty strong. if i was merely tripping out, i would have walked down a different path than that.
my larger works can have upwards of three hundred parts in them. it's a lot of work, and requires a lot of careful attention. that interplay between imagination and reality is vital. but, the bounds are clear - and have to be. i have to ensure they are, at all times. otherwise, i'm just living in my head.
Chameleon EDM
+deathtokoalas Everything you say sounds absolutely mad
deathtokoalas
+Chameleon EDM sigh. perhaps my diagnosis is not so arbitrary after all, then. i don't think that's true, but it's probably good for my image to come off just a little unhinged.
Alba Whiteman
+deathtokoalas ...A friend of mine was a computer programming lecturer at university and HAD to lower the pass mark level to pass more foreign students, by order of the faculty head. This is simply business for getting more asian students.
StephCurry WithTheShot
+deathtokoalas The crazy thing is, I'm starting to feel the same way you do. I bust my ass for my family. I work 70 hours a week while going to college for computer science. It's something I'm interested in, but not a passion of mine. I see it as a high salary job where I could use my brain and not my feet. Problem is, this grading process is a joke, not to mention that the material taught is being dumbed down so even the dumbest person who clearly isn't ready can pass and move on. Simple material is being repeated over and over again because the same idiots keep falling behind and I can't say anything because it will hurt their feelings and i'm supposed to be a "team player". I finish all the homework on time and I score 85-100s on tests and I get a B letter grade because I lose 10-15% on "class participation". Like, I'm sorry I don't want to be an asshole by answering everything for the rest of the class. What happens to the 10 students who never finished half the homework assignments with finals being 2 weeks away? Professor gives them all a free pass and lets them make up 3 months worth of assignments with no grade deduction. Not to mention they drop the 2 lowest test grades. I'm sitting on an A or B+ so I'm not worried about anything except my mother's mortgage. Finals come back and I got a B+ while half the class got an A. Gotta love college.
At the end of the day, knowledge is more valuable than a GPA but looking average will not get me into MIT or Berkeley. I feel like dropping out and purposely getting myself fired for unemployment so I can have the free time to self teach myself everything I would never learn with those classrooms. At the same time, with the books I read at work about coding jobs, I discovered that your team might not be that bright either. Apparently they can work 100 hour weeks with no salary increase if they are constantly behind. Maybe it's time I find a disability of my own...
deathtokoalas
+StephCurry WithTheShot ah, participation marks. that's something i forgot.
i've seen it set as high as 30% in third year, although that was a law class. gotta make sure they get their money's worth, right? see, but what it does is reward obedience. it's corporate training for the work environment. even at the university level, this is what the main purpose of schooling is.
depending on your goals, i would agree that you'll learn far better on your own than through a school. the thing is that you'd better be focused on self-employment, at least for the start.
the best way to get something out of school nowadays is through co-op. i'd even go so far as to suggest you're wasting your time, otherwise.
at
16:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i've been behind the lines on this, and while this is an unnecessarily militant confrontation, you have to understand what they're thinking, first.
the basic idea is that all media is corporate controlled, and exists to smear these kinds of events. the constitutional basis of allowing media rights is both built on the presumption of, and designed to foster, the expression of a free media as a check on power. when media is owned and operated by the elite as a means of control, the entire basis of that sort of thinking dissolves. free media rights only make sense in the context of the existence of a free media. the activists are no doubt under the absolutely correct assumption that they will gain nothing by talking to the media - all they will get are inaccurate hit pieces, smear campaigns and strawmen arguments in print. absolute non-cooperation with the media, and especially the corporate media, is a rational reaction to the existing state of the media, and their solidarity on the point should actually really be applauded.
but, there's a mob mentality that is taking over here that organizers should have been acting to counteract, rather than encouraging. if the aim here is to draw attention to themselves, jumping needlessly to militant tactics against the media is going to create far worse media than talking to them ever could.
a good example is when the photographer stands on his toes to try and get a shot and one of the protesters pushes him back. that's unacceptable; it's total thug behaviour. and, when somebody gets through, you can't even think about forcibly removing them. it's public property. that's simply assault.
but, you also have to keep in mind what created this. when you raise a generation on the principle that might makes right (in foreign policy, in policing, through reality tv, through fictional media...), don't be surprised when they act that principle out against you.
the basic idea is that all media is corporate controlled, and exists to smear these kinds of events. the constitutional basis of allowing media rights is both built on the presumption of, and designed to foster, the expression of a free media as a check on power. when media is owned and operated by the elite as a means of control, the entire basis of that sort of thinking dissolves. free media rights only make sense in the context of the existence of a free media. the activists are no doubt under the absolutely correct assumption that they will gain nothing by talking to the media - all they will get are inaccurate hit pieces, smear campaigns and strawmen arguments in print. absolute non-cooperation with the media, and especially the corporate media, is a rational reaction to the existing state of the media, and their solidarity on the point should actually really be applauded.
but, there's a mob mentality that is taking over here that organizers should have been acting to counteract, rather than encouraging. if the aim here is to draw attention to themselves, jumping needlessly to militant tactics against the media is going to create far worse media than talking to them ever could.
a good example is when the photographer stands on his toes to try and get a shot and one of the protesters pushes him back. that's unacceptable; it's total thug behaviour. and, when somebody gets through, you can't even think about forcibly removing them. it's public property. that's simply assault.
but, you also have to keep in mind what created this. when you raise a generation on the principle that might makes right (in foreign policy, in policing, through reality tv, through fictional media...), don't be surprised when they act that principle out against you.
at
14:49
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is structural. it's fun to blame mexico, but the truth is that we're being replaced by robots.
the next step is for the robots to take over those low paying jobs, too.
brains have been much racked, and there doesn't seem to be a good answer in sight. so, maybe we need to change the question.
if robots are doing all the work for us, do we really need to all have jobs?
www.cbc.ca/news/business/david-madani-jobs-employment-1.3313830
--
Rrrrrrrrrright
Why are the big unions allowed to fly under the radar on this?
jessica murray
i agree. canadian and american unions should have been doing far more organizing and solidarity work in mexico, to get living standards up there. by playing directly into nationalism, they've harmed all of us.
---
Dr. Grand
Obviously the government is the last to find this out. Duh ever since 2008 all of our good jobs have been vanishing for part time no benefits minimum wage type McJobs, why is this a story now? I guess the government can no longer hide this fact. All of their policies making it easy and penalty free for corporations to move overseas and continue to do business here is what has caused this.
jessica murray
these trends trace to the 70s.
the next step is for the robots to take over those low paying jobs, too.
brains have been much racked, and there doesn't seem to be a good answer in sight. so, maybe we need to change the question.
if robots are doing all the work for us, do we really need to all have jobs?
www.cbc.ca/news/business/david-madani-jobs-employment-1.3313830
--
Rrrrrrrrrright
Why are the big unions allowed to fly under the radar on this?
jessica murray
i agree. canadian and american unions should have been doing far more organizing and solidarity work in mexico, to get living standards up there. by playing directly into nationalism, they've harmed all of us.
---
Dr. Grand
Obviously the government is the last to find this out. Duh ever since 2008 all of our good jobs have been vanishing for part time no benefits minimum wage type McJobs, why is this a story now? I guess the government can no longer hide this fact. All of their policies making it easy and penalty free for corporations to move overseas and continue to do business here is what has caused this.
jessica murray
these trends trace to the 70s.
at
05:49
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Han-Kog
I agree with the view that this is pretty disgusting, yet I don't know of any other alternative.
If the city is facing the risk of a systemic failure in which sewage will wind up in the St. Lawrence at a random time, then isn't it best to arrange for this to happen at the least risky time?
For any of us to complain about the current approach, what exactly are the alternatives?
jessica murray
the truck idea was contemplated. it would have required something like 9000 trucks.
it could have been diverted into temporary storage for a price of approximately a billion dollars.
the crux of the decision is that the effects of the leak will not be large enough to justify the costs. and, i can't help but see the logic in this analysis.
they're looking at a flow rate of 13 L/s. the st. lawerence runs at around 7000 L/s in that area. if you scale that down, it's miniscule: rushing downstream, you're looking at 0.00186 L of sewage per L of water. and, that will break up even further as it continues flowing.
8 billion tonnes seems like a huge number, but it really pales in comparison to the amount of water running through the area.
that doesn't mean this should happen all the time. and it's nice to see the outrage, even if it's poorly placed. but, when the experts say "this isn't a big deal", they aren't just saying that. it's the consequence of studying it and coming to an informed conclusion on it.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/st-lawrence-montreal-sewage-dump-underway-1.3313623
I agree with the view that this is pretty disgusting, yet I don't know of any other alternative.
If the city is facing the risk of a systemic failure in which sewage will wind up in the St. Lawrence at a random time, then isn't it best to arrange for this to happen at the least risky time?
For any of us to complain about the current approach, what exactly are the alternatives?
jessica murray
the truck idea was contemplated. it would have required something like 9000 trucks.
it could have been diverted into temporary storage for a price of approximately a billion dollars.
the crux of the decision is that the effects of the leak will not be large enough to justify the costs. and, i can't help but see the logic in this analysis.
they're looking at a flow rate of 13 L/s. the st. lawerence runs at around 7000 L/s in that area. if you scale that down, it's miniscule: rushing downstream, you're looking at 0.00186 L of sewage per L of water. and, that will break up even further as it continues flowing.
8 billion tonnes seems like a huge number, but it really pales in comparison to the amount of water running through the area.
that doesn't mean this should happen all the time. and it's nice to see the outrage, even if it's poorly placed. but, when the experts say "this isn't a big deal", they aren't just saying that. it's the consequence of studying it and coming to an informed conclusion on it.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/st-lawrence-montreal-sewage-dump-underway-1.3313623
at
05:32
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is totally misunderstanding the situation.
what actually happened is that they looked at the numbers, knew that harper was leaving us with a structural deficit and changed their platform to deficit spending to compensate. that is, the deficit spending promises happened because they knew harper was leaving a deficit to begin with.
consider the other scenario: suppose they had promised balanced budgets (as the ndp did - "according to harper's estimates", indicating they also realized the reality, but weren't honest about it.). they would have been unable to follow through on that promise and they would have been nailed by the media on it. so, they took the option of being honest about it and promised deficits, instead.
there were consequently two motives to this policy. the first was to manage expectations. the second was to make it clear that they were inheriting deficits, and to place the blame where it belongs.
now, we *do* need this infrastructure spending, anyways. but the idea that it's going to have a significant effect on the economy is something no economist would endorse. like, you're talking about a fraction of a percent of gdp with these kinds of modest deficits, it's all temporary and the assumptions of a closed economy on multiplier effects don't pan out. but, they knew that.
so, what effect will this have on spending? none. you've got the cause and effect backwards.
that said, there are some cost-saving mechanisms in the budget (most notably the cut in childcare handouts for rich people) and there are some possible significant revenue streams coming (like marijuana). i think you should see a surprise surplus a year or two early as a result of these changes.
but, don't confuse yourself. they knew this was coming. it's why they promised deficits.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parliamentary-budget-officer-trudeau-plans-1.3312757
--
stillnojustice
Why didn't Trudeau's own "PBO" economists pick up on the Canadian economy continuing to go down the crapper for another 2? years after the election?
Were the Liberals expecting a miracle economic recovery after ten years of the most corrupt dictatorship that Canadians have ever seen.
jessica murray
they did.
that's why they didn't promise they could balance the budget right away; they knew they were being left with a structural deficit, and based their platform around it.
---
Guardian52
So Harper's campaign candy about balancing the budget was just a big lie? Why am I not surprised? And why wasn't this brought to light before the election?
jessica murray
it was brought to light during the election - it's the reason the liberals campaigned on deficits.
what actually happened is that they looked at the numbers, knew that harper was leaving us with a structural deficit and changed their platform to deficit spending to compensate. that is, the deficit spending promises happened because they knew harper was leaving a deficit to begin with.
consider the other scenario: suppose they had promised balanced budgets (as the ndp did - "according to harper's estimates", indicating they also realized the reality, but weren't honest about it.). they would have been unable to follow through on that promise and they would have been nailed by the media on it. so, they took the option of being honest about it and promised deficits, instead.
there were consequently two motives to this policy. the first was to manage expectations. the second was to make it clear that they were inheriting deficits, and to place the blame where it belongs.
now, we *do* need this infrastructure spending, anyways. but the idea that it's going to have a significant effect on the economy is something no economist would endorse. like, you're talking about a fraction of a percent of gdp with these kinds of modest deficits, it's all temporary and the assumptions of a closed economy on multiplier effects don't pan out. but, they knew that.
so, what effect will this have on spending? none. you've got the cause and effect backwards.
that said, there are some cost-saving mechanisms in the budget (most notably the cut in childcare handouts for rich people) and there are some possible significant revenue streams coming (like marijuana). i think you should see a surprise surplus a year or two early as a result of these changes.
but, don't confuse yourself. they knew this was coming. it's why they promised deficits.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parliamentary-budget-officer-trudeau-plans-1.3312757
--
stillnojustice
Why didn't Trudeau's own "PBO" economists pick up on the Canadian economy continuing to go down the crapper for another 2? years after the election?
Were the Liberals expecting a miracle economic recovery after ten years of the most corrupt dictatorship that Canadians have ever seen.
jessica murray
they did.
that's why they didn't promise they could balance the budget right away; they knew they were being left with a structural deficit, and based their platform around it.
---
Guardian52
So Harper's campaign candy about balancing the budget was just a big lie? Why am I not surprised? And why wasn't this brought to light before the election?
jessica murray
it was brought to light during the election - it's the reason the liberals campaigned on deficits.
at
05:13
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
it would make a lot more sense to just reform welfare to something more reasonable. there's no use in sending the checks to people that have jobs, it's just going to drive inflation. but, if you set welfare payments to 50-75% of the minimum wage, you're getting all the good parts of it while losing the bad parts.
i want to add something about the question of incentivizing work, as well. it's less that it creates a disincentive. speaking from my own experience, my disincentive to work is the nature of work itself. there's not a thing you could do to incentivize me to really, actually want to be there. hate the tasks. hate the people. to me, it's literally slavery. the outcome is that i'd be - and have been - just about the shittiest employee you could imagine, because i would literally only be there because i was being forced to be there. i'd take any possible way out. in fact, i went back to school once (and racked up tens of thousands in debt) in order to avoid working at statscan. literally. i turned down the job and went back to school to study computer science, without any goal of getting a job when i came out. it was just to avoid the 9-5.
what does the system do with a person like me? i honestly, truly don't want to be there - you really have to drag me kicking and screaming, if not literally than coercively through market forces. and i could very well get up and walk out mid shift. nobody benefits from this.
see, but, i don't sit around watching oprah. i'm not avoiding labour for the sake of avoiding labour, i'm avoiding what i feel is unfulfilling labour to focus on what i actually want to do. you can see i spend a lot of time rambling; i've had a broken computer for some time. i'm a composer. that's where my heart is, it's what i love to do. i have a rather large body of work, in fact. hours and hours and hours. it's quite challenging sound art, though, with very little potential of being income generating; or, at least, that's my calculation of the reality of it for the course of my life time.
so, instead of talking about "disincentivizing work", i'd rather talk about creating conditions to fulfil true potential, and engage in work that is truly meaningful to the individual, even if the market may not really reward it.
i mean, love these ramblings or not, but it's a lot more productive than scanning items at a cash register or making people sandwiches.
that's a really dramatic social shift if done in the open. i get that. but, it's a lot less profound if you're just talking about boosting welfare rates to something people can actually live on, to give people the freedom to escape from the labour market. and, trust me - if somebody is going to choose to escape the labour market, employers are better off without them.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/minimum-income-basic-income_n_6370458.html
i want to add something about the question of incentivizing work, as well. it's less that it creates a disincentive. speaking from my own experience, my disincentive to work is the nature of work itself. there's not a thing you could do to incentivize me to really, actually want to be there. hate the tasks. hate the people. to me, it's literally slavery. the outcome is that i'd be - and have been - just about the shittiest employee you could imagine, because i would literally only be there because i was being forced to be there. i'd take any possible way out. in fact, i went back to school once (and racked up tens of thousands in debt) in order to avoid working at statscan. literally. i turned down the job and went back to school to study computer science, without any goal of getting a job when i came out. it was just to avoid the 9-5.
what does the system do with a person like me? i honestly, truly don't want to be there - you really have to drag me kicking and screaming, if not literally than coercively through market forces. and i could very well get up and walk out mid shift. nobody benefits from this.
see, but, i don't sit around watching oprah. i'm not avoiding labour for the sake of avoiding labour, i'm avoiding what i feel is unfulfilling labour to focus on what i actually want to do. you can see i spend a lot of time rambling; i've had a broken computer for some time. i'm a composer. that's where my heart is, it's what i love to do. i have a rather large body of work, in fact. hours and hours and hours. it's quite challenging sound art, though, with very little potential of being income generating; or, at least, that's my calculation of the reality of it for the course of my life time.
so, instead of talking about "disincentivizing work", i'd rather talk about creating conditions to fulfil true potential, and engage in work that is truly meaningful to the individual, even if the market may not really reward it.
i mean, love these ramblings or not, but it's a lot more productive than scanning items at a cash register or making people sandwiches.
that's a really dramatic social shift if done in the open. i get that. but, it's a lot less profound if you're just talking about boosting welfare rates to something people can actually live on, to give people the freedom to escape from the labour market. and, trust me - if somebody is going to choose to escape the labour market, employers are better off without them.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/minimum-income-basic-income_n_6370458.html
at
04:44
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this report is actually greatly indicative of what he's left us with: a perception of "average" as being a positive response. that is, the acceptance of mediocrity.
if you interpret average as a negative response, it suggests only 23% see him positively. which is about the number of people - when turnout is adjusted for - that voted for him.
my view? he won't leave a discernible legacy at all. quick: tell me one thing louis st. laurent did. can't, can you?
almost everything he legislated will be reversed - with the one possibility being the tpp, but the american house may save us from this. what people will remember is what he *didn't* legislate: climate change, prostitution, euthanasia, marijuana....
he's passed a large number of laws that have been ruled as unconstitutional. this legacy will live on in case law far longer than anything he's left to us in the legislature.
history will see him as a backwards reactionary that successfully stunted progress for a few years and was ultimately completely erased. good or bad isn't even the right question. his ultimate place in history is to be forgotten altogether.
status: irrelevant.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/02/harper-legacy-poll-record-angus-reid-institute_n_8453140.html
if you interpret average as a negative response, it suggests only 23% see him positively. which is about the number of people - when turnout is adjusted for - that voted for him.
my view? he won't leave a discernible legacy at all. quick: tell me one thing louis st. laurent did. can't, can you?
almost everything he legislated will be reversed - with the one possibility being the tpp, but the american house may save us from this. what people will remember is what he *didn't* legislate: climate change, prostitution, euthanasia, marijuana....
he's passed a large number of laws that have been ruled as unconstitutional. this legacy will live on in case law far longer than anything he's left to us in the legislature.
history will see him as a backwards reactionary that successfully stunted progress for a few years and was ultimately completely erased. good or bad isn't even the right question. his ultimate place in history is to be forgotten altogether.
status: irrelevant.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/02/harper-legacy-poll-record-angus-reid-institute_n_8453140.html
at
04:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
can you run a follow-up to this in a month, please?
i'm curious to see the reaction when absolutely nothing happens.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-sewage-dump-city-will-announce-details-today-1.3311931
i'm curious to see the reaction when absolutely nothing happens.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-sewage-dump-city-will-announce-details-today-1.3311931
at
11:48
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
there are four people with indian ethnic backgrounds, and they are all clearly people of colour.
i'd like to be terse, but i think it's actually an opportunity to remind people that canada is not the united states. that applies both to the history of the country and to it's existing demographics. as others have pointed out, there are very few people of african background in canada and most have emigrated here since 1970. there's no asians in the cabinet, either; in canada, in 2015, that is a far more conspicuous omission. the legacy of slavery that underlies american structural racism is really absent here. it's disingenuous to bring in language meant for alabama or south africa. and, explicitly rejecting it is a question of being clear-thinking.
sometimes when things are invisible it's because they've been erased. but, sometimes when things are invisible it's because they really simply aren't there.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-blacks-still-waiting-for-their-moment-of-real-change/article27175310
i'd like to be terse, but i think it's actually an opportunity to remind people that canada is not the united states. that applies both to the history of the country and to it's existing demographics. as others have pointed out, there are very few people of african background in canada and most have emigrated here since 1970. there's no asians in the cabinet, either; in canada, in 2015, that is a far more conspicuous omission. the legacy of slavery that underlies american structural racism is really absent here. it's disingenuous to bring in language meant for alabama or south africa. and, explicitly rejecting it is a question of being clear-thinking.
sometimes when things are invisible it's because they've been erased. but, sometimes when things are invisible it's because they really simply aren't there.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-blacks-still-waiting-for-their-moment-of-real-change/article27175310
at
11:26
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
obama has made the united states "energy independent" by pushing through massive amounts of fracking, which releases large amounts of the worst greenhouse gas - methane. if he had any interest in the climate, he'd have stopped that rather than encouraged it.
he didn't stop the pipeline on an epa review. he stopped it on a state department review. the state department determines strategic military goals - which includes controlling the supply of canadian oil.
the decision is meant to block exports to china, not to reduce emissions.
you're never going to win this argument the way you're articulating it. we rely massively on oil. you're telling people to freeze in the dark; don't be surprised when they ignore you.
the first thing that is necessary to transition from fossil fuels is investment in alternatives so that consumers have a realistic choice to reduce consumption. investment is also necessary to convert waste facilities and convert electricity generation. together, waste & electricity & heating add up to 30% of emissions - this is very low lying fruit and can get us a good way to our targets. it's done by investing in the proper technologies, in building the proper infrastructure and in modifying regulations and providing incentives (which includes lowering the price of clean electricity). the government is open in moving in this direction to the point that it was a big part of their platform.
it's a necessary condition before further action is feasible, and they want to do it. if you want to be taken seriously, you should be pushing for them to hold up to what they campaigned on first, and moving on to more stringent steps later.
another 25% comes from transportation - mostly fueled by imported oil, and increasingly from the united states. canada actually imports more fracked oil than it exports tar sands oil at this point. you should think about that. incentives can be made to get people to convert to electric cars or use public transportation, but you have to understand that people view their vehicles as investments and status symbols. this has to happen slowly. but, the alternatives have to exist first. so, we need to invest in cleaner cars first (preferably electric ones), then get people to buy them. so long as the grid gets converted, this is all good.
what's left is tar sands & industry - 35% of emissions - and the only serious way to get after this is through regulation. the big push back is how reliant our economy is on it. but, guess what? if you focus on the previous things first, the economy will shift and it will be a lot easier to get tough on regulations. so long as we're stuck with the oil industry for revenue (which is what happens when you tax them heavily), you're fighting a battle you can't win.
again: you're lucky. the government has made these choices for you. this is the order in which they will act. you just need to make sure they do it.
but, you're more likely to find success if you get with the program than fight against the current. please realize this and get with it.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/cameron-fenton/justin-trudeaus-sunny-way_b_8507460.html
he didn't stop the pipeline on an epa review. he stopped it on a state department review. the state department determines strategic military goals - which includes controlling the supply of canadian oil.
the decision is meant to block exports to china, not to reduce emissions.
you're never going to win this argument the way you're articulating it. we rely massively on oil. you're telling people to freeze in the dark; don't be surprised when they ignore you.
the first thing that is necessary to transition from fossil fuels is investment in alternatives so that consumers have a realistic choice to reduce consumption. investment is also necessary to convert waste facilities and convert electricity generation. together, waste & electricity & heating add up to 30% of emissions - this is very low lying fruit and can get us a good way to our targets. it's done by investing in the proper technologies, in building the proper infrastructure and in modifying regulations and providing incentives (which includes lowering the price of clean electricity). the government is open in moving in this direction to the point that it was a big part of their platform.
it's a necessary condition before further action is feasible, and they want to do it. if you want to be taken seriously, you should be pushing for them to hold up to what they campaigned on first, and moving on to more stringent steps later.
another 25% comes from transportation - mostly fueled by imported oil, and increasingly from the united states. canada actually imports more fracked oil than it exports tar sands oil at this point. you should think about that. incentives can be made to get people to convert to electric cars or use public transportation, but you have to understand that people view their vehicles as investments and status symbols. this has to happen slowly. but, the alternatives have to exist first. so, we need to invest in cleaner cars first (preferably electric ones), then get people to buy them. so long as the grid gets converted, this is all good.
what's left is tar sands & industry - 35% of emissions - and the only serious way to get after this is through regulation. the big push back is how reliant our economy is on it. but, guess what? if you focus on the previous things first, the economy will shift and it will be a lot easier to get tough on regulations. so long as we're stuck with the oil industry for revenue (which is what happens when you tax them heavily), you're fighting a battle you can't win.
again: you're lucky. the government has made these choices for you. this is the order in which they will act. you just need to make sure they do it.
but, you're more likely to find success if you get with the program than fight against the current. please realize this and get with it.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/cameron-fenton/justin-trudeaus-sunny-way_b_8507460.html
at
11:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Tom Robinson
And the Earth is not flat.
Terry Swidinsky
But it used to be the consensus that it was, until a few deniers started to cast dought on the whole issue.
jessica amber murray
this is a myth. flat earthers were always an extreme minority; the argument may have been biblical, but it was an interpretation created by a third party. the church actually accepted the science on this, which has been known since about 500 years before the common era. the cultures in greece & carthage were very maritime driven, and it is very hard to sail towards the horizon without realizing there is a curvature in front of you. you would have be wilfully blind to the evidence around you to think that the world is flat.
we did think the universe revolved around the earth, though.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/09/climate-science-indisputable-environment-minister-catherine-mckenna_n_8508708.html
--
Alice Scott Budden
I am not disputing climate change, however, I do have one question for the experts - How is raising taxes going to prevent climate change?
jessica amber murray
you're actually right, alice: taxation is not a social policy, and a carbon tax will not reduce emissions. it will just increase prices.
these people are throwing around a lot of right-wing economic theory and pretending it's progressive. the reality is that humans are not homo economicus, and pigovian taxes don't work. if we want a real solution, we need to drop the neo-liberal nonsense.
the right way to start off with this is through direct government investment: by studying the actual sources of emissions and replacing them with alternatives. once alternatives are in place, we can create incentives to switch to them.
despite fear-mongering by the media, and empty rhetoric from the ivory tower, the truth is that the liberals currently have no plans for a carbon tax. they do have plans for direct investment.
And the Earth is not flat.
Terry Swidinsky
But it used to be the consensus that it was, until a few deniers started to cast dought on the whole issue.
jessica amber murray
this is a myth. flat earthers were always an extreme minority; the argument may have been biblical, but it was an interpretation created by a third party. the church actually accepted the science on this, which has been known since about 500 years before the common era. the cultures in greece & carthage were very maritime driven, and it is very hard to sail towards the horizon without realizing there is a curvature in front of you. you would have be wilfully blind to the evidence around you to think that the world is flat.
we did think the universe revolved around the earth, though.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/09/climate-science-indisputable-environment-minister-catherine-mckenna_n_8508708.html
--
Alice Scott Budden
I am not disputing climate change, however, I do have one question for the experts - How is raising taxes going to prevent climate change?
jessica amber murray
you're actually right, alice: taxation is not a social policy, and a carbon tax will not reduce emissions. it will just increase prices.
these people are throwing around a lot of right-wing economic theory and pretending it's progressive. the reality is that humans are not homo economicus, and pigovian taxes don't work. if we want a real solution, we need to drop the neo-liberal nonsense.
the right way to start off with this is through direct government investment: by studying the actual sources of emissions and replacing them with alternatives. once alternatives are in place, we can create incentives to switch to them.
despite fear-mongering by the media, and empty rhetoric from the ivory tower, the truth is that the liberals currently have no plans for a carbon tax. they do have plans for direct investment.
at
09:42
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
awwww.
the monarchist league of canada is worried...
awwwww.
there's no future for the queen of england in canada. so, let's get on with it and get rid of her altogether.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/09/trudeau-queen-portrait-foreign-affairs_n_8513004.html
the monarchist league of canada is worried...
awwwww.
there's no future for the queen of england in canada. so, let's get on with it and get rid of her altogether.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/11/09/trudeau-queen-portrait-foreign-affairs_n_8513004.html
at
09:25
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
this is indeed absolutely remarkable.
"people are going to think this is what yale is like."
it may be the most unintentionally ironic statement i've ever seen.
"it's not about creating an intellectual space, it's about creating a home."
what this really suggests is entitlement. you get this from students that have never received a B, consider themselves a part of an intellectual elite and look at a school as a kind of a club. they fail to realize that they coasted through school less on their intelligence and more on the mediocrity of the curriculum. what's lacking is actually a concept of work.
stated otherwise, that's a spoiled brat.
polymath7
+jessica "it may be the most unintentionally ironic statement i've ever seen. "
Pardon me, but "may be"? Can you name three others that even come close? This is not a rhetorical question.
jessica
+polymath7 i think it's asking me a little much to be able to definitely state that anything is the most anything that i've ever experienced.
i'm not going to sit here for hours and rack my brain. but, i had a 12 year-old little sister at one point. i'm sure i could come up with something.
polymath7
+jessica That's kind of the point though, you'd have to rack your brain. I racked mine for several minutes, and came up with nothing. Nothing...
edit: I had a cousin who once belligerently said, "I don't give a fuck what 'apathy' means" -but he was nine years old, and that's still not as egregious as this.
"people are going to think this is what yale is like."
it may be the most unintentionally ironic statement i've ever seen.
"it's not about creating an intellectual space, it's about creating a home."
what this really suggests is entitlement. you get this from students that have never received a B, consider themselves a part of an intellectual elite and look at a school as a kind of a club. they fail to realize that they coasted through school less on their intelligence and more on the mediocrity of the curriculum. what's lacking is actually a concept of work.
stated otherwise, that's a spoiled brat.
polymath7
+jessica "it may be the most unintentionally ironic statement i've ever seen. "
Pardon me, but "may be"? Can you name three others that even come close? This is not a rhetorical question.
jessica
+polymath7 i think it's asking me a little much to be able to definitely state that anything is the most anything that i've ever experienced.
i'm not going to sit here for hours and rack my brain. but, i had a 12 year-old little sister at one point. i'm sure i could come up with something.
polymath7
+jessica That's kind of the point though, you'd have to rack your brain. I racked mine for several minutes, and came up with nothing. Nothing...
edit: I had a cousin who once belligerently said, "I don't give a fuck what 'apathy' means" -but he was nine years old, and that's still not as egregious as this.
at
09:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)