“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
Winston Smith toes the Party line, rewriting history to satisfy the demands of the Ministry of Truth. With each lie he writes, Winston grows to hate the Party that seeks power for its own sake and persecutes those who dare to commit thoughtcrimes. But as he starts to think for himself, Winston can’t escape the fact that Big Brother is always watching…
A startling and haunting vision of the world, 1984 is so powerful that it is completely convincing from start to finish. No one can deny the influence of this novel, its hold on the imaginations of multiple generations of readers, or the resiliency of its admonitions—a legacy that seems only to grow with the passage of time.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
And yet we walked into exactly that vision, unhesitating, undaunted, unthinking…
Was there confusion over the understanding that Orwell wrote it as a warning, not a recommendation?
Partly this happened because nobody thought anyone would be dumb enough and unaware enough to ignore precedent, and partisanship is now so strong in the USA that just because it’s YOUR nutter in charge breaking the laws is enough to make you refuse to counter it.
Congress should impeach BASED ON TRUMPS TAX FORMS ALONE. Not producing them should be taken, as with any other refusal or hiding of evidence, as evidence there’s something to hide.
TBH, I suspect that Trump is Obama’s lasting legacy. Only very partly due to him going “as much change as the opposition want me to make”, but the majority share being BECAUSE HE WAS BLACK.
Seriously, the entire republican base and the politicians themselves went COMPLETELY APESHIT because there was a nigger in the whitehouse rather than picking cotton on the farm of a proper white christian. Not slightly, not even as much apeshit as Orangina is, COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY APE SHIT.
So apeshit that just to get the taste of having to listen to a black man talk to them as an equal,they were 100% happy with Orangina as their representative, because he was “normalising” them back to the moronic conspiracy fantasies of the rabidly white nationalist mindset they truly believe is the only true way America Was Meant To Be ™.
If Obama had ACTUALLY managed change rather than BEFORE EVEN NEGOTIATING compromising, then having to compromise from that to STILL get stonewalled (because the whiteys won’t put up with a darkie giving orders…), and just compromising AGAIN, rather than going “Fuck it, OK, lets play hardball. Public option, bitches. And a public open vote.”. If he’d done something then he would have left people thinking that, yes, Hilary Clinton COULD have continued on with the change, and voting for her rather than the shit-faced gibbon.
But, no, he wanted a legacy of being the best candidate for president. Once that happened, he didn’t want to seem confrontational or partisan.
And if you are going to vote for (R) policies, why the fuck would you vote for a (D) doing them??? And if you couldn’t vote for an (R), why the hell vote for a (D) who has just shown they will let themselves be told what to do by an (R) anyway?
But I see the current insanity, absent the genuine rational attempt to stop “By Politicians, For Politicians” being the only game in town, as being those moronic idiots who are STILL incensed that a black man did anything and will accept ANY bullshit as long as the legacy of a black man being in charge is expunged.
There’s a good essay by Andew Postman (Neil’s son) in the Guardian about how his father nailed it. But the ‘it’ was Brave New World, not 1984.
Must dig out Amusing Ourselves To Death. Overdue a re-read.
Good book.
About bad things.
That;s why dick thinks it’s a good book.
He loves that. He either enjoys it when “his side” is doing it, or conspiracy ragequits if “the other side” is in by *believing* they’re doing it.
Our president is addled. And yes this is altogether too close to 1984. So is he too addled to know better? Or is he so crafty that he thinks he can get away with following the instructions in Orwell’s novel?
Did anybody see the interchange between trump and April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks yesterday? He asked a black journalist to set up a meeting for him with the Congressional Black Caucus. Were any of you reminded like I was of the great Peter Sellers’ great film “Being There”? In the film, Peter Sellers plays the part of Chauncey Gardener, a slightly addled and severely sheltered man in a nice suit thrown out into the streets by misfortune. He runs into a dark skinned street gang and asks for their assistance. They think he is a prop from a rival gang. The gang leader gives him a salty message to relay to the rival leader, “Rafael”. Later, in a hospital room, Chauncey sees a black Doctor and thinks that maybe he is Rafael, since he is dark skinned….. and he tries to relay the message from the
gang leader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLuXod8bR0Q
“Or is he so crafty that he thinks he can get away with following the instructions in Orwell’s novel? ”
No, he’s so much a dumbass and he’s never had to live with consequences to have learned any better.
That works better with Hillary in the pic.
http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/sorry_libs_orwell_talking_about_u.htm
MikeN just loves his propaganda…
It’s like trump voters didn’t realise he’d won! I guess their “best bet” is to try to make out that it would have been bad with Hilary…
Doctor gets to see his defamation case go forward against CNN. Thoughts? It looks like unlike Mann the court here just ignored the anti-SLAPP.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/will-a-judges-ruling-cnn-make-easier-sue-media-976933
Trolling?
I remember when Rush Limbaugh wrote similarly about the Left.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C42bzTlUcAAIkGH.jpg
Inquiring minds want to know why any rational being would give a flying duck what Limbaugh wrote. The man is a buffoon.
Brainstorms, I think it says enough that he refers to the website of Cashill. A man who believes in Intelligent Design (he is a cdesign proponentsist), and is a conspiracy theorist (TWA800 “missile”, Ron Brown “murder”). But he’s a special one, in the sense that he does not believe in just any old conspiracy, but only in those that are supposedly ‘left-wing’. And thus Clinton got Ron Brown murdered, and Bush was not involved in 9/11. Not because the latter idea is so crazy, but because Bush is Republican, and hence it is stupid to even think he’d be involved in a conspiracy. Clinton, on the other hand, being a Democrat and all that, well, there’s your fire that caused the smoke.
You do realize who linked to limbaugh, right BBD? Is the bolded word in your comment a mistake or a statement? (I have a strong suspicion I already know.)
undoubtedly my favourite book of all time
“O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.
‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’
‘Four.’
‘And if the party says that it is not four but five — then how many?’
‘Four.'”
we are having an Orwellian time in the UK at the moment
after the Brexiteers telling us, all through the campaign that the EU would give us a great deal, a better deal!!
May’s recent speech was and admission and evidence that this is/was illusory – a lie
but in Brexit land “defeat is victory”
Disconcerting trends consistent with the 1984 meme-
Right wing loyalty to leader and party appears to be far more important today than loyalty to constitution or people. Citizens of the nation are devalued if they are not loyal party members. See any right wing media outlet’s contempt for liberals and muslims as proof..
Right wingers are becoming more and more authoritarian, without even knowing what authoritarianism really means.
Right wingers becoming more and more fascist, without having a fucking clue what a fascist is. Go ahead, my right wing friends, tell us what authoritarianism and fascism are.
Right wingers openly acting racist while claiming that they are not.
Right wingers devaluing verifiable truth. Phony crowd numbers, phony voter fraud numbers revealed Trumps main suit right out of the gate.
Right wingers hiding their sadistic tendencies behind the squid ink of “political correctness”. The real anger of the right at political correctness seems to be that it interferes with their desire to and their ability to hurt others.
It certainly seems that the people on the high end of the sadism spectrum are floating to the top of the bowl and they are really going to mess things up. There are people in the world who simply like to hurt other people. In many cases their extremist religion calls for it . Westboro Baptist is an example, as is ISIS. In the case of the right political wing, hurting others to make profit is not only acceptable, but practically a virtue. If you look at the utterances of right wing media personalities like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, or Lord, they are all skillfully weaponized to create discomfort and even psychological damage. I don’t think that the right wing has even the slightest concern about damaging or devaluing other humans, unless they are an unborn consumer, in which case the right claims a phony moral high ground..
Marco, he has implicated Bush in several conspiracies. Remember that plane crash after 9/11? It’s a shoe bomber.
The Daniel Pearl killing was attributed to KSM, and he suspects that they originally had something else in that list.
Conspiracy theory sites: The watering holes where people with an inadequate grasp of human or material behavior wax poetic.
“The buildings fell straight down, so it had to be a controlled demolition!”
You can try to tell an amateur that 500,000 Tons of steel and cement are different from their Lego towers, but they won’t get it.
You can try to tell an armchair engineer that 500,000 Tons of mass cannot be easily induced to fall anywhere but straight down, but they won’t get it.
You can try to tell a child that 500,000 Tons of mass accelerating straight down will crush or mangle just about anything in its way , or anything that might try to lever it sideways, but they might not get it.
Similarly, the strength behavior of the heat warped beams [not melted or softened… just warped] is all you need to know to understand the collapse of the towers. But they won’t get it. Oh well.
He is still a conspiracy theorist, and it is incredibly telling (not in a good way) to link to his site.
That’s because they see human beings the same way they see other inanimate objects.
One does not feel concern about devaluing or damaging a tin can, for instance — unless it happens to contain something you want. Then you treat it with appropriate care until you’ve gotten what you want out of it, at which point you treat it with disdain, contempt, or like it were trash.
The right-wing mindset should perhaps be listed in the DSM. But then clinics would become overloaded. Assuming the afflicted cared enough about their futures to seek treatment, that is.
Likely the job is so big, it would take a deity to pull it off. And even then would be quite a challenge. The afflicted have a nasty tendency to fight back against those who seek to help them. Sometimes it gets bloody…
So, we have a presidink who tipples at the conspiracy theory watering holes. Does he do that because he is an ignorant fool? Or does he do that because he knows that conspiracy theory watering holes are a good place to win the support of ignorant fools?…. He doesn’t show a lot of smarts, but he is rich. Maybe because he has mastered the arts of lying and stealing, and has a sympathetic vibration with the conspiracy theorists? I don’t know.
At any rate, I find it curious that he is starting to look like Bill the Cat each day….. one eye is way more open than the other. Stroke? Any neurophysiologist in the audience who care to weigh in?
The man is showing more and more evidence each day that he is not up to the job. He is trying to knock out supporting beams of long established institutions in order to put in his new biker pool table, and I think it is not going to work out well for him. Just saying.
The reason we are able to find elements of the novel that seem such a prescient description of the present is not because the book was written as prophecy of probably ever intended to be general in its application.
Orwell was writing about a particular and specific time in British politics. His indictment of doublethink and thoughtcrime was directed at identifiable aspects of Russian postwar politics and English socialism. His genius is in abstracting and condensing those targets into a parable of powerful metaphors for the conformity and hypocrisy that he saw spreading in post-war Europe.
He was right about the next 2 decades, but 68 marked a shift away from such unquestioning acceptance of authority.
But history repeats, or at least rhymes. (tradgedy abd farce? sonnet and limerick…?)
1984 was never about the future. But it was about aspects of political organisation that are inate to human society. Not least that the ability to hate and blame a designated outsider and assert demonstrable falsehoods as true, confers membership of the tribe
Chronophobia – fear of the future.
Doomsday phobia – fear of the end of the world.
Me – I think everything will work out better than expected.
I am pretty optimistic.
Me – I think
The fuck you do.
Corey – I do so enjoy your comments.
Please sir – may I have another?
Sorry, Ricky…I’m in a holding pattern; all of your orifices are currently occupied.
(That you spend ANY time pitching your anti-mitigation and faux-ignorant bullshit to those who might not know better is unforgivable. Fuck you and your imp’s-advocate pretensions.)
(ClimateBrawl™ : No quarter asked.)
I gave several people a copy of 1984 for Christmas presents.
Reason i think perhaps a review of the potential direction that the western world is headed.
When a leader appoints to his team an Editor of a Fake News outfit and actually thinks this is perfectly reasonable there is a very worryingly trend in the understanding of just what exactly is your role as a leader let alone having purveyors of made up stuff being perfectly good.
If this does not set of alarm bells in every reasonable persons head there is a huge problem with society.
If it comes down to a decision that anything my leader does is good and the other is bad then I am afraid we are in 1984 territory.
No system of governance will have good outcomes with this simplistic moronic level of decision making.
Steve.
I rang up a few people when 9/11 happened and told them “the people in those building have to get out NOW because the weight above the area where the planes hit will fall down bringing down the whole building”.
Being trained in an area of building I knew exactly what to expect and that is what played out.
That particular training would be architecture.
One frequently misused quote is ‘We have always been at war with Eastasia.”
The point is not that they rewrite history, but that they force people to recite the rewritten history unquestioningly.
OT: Are black pixels getting more expensive? I’m finding the text on a lot of sites is getting fainter and fainter, but my eyes are not changing. With this page, I had to increase the size of the font to make it comfortably readable.
When a president’s aide goes on the television and says that the president has great powers and WILL NOT be questioned, that’s much more than a worrying trend.
And, despite all this bullshit about the second amendment and how it protects all the others, not one gun nut is going to get new ammo and guns to protect themselves from this government.
Because this one is run by a white man.
Richard, it’s probably the font and anti aliasing. Especially sub-pixel hinting.
Like all those right wingers bleating loudly and in unison: ‘climate change is a hoax’.
Or “America was founded as a christian country!”.
Or “One nation, under god”, as if it were the original pledge…
It’s always projection.
SteveP @ ~ 25
Well, there’s this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/mental-health-professionals-warn-about-trump.html?_r=1
Aside from that, given his Twitter storms, I’d say, “Old man yells at cloud.” After watching some of his 77 minute “press conference,” (yikes!) I suspect some dementia as well.
@ Rick #27
doomsdayers are great fun
The strength of belief in the faithful in Doomsday cults has been shown to rise after the end of the world fails to occur, not decrease.
Given the choice between realising they look pretty silly and deciding they must have calculated the date wrong most people start checking to see whether they correctly accounted for the switch between the Julian and Gregorian Calendars.
and t too am an optimist
Ignorance is bliss.
And can be a means of easy profit, too.
“Ignorance is bliss.”
Strange thing is, when a black man was in charge of the whitehouse, they were shit scared BECAUSE of their ignorance. Patently they’re terrified of black men in power.
So sad.
BBD, I agree with you. I suspect many of the Republican politicians do not think climate change is a hoax and are saying it to win a primary.
Four legs good, two legs bad.
Trump is hitting just about all of Dr. Lawrence Britts list of characteristics of fascist states.This is no joke. It is going to take a lot or work on the part of clear thinking people to topple this dictator and his sycophants. But we will do it.
At his rally yesterday, Trump brought up on stage a more or less rabid admirer who admitted, later, that he salutes a cardboard cutout of Trump every day. The man appeared to be many many cards short of a full deck. And passionate. And in a way, that is perfect. The man worships a fake president. And he was similarly, invited on stage by said fake president. To a rally with fake signs and, probably, a number of fake bussed in participants.
Even though Trump is emulating Hitler, there are many things about the current American experience that are not congruent with the German story. Our national inhomogeneity is going to make his fascist takeover attempt difficult for him, but not impossible. So you had better plan on fighting this SOB and his lying, sadistic red hatted supporters with everything you can muster if you want to preserve what freedoms you currently do have. Write, demonstrate, petition, obstruct, do what you have to. Do what you can. Do something.
Point of clarification. The worst liars and sadists are not wearing the red hats. The worst ones are in his cabinet and in the congress. The red hats are just the freely supplied Mickey Mouse ears that you get to wear when you give up your individuality and join the Donald Trump club.
How to predict out of all possible outcomes? We don’t have good granularity that I’m aware of. One thing for sure, a bitter and deepening divide in the country and an increasing inability to govern effectively do not bode well.
As for Trump, he’s wrong on so many levels and in so many ways that it’s hard to account for them all. Just as bad, Republicans are by and large still too shallow, craven and deluded to put country above party, which naturally doesn’t help at all.
> The red hats are just the freely supplied Mickey Mouse ears
Saw them at the women’s march.
“A White House divided cannot stand.”
Complaining about how the media were misrepresenting trumps “yuge” crowds,that only appear huge if you zoom right in and pack them close together in a small area..?
Or did they not know that it wasn’t a trump rally and hadn’t caught on yet?
This hats thing is a game of cat and mouse.
Once again we see it: This time it’s Trump’s implication that something terrible happened just the other day in Sweden, presented as more justification for his ban.
The fact that there was no event in Sweden could be found out in less time than it is required to type these posts, yet that news, not Trump’s comment, is the “fake news” to the pond scum who support him. How can that possibly be? How can people that stupid function in daily life?
It’s an ideology loyalty test. Just like in ‘1984’.
Orwell didn’t make caricatures of characters to poke fun; he was describing a psychological defect in Homo sapiens.
He was correct: We’re seeing what he described being manifested in half the population of the Untied States of Amnesia. The only significant difference is that Orwell’s vision required torture to invoke the cultish self-delusions.
Trumpkins are doing it to themselves willingly.
Which makes it all the more scary.
It seems that even the morons in the current administration realize that the line “cutting taxes increases jobs and stimulates the economy” is now and always has been a load of crap. So what do you do?
http://www.vox.com/2017/2/17/14651208/trump-budget-forecast?ICID=ref_fark
Maybe the answer is to just keep asking Trump “So is that fake news or was it just what someone handed you?” and “But since your claims are wrong, are they wrong because you are misinformed or giving fake news to us?”.
Until the little retarded runt finds out that his socipathology only works as long as most people act nice and believe him, he’ll keep BSing.
Remember, the schoolyard bullies are notoriously apt to be stopped when you stand up to them. Semi-grown children sociopaths are just as prone to failing when they’re treated like they tread others.
Cutting taxes has historically had only two resulting effects:
1. An economic recession
2. An economic depression
The Republicans in Michigan’s house are pushing through a stepwise removal of the income tax because doing that will “fix the economy Obama destroyed during his time in office.” (Surprisingly Rick Snyder is opposed to the idea.)
The Republican Speaker was interviewed about this recently. He was asked if they had a state they could point to and say “See, cutting taxes helped them.” He said “We haven’t looked into that.”
He was asked if they had studied the situation in Kansas. He replied “I’m not sure why we would need to.”
He was asked why he and his mates were pushing this change by saying it would fix the economy. He said “Because it will – that’s obvious.”
Thanks tea-baggers, ashole libertarians, and term limits – you’ve saddled us at the state and federal level with elected officials who have no idea how to govern, no concept of history or economics, disdain and lack of concern for the weakest in the country, and a knowledge that they will never be held accountable for what they’re doing. It is no wonder the two scummy anti-science anti-integrity folks here (rickA and mikeA) are so happy: their leaders are people as terrible as they are.
Dean, didja notice that those elected officials are like that because the voters (who bother to vote) are just like that, too?
There’s a few ways to fix this:
1. Give up on having a democracy
2. Pass a law that mandates that everyone must vote every election
3. Require a poll test that tests potential voters on intelligence, cultural awareness, current events awareness, and history awareness
4. Require the above for anyone running for any office
Democracy is a good idea… But it only works when educated citizens vote. Otherwise it degenerates into fascism. Eventually.
One of the sad things here in Michigan is that it did seem that the public had scored a few points on the side of sanity
– After Snyder pushed through an “emergency manager” bill, basically allowing him to place a city under his control — he would act through an “emergency manager” — we managed to get a referendum to overturn it on a ballot – and it passed
– A representative from the Upper Peninsula pushed through a bill bringing back hunting season for wolves. His argument was that many farmers in the UP were losing livestock to wolf attacks and weren’t able to protect their animals because of existing law. That too was overturned (and it was discovered that the farmer who was his #1 source of evidence about stock loss was — hold on to your seats here — not telling the truth)
So it seemed as though democracy was working as it should. But then Snyder and his boys realized that the state Constitution allowed citizens the right to challenge laws they don’t like through a referendum, some laws are immune: laws that appropriate money cannot be challenged. So
– new emergency manager law, with an appropriation, passed
– new hunting bill, with an appropriation written in, passed
– a new tax on pensions passed, with an appropriation written in
– a bill removing the requirement that individual retail items have their own price tag passed, with an appropriate written in
And so on. The sizes of the appropriations aren’t much, but they don’t have to be. The money is never touched, but it doesn’t have to be. The senators, representatives, and governor, who do this, aren’t concerned, and they never have to be.
The vocal governors hell bent on wrecking states – Perry, Scott, (formerly) Pence, and the rest, get a lot of press, but Snyder belongs up there on the podium with them.
I suspect they’d be concerned if their victims/constituents showed up with ropes and firearms…
I have been thinking about 1984 a lot lately as I had some great high school teachers and this is a book we read. I think I need to re-read it but I am convinced we are being controlled thought water in our country. Folks better seriously get together to fight this beast. I read now that rethugs passed a law that they won’t be held responsible for anything they do? So lawless pretty much. This scares the hell out of me.
Orwell’s Newspeak is alive and well!!. It looks like CPAC ( Cruel People Avenging Civility) has hired a supposed supporter of pedophilia to be their keynote speaker at their big annual bash.. The supposed supporter of pedophilia of course denies that he is, but he has been caught on tape numerous times expressing his leanings, so it is going to be a little hard to dismiss them.
What is Newspeakian about this whole affair is that the culprit, a verbal bomb thrower who thrives on conservative cruelty, is being called to speak at CPAC because his “free speech” rights were supposedly violated by “liberals” , just because he was prevented [by campus security???] from committing the equivalent of yelling “fire” in a public forum where there was no fire.
The conservatives seem to be going totally, 100% bat guano crazy on us. WTF? Defending the right of pedophiles to speak at public forums?
Remember, ACORN was kicked because of republicans complaining about faked evidence, and the democrats just caved in rather than bother fighting.
They got more money from commercial donors so “thought” at the time that they didn’t need ACORN.
By are they wrong…
>Defending the right of pedophiles to speak at public forums?
Why not?
Let’s not kid ourselves. If Milo’s speech were about advocating lowering/eliminating the age of consent, the protesters and rioters would have disappeared, and the university would call it an example of how brave they are.
Dean, states without income tax: Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Nevada, Washington, Florida, Texas.
Not exactly economic basket cases.
Care to pay the property taxes/sales taxes in those states?
You act as though everything else in those states is comparable, so just eliminate the income tax and instant prosperity! Whee!
State’s budgets are funded by their revenues, which come from the combination of sources such as income tax, sales tax, property tax, etc. Reducing one means increasing others to compensate.
Otherwise, you end up with your putative basket cases. Like, say, .. Kansas.
Let’s not kid ourselves. If Milo’s speech were about advocating lowering/eliminating the age of consent, the protesters and rioters would have disappeared, and the university would call it an example of how brave they are.
This says far more about Mikey Kidfucker than about our universities.
Un-fucking-believable.
Why is it unbelievable? He’s a right-winger. The leopard doesn’t change his spots, and birds of a feather congregate and think alike.
The only thing that’s changed is that they no longer feel enough shame to keep these perverted values amongst themselves, and are emboldened to speak then publicly now
Just when you think that libertarians could drop any lower in their demonstrated IQ and thinking ability, mikeN or rickA (or both) pipe up with something so monumentally stupid and reality free it is stunning.
Florida: 6% sales tax and property taxes, 24th highest in state and local taxes
Alaska: Oil/gas production
Nevada: Gambling, tourism, 6% sales tax
South Dakota: farming, tourism, 71% of revenue from sales and use tax
Texas: 6.25% sales tax, taxes on vehicle sales and fuel, taxes on royalties
on oil and natural gas production
Washington: 6.5% sales tax (in some locales 9.5%). Gross receipts tax,
roughly 1% of business revenue
Wyoming: Sales tax 4%, natural resources tax property tax (9.5%)
States with no income tax make up the difference by raising other taxes.
#whomolestedjohngalt
Thanks, Dean. I figured someone would gather the non-alternative facts on this subject and basically call MikeN/RickA an idiot over that last one…
Dean, what’s your point? Of course they will have other taxes. Though New Hampshire has no sales tax either, and didn’t have the statewide property tax until the courts ruled that school funding regime was illegal.
6% sales tax isn’t very high and is about the same in states that do have an income tax. I remember Texas as having a higher sales tax than that about 9%.
Corey, Brainstorms, no I don’t support such views on age of consent. Advocates are generally found among a subset of liberals who like to be edgy. Most usually still draw a line, gasping at Nicole Kidman’s nude scene with a kid.
Advocates are generally found among a subset of liberals who like to be edgy.
Bullshit, MikeyNAMBLA.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-appointee-lauded-nambla-figure/article/9800
Lena Dunham talks about abusing her sister in her book, and she speaks everywhere.
She was SEVEN at the time, you deliberately stupid fuck.
“Do we all have uteruses?” I asked my mother when I was seven.
“Yes,” she told me. “We’re born with them, and with all our eggs, but they start out very small. And they aren’t ready to make babies until we’re older.” I look at my sister, now a slim, tough one-year-old, and at her tiny belly. I imagined her eggs inside her, like the sack of spider eggs in Charlotte’s Web, and her uterus, the size of a thimble.
“Does her vagina look like mine?”
“I guess so,” my mother said. “Just smaller.”
One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn’t resist and when I saw what was inside I shrieked.
My mother came running. “Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!”
My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina. This was within the spectrum of things I did. She just got on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been a success.
You are so unbelievably pathetic.
Milo Kinderbender, OTOH, thanks the priest who taught him to give head at 13, and wants to return the favor to other children.
Fuck him, and fuck you.
MikeN, your implication was states without income taxes are interchangeable and the lack of ain income tax is no issue. Your bullshit is just that. Removing the income tax shifts tax burdens to people less able to afford it. I realize scum like you don’t care about society in general and those who are struggling to get by are the people you view as expendable, but decent people don’t share those views.
I also realize that the states you mention have resources available that michigan does not (oil, other natural resources to tax) so the uptick in other costs will need to be more significant. Your notions about things that would help have no basis in fact and have never worked. Try to do a little research. Have someone help you with words of more than one syllable.
You reflect the libertarian motto perfectly: I got mine, screw everyone else.
There was a time that I would not believe someone could believe support for this crap
“Advocates are generally found among a subset of liberals who like to be edgy”
Could be found in a cherry picked bit from the childhood memories on one person. Then such a thing is floated here.
Whether due to stupidity alone, dishonesty alone, or a mixture of the two, it is stunning.
Dean, 6% sales taxes are being paid in many states that have income taxes as well, so it isn’t a big tradeoff: Calif, Ind, Ill, Mass, Virg, Penn, SC, Connecticut which used to have no income tax. Washington, South Dakota, New Hampshire don’t have these natural resources to make up the balance. Yes it’s a small population, but does Mt Rushmore really foot the bill for the whole state?
“There was a time that I would not believe someone could believe support for this crap “Advocates are generally found among a subset of liberals who like to be edgy””
Remember, the libtard only wants advocates edgy on THEIR side of the debate. Edgy on the other side is extremism and to be feared.
That’s why they want edgy on their side: because they’re terrified all the time.
“mike” is no exception.
But hey, maybe child services will see this BS about how good child molesters are and decide to take a bit more interest in the family that raised him.
Which, of course, will be double-standardised into an unwarranted attack by government on a private individual.
Off topic here, but this cartoon summarizes mikeN’s insistence that the size of the crowd at Trumps inauguration was “huge”
http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur
Conservatives openly support torture, support gun culture, support punishment vs forgiveness or most forms of rehabilitation, , supported the extremely cruel pedophile Breitbart editor because he was very very good at being cruel to liberals and people of other races and religions, support Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Billo Reilly, .people who clearly enjoy hurting other people….they clearly feel that they have a RIGHT to hurt other human beings. Verbal abuse is COMPLETELY acceptable to the right, hence the attacks on simple human civility or …”Political Correctness” a phrase that they hurl like a curse.
It is a tendency of adults to learn how to overlook the shortcomings of other people. It is a tendency of adults to not be cruel physically or verbally . Why do conservatives support cruelty? Why do conservatives support or accept bullying? Why is so much of what conservatives say and do aimed at hurting other human beings, emotionally, financially, and physically ? I suppose that it is a fear based behavior in some cases, a genetic trait in other cases, and maybe a trained behavior in still other cases. But I don’t know. Maybe the conservatives here can tell us why they are so supportive and accepting of cruelty.
SteveP #86:
You said “Verbal abuse is COMPLETELY acceptable to the right, . . .”
I see a lot of verbal abuse coming from the liberal side of things.
Just look to the posters on this cite – Corey, dean, brainstorms, Wow, and so on.
I am afraid that your tarring of conservatives is a bit hypocritical when most liberal adults on this site are cruel verbally.
I am conservative and a libertarian.
Look at my posts and tell me where I have been cruel verbally.
Than look at the torrent of cruel responses I receive on this site.
You should look to the beam in your eye before referring to the mote in mine.
SP @ ~ 86
Check the success of psychopaths in the workplace.
Check how people tend to blindly accept leaders who are overconfident.
Check the Overton window on normalization of just about anything.
Check how conservatives tend to be authoritarian.
Check exceptionalism, manifest destiny and the like.
Check the mythology and history of how this country was formed.
Check Changing our Brains:
Systemic Causality in Complex Human Systems
http://cc.ist.psu.edu/BRIMS/archives/2009/papers/BRIMS2009_005.pdf
Check tribalism and the Neolithic brain.
Check the development of intellectual integrity or lack thereof.
Check insecurity and dysfunction th the home.
Check fear of the unknown.
Check the tendency to superstitious thinking.
and on and on and on…
“I am conservative and a libertarian.”
We know. Your continuing support for policies against helping women, minorities, the poor, and the environment, along with your immense dishonesty, show those two facts all the time.
Personally, I see three basic flaws that tend to recur:
– The Dunning-Kruger effect
– Failure to grasp complexity and Gestalt (for lack of a better word)
– Failure to classify properly
Result: frustration with reality plus social animals using deception to conceal their vulnerability.
And, YEEHAW, is Trump ever one for the books!
Rick A. I asked what conservatives think about their own cruelty. If a conservative comes to a liberal site, insults liberals, treats them like inferior creatures, disparages their viewpoint, and ultimately pisses them off to the point where they revert to name calling, that is pretty understandable to me. Not pretty. Not adult. Not civilized. Just understandable. I do it too.
What I was asking about was the tendency for conservatives to like gun culture, to be very supportive of torture, waterboarding, etc,,things that tend to devalue other peoples’ lives and also the feelings of other people. I was asking about the tendency for conservatives to enjoy inflammatory “liberal hating” people like Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin, Rush LImbaugh, Bill O’Reillly, Steve Miller, people who, in my opinion, are sadistic about hurting other people, and who are detrimental to civility and to civilization. I wonder about the tendency of conservatives to think that the white male is the crown of creation, and that all other beings are inferior. And I wonder about how conservatives feel about their team being caught in obvious lies every day now. The Trump cavalcade is being caught in lies daily. In KA Conway’s words, “alternative facts”. My guess is that conservatives are very very very much of the belief that the ends justify the means, and, unfortunately, I don’t know exactly what those ends are….those ends seem to be …. I don’t know… maybe their need to strengthen white males patriarchy? I don’t know.
Please note that what I have just written was not meant to be overtly cruel. It may seem to be, if it exposes a conservative to painful realizations, or if it creates cognitive dissonance in the reader. I am writing about the way I see things and wondering why some people see things so differently. Compassion, empathy, and feelings are very important and very powerful things. The lack of these things in libertarianism means, to me, that it is a crippled philosophy, one that appeals to what I consider to be immature and pathological tendencies in the human psyche, and one doomed to failure because if favors creating enemies instead of allies. Enough said. Bye.
dean #89:
Thank you dean for managing a comment without name calling.
Quite refreshing!
Please cite to my post(s) where I support policies against helping women, minorities, the poor and the environment.
A carbon tax will hurt the poor the worst.
Renewable energy is horrible for the environment because of the batteries. You should really look into that environmental damage will be done when every car and every home requires a large number of batteries to store power – it is really bad for the environment.
I am pro-2nd amendment – but that is actually good for women, the poor and minorities.
It is hard for me to even think of what you are referring to – but I am sure you will come up with something.
But thanks again for elevating the conversation above mindless name calling – I really do appreciate that.
SteveP #91:
Yes – if a conservative did all those things I would be pissed off to.
However, I wouldn’t resort to name calling – because I don’t resort to name calling.
From my point of view, I engage with posters here and share my point of view. I do not insult, I do not disparage – I merely disagree and give my reasons for why I disagree.
I think it is helpful for a liberal to hear a conservative point of view once in a while – just as it is helpful to me to hear a liberal point of view.
Take gun culture.
What is wrong with it?
The 2nd amendment protects it – it was obviously an important value which the founders wanted protected.
My point – which I have made on every gun thread on this site is that if liberals want to pass laws that violate the 2nd amendment they need to amend the constitution to change the 2nd amendment to allow the laws to stand.
That is merely reality and I think a perfectly valid point of view.
I think that guns can be very helpful to women, minorities and the poor.
A women with a gun can stand off a stronger male intent on harm.
A poor person with a gun can stand off a person intent on harm.
A minority with a gun can stand off a person intent on harm.
It is good to be able to engage in self-defense and that is what guns are for.
Guns can be used for good or for evil – just like a crowbar or a steak knife.
So I am not sure what the objection is to gun culture.
But that is my point of view.
Cars kill more people in this country every year than guns – but I don’t see people trying to ban cars. I don’t see the difference between guns and cars – but again, that is just my point of view.
I think studies show that conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Conservatives don’t think that the government taking their money to give to the poor is charity – but they actually give more of their money voluntarily to charity (at least from the studies I have read).
I think conservatives don’t like the government deciding how to spend their money – the forced redistribution of wealth.
California feels the same way when it complains that the taxes it pays to Washington DC do not come back to CA – they are a net tax exporter. If a state said that CA wasn’t paying their fair share, CA would feel the same way that anybody making over 36,841 would feel about the same argument about an individual taxpayer.
I think a lot of conservatives don’t feel it is their responsibility to pay for food, shelter, clothing, education, and healthcare of every person in the country.
I think a lot of conservatives feel it is everybody’s personal responsibility to provide for themselves and their family themselves.
Forced charity isn’t charity.
Yet, for those who cannot, there is charity – to which conservatives are more generous than liberals (on average).
What is better – the liberal method of feeding a family every meal, forever (third generation welfare type system) – or the conservative method of teaching a family to fish?
As a libertarian I am for legalizing drugs and prostitution. Who am I to tell an adult they cannot take drugs? Just don’t drive under the influence – because that could harm somebody else. Who am I to tell an adult they cannot sell their body for money, as long as they are doing it of their own free will?
Perhaps we would agree on these issues? Not sure.
As a libertarian I am for the freedom to choose – namely the freedom to choose suicide or how to treat myself medically.
Who am I to tell an adult of sound mind that they cannot kill themselves? Who am I to tell somebody dying that they cannot undergo a non-FDA approved medical procedure, even though it may kill them? Just get informed consent and let adults get on with their lives (or deaths).
As a libertarian living in Minnesota I wonder why I cannot buy beer on sundays? If a store wants to be open on sunday who am I to say they cannot? If a store doesn’t want to be open on some day of the week, who am I to say they have to be open?
Lets stop treating people as babies and let them make their own decisions – even if we disagree with them.
I will stop there – but those are some of my thoughts from a conservative point of view about some of the topics you raised.
The Breitbart pedophile apologist was noted for his cruelty to people who were not white conservative males. [ If anyone wants to dispute this, please provide evidence]. . He was so proficient at that cruelty that he rose, under the leadership of Steve Bannon, to high levels in the conservative hierarchy of media personalities. [ Please dispute this if you can] He was going to be a keynote speaker at CPAC. [ I think that this is indisputable, but feel free to try if you can ]
I decry the cruelty of modern conservatism. And the lying. This is not just playful pokes, this is savage thrusts. This is not just a little misdirection, this is Orwellian . Alternative facts? No, this is pathological. Anyone care to dispute that?
SteveP asks some pretty good questions while revealing misunderstanding (but asks, which is good!)
February 22, 2017
“I asked what conservatives think about their own cruelty.”
Probably not much other than how to inflict it more effectively. But I wonder at your choice of “conservative” in this context. All it means is to “conserve” but says nothing about what exactly is being conserved. It could be kindness and courtesy, the Boy Scout Law is extremely conservative but kindness extends even to animals.
So the better question is what do cruel people think of their cruelty and my answer is “entertainment.”
“If a conservative comes to a liberal site, insults liberals, treats them like inferior creatures, disparages their viewpoint, and ultimately pisses them off to the point where they revert to name calling, that is pretty understandable to me.”
Again, I wonder why you label such behavior “conservative”. It is not. It is merely rude behavior and in my analyses the left is somewhat more guilty of this than the right, but not by a large margin. The left uses ridicule as a tool, a weapon, and the right is starting to learn to use it too, thanks to Saul Alinsky.
“What I was asking about was the tendency for conservatives to like gun culture,”
The prime motive of conservatism appears to be reproductive success; “multiply and replenish the earth”. Such persons see everything in this light; guns are a defensive tool that helps ensure the survival of myself and my family. Maybe hunting food.
“to be very supportive of torture, waterboarding, etc”
As a means of discovering and discouraging threats to my family and myself. it really does make sense once you realize that the prime motive of the left is a combination of self (doing what feels good) and handing off to the herd the duty of feeding me and protecting me; whereas to the right these things are personal duty. So a leftist loves armies but is personally pacifist, the rightist arms himself and does not trust armies.
“things that tend to devalue other peoples’ lives”
Apart from family and clan, other people become irrelevant and at worst are competing for scarce resources.
“and also the feelings of other people.”
Your feelings are your business; my feelings are my business. I cannot know your feelings; I can only know what you say and your words may well be untrue and manipulative. To the extent that being a good neighbor benefits self as much as the neighbor, one ought to be courteous and kind (Boy Scout Law again) but I make no presumption to know your feelings.
“I was asking about the tendency for conservatives to enjoy inflammatory liberal hating people like Ann Coulter, Michele Malkin, Rush LImbaugh, Bill O’Reillly”
Entertainment. Same as inflammatory conservative hating people such as Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others… it is a release of tension in lieu of personal combat.
“I wonder about the tendency of conservatives to think that the white male is the crown of creation”
Being one I suppose this thinking is inevitable. However, ask any member of the Nation of Islam who is the crown of creation and he’s black. So, pretty much whatever you are, that’s the crown of creation.
“and that all other beings are inferior.”
Not quite all. Just most. In what way do you differ? Are you going to accept my knowledge and wisdom or is yours superior to mine?
“I wonder about how conservatives feel about their team being caught in obvious lies every day now.”
Conservatives don’t come in teams. Family and clan. That’s it. If you see a “team” that’s a strong clue that it isn’t based on conservative values (while acknowledging that the phrase has almost no meaning anyway).
“The Trump cavalcade is being caught in lies daily.”
No doubt. He is neither conservative nor liberal.
“In KA Conway’s words, “alternative facts”. My guess is that conservatives are very very very much of the belief that the ends justify the means”
True, but it is the left that has codified this idea thanks to Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky.
“unfortunately, I don’t know exactly what those ends are”
Multiply and replenish the Earth. Now you know. That is why “conservatives” are opposed to abortion but support the death penalty; babies are innocent and ought to live, criminals deprive others of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and ought not to be allowed to continue in that path AND ought not to be a burden on society. In lieu of the death penalty I would support deportation of such criminals. Go have a life somewhere else.
“maybe their need to strengthen white males patriarchy?”
So you DO understand. However it isn’t just white males. It is every race and all 17 genders that wish to be an “archy” of some sort. White males have simply been better at it at least in Europe. Elsewhere not so much.
RickA
Every time you peddle rubbish about uncertainty, climate sensitivity and naive optimism about the future, you endorse political inaction that will ultimately hurt everybody. And probably trigger the sixth mass extinction in Earth’s history into the bargain.
Only if it is flat-rate will it be regressive and nobody is arguing for that. Yet here you are, trying to tear the idea down by asserting with complete certainty that it will hurt the poor. Partisan, dishonest rhetoric which ultimately supports inaction that WILL hurt the poor.
First, where are the references supporting this claim? Published literature only please, as always. Not lies on denier blogs. I think you have dishonestly created a strawman here (renewables = batteries) which you are using to attack low-carbon energy technology. Again, this will ultimately harm everybody in your list above. So yet another example. We didn’t have to look very far, did we?
That’s right. Gun violence is so much lower in communities which are poor and / or minority.
The usual self-serving bollocks delivered deadpan with a faint hint of a whine because people object to this slime.
SteveP asks: “Right wing loyalty to leader and party appears to be far more important today than loyalty to constitution or people.”
That is the nature of “party”. Libertarians are far more likely to heed the Constitution as it is not a party.
The left wing wishes to destroy the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments particularly.
“Citizens of the nation are devalued if they are not loyal party members.”
That is herd mentality but yes. You seem to devalue the right wing.
“See any right wing media outlet’s contempt for liberals and muslims as proof.”
Likewise at DailyKOS, but the other way round.
“Right wingers are becoming more and more authoritarian, without even knowing what authoritarianism really means.”
Authoritarianism means “I don’t like you.”
“Right wingers becoming more and more fascist, without having a fucking clue what a fascist is.”
It means “I don’t like you”. All labels basically boil down to the same meaning.
“Go ahead, my right wing friends, tell us what authoritarianism and fascism are.”
It is “I don’t like you.”
“Right wingers openly acting racist while claiming that they are not.”
Some do, some don’t. I am racist; probably at a .1 level. I am also ageist, genderist, MBTI-ist, IQ-ist and more ist’s than I can name. So are you.
But far more than mere racism I am aware of regionally significant cultural norms. A random encounter of a black man in Seattle is probably very different than a random encounter of a black man in Southeast DC. The former is likely a computer scientist working for Microsoft and the latter an unemployed gang member. This is not assured, of course, but we go through life calculating probabilities.
“Right wingers hiding their sadistic tendencies behind the squid ink of political correctness.”
Politically correct attacks on the First Amendment seem to emanate solely from the Left, as does actual violence. But that’s “new left”, not the liberation of old left.
“The real anger of the right at political correctness seems to be that it interferes with their desire to and their ability to hurt others.”
It does have that effect. In order to not hurt others everyone must be sheep and silent, since what is hurtful is not objectively known or knowable, but fluid, changing moment by moment when someone must be made a perpetrator of a crime that until that moment wasn’t a crime.
“Everything not prohibited is compulsory”. Oh but that’s T.H. White, a topic for a different day.
“There are people in the world who simply like to hurt other people.”
That is certainly true, and when seconds count, the police are only minutes (or hours) away.
“In many cases their extremist religion calls for it.”
Indeed. Seems to me that Revolution is the religion of the Left.
“I don’t think that the right wing has even the slightest concern about damaging or devaluing other humans”
It’s about time to remind you there is no right “wing”. The left is a herd, a wing; it does not have an opposite wing.
The right consists of self, families, clans, everyone else in that order.
“unless they are an unborn consumer, in which case the right claims a phony moral high ground.”
An interesting comparison to the Left, which preserves all life EXCEPT their own offspring! Neither makes much sense on the surface, but a lot of sense when you explore Prime Motives.
The left prime motive is “self”; reproductive rights for self, freedom from insult for self and self defines what is harassment as well. Self insists on health care and you have to pay for it. Self insists on entertainment including the unrestricted use of dangerous drugs.
The left imposes itself on others in a way the Right cannot even imagine. See Zarna Joshi (vs Hugh Mungus) for an example. She apparently has no day job. Can a person actually obtain employment going round yelling at people? Well, yes, obviously so.
In order to provide for Self there must be Herd, and the Herd takes care of Self.
That is the entire substance of the Left.
The right is Scandinavian in nature; oriented toward human reproduction. It evolved because it reproduces. That which does not reproduce also does not evolve.
The right is cooperative but not recklessly so.
In the story of “1984”, it is interesting to note that sometimes the enemy is the friend then back to enemy. It is a designated target and unclear whether “Goldstein” actually exists; but he doesn’t need to exist.
Right now the “herd” is told to Hate On Donald Trump, or climate deniers, or the Right.
and you DO! How exactly do you know Trump tells lies? Someone told you, and you believed it. I believe it too, actually, but people forget the 535 or so members of Congress and the million or so government employees that actually do “government” at your expense.
Steve P writes: “See any right wing media outlet’s contempt for liberals and muslims as proof.. … In many cases their extremist religion calls for it . Westboro Baptist is an example, as is ISIS.”
Now THAT was amusing! Seems you’ve got a bit of contempt for Muslims as well when labeled “ISIS”.
George Orwell’s 1984 is about totalitarianism, not left versus right.
If we all agree that totalitarianism is bad, which I suspect is the case, what is its opposite that therefore must be good?
Libertarian.
M2
SteveP said that this was extremism. So *not* Muslims in general. Behave.
Both are extremism and there is no record of good coming from extremist politics. So wherefore the ‘therefore’?
Come on. Peddle less; think harder.
BBD responded!
“Peddle less; think harder.”
Here’s less 🙂
And so is fundamentally un-Christian, as I have mentioned to you before. Let’s face it, the parable didn’t go like this:
“Fuck it”, said the Samaritan, as he passed by on the other side of the road. “Ain’t one of mine”.
BBD “Fuck it, said the Samaritan, as he passed by on the other side of the road. Ain’t one of mine”.
15 Romans, a few Persians, some Egyptians and three dozen left wingers spoke similarly, expecting a government agency to fill the need.
” The right consists of self, families, clans, everyone else in that order. ”
And, according to “mike”, fucking kids. self&family, I suppose…
Wow “And, according to mike, fucking kids. self&family, I suppose…”
It may come as a bit of a surprise, but it is how you were made.
” what is its opposite that therefore must be good?
Libertarian.”
Nope, that would be anarchism.
PS, bad logic there, as usual from the RWNJ. The opposite of dying of thirst would be, um, drowning…
Wow “The opposite of dying of thirst would be, um, drowning…”
Incorrect. Try again.
“A carbon tax will hurt the poor the worst.”
Generally not. It’ll affect the rich the worst. And it’ll stimulate local produce production.
OA @88, and check out how that only works while society allows such psychopaths free rein. It doesn’t work so well when people treat them like they treat others.
Well Michael 2, you gave us all a lot of insight into your beliefs. Thank you. But has it ever dawned on you that when you mischaracterize another person’s beliefs, they know it immediately? That is why I am learning how to ask instead of always merely projecting.
Also, you have characterized a number of aspects of your philosophy that, in my opinion, warrant a lot more analysis.
But do tell us more about your belief system. I still want to know why you think that cruelty is acceptable behavior. I think that it is a defect, a reversion to reptilian behavior, or primitive mammal behavior. It physiologically stunts intellectual growth. It puts thugs in charge. Is the cruelty of a rapist or sex murderer okay to you? Why or why not? Also, your libertarian views on drugs and prostitution are interesting. If you know much about history and toxicology, you realize that addictive drugs can destroy a society If you don’t think that prostitution should be regulated, then how will your libertarian society prevent child prostitution? Are you accepting of pimps and other exploiters of prostitutes? Are you okay with human enslavement? These are things that would be interesting to know .
SteveP wrote “has it ever dawned on you that when you mischaracterize another person’s beliefs, they know it immediately?”
I haven’t given that question much thought but it would seem obvious. For everyone else, not obvious.
I am at the receiving end of this behavior regularly as BBD, and to a lesser extent you, also misrepresent my beliefs but that often stems from you not knowing them in the first place. Despite being careful with my words and as thorough as anyone is likely to read (TLDR being a problem) it seems that simple concepts of liberty simply don’t “go in” even though you practice those same concepts regularly.
Libertarian: I choose for me, you choose for you; socialism: I choose for me AND you!
“Also, you have characterized a number of aspects of your philosophy that, in my opinion, warrant a lot more analysis.”
All of it ought to be analyzed from time to time.
“But do tell us more about your belief system. I still want to know why you think that cruelty is acceptable behavior.”
I have said nothing about cruelty per se. There is no objective definition of the word. As used here on this blog page it seems to mean ordinary rudeness emanating from Milo Y. It probably is not socially useful but as it stands in the stead of physical violence it is probably an evolutionary step away from violence and a step toward peaceful co-existence. Therefore its acceptability depends on from what point of view you are comparing.
“I think that it is a defect, a reversion to reptilian behavior, or primitive mammal behavior.”
Rudeness is indeed animal behavior; it stands in lieu of combat from which neither side escapes unscathed.
Only one thing ultimately matters; whether you breed. A society of cooperative members ensuring each others’ survival and breeding success will easily overtake any other society, thus a certain amount of cooperation is evolved involvement.
Terminating one’s own offspring is not a winning evolutionary strategy. I can think of no mammal or reptilian mother that does this.
“It physiologically stunts intellectual growth. It puts thugs in charge.”
My intellectual growth is unstunted and I am neither a thug nor have I put one in charge. However, rudeness does seem to attract followers. The people with the largest follower or fan counts on Huffington Post were almost invariably rude with little to say on any topic.
“Is the cruelty of a rapist or sex murderer okay to you?”
I do not understand “okay”.
But to advance understanding I will restate your question: “Are you comfortable when one person commits violent crime against another?”
The answer is no. I will intervene often when others do not.
This is why your judgment of me, BBD’s judgment of me, is so wrong as to be amusing. BBD cites the Good Samaritan from time to time, not realizing (nor can I pound it into his head) that the Good Samaritan was a Libertarian. He chose to do good despite the contempt his kind had for Jews and the contempt Jews had for Samaritans.
Libertarian is neither good nor bad by itself; it’s merely a word that elevates the value of “choice” above that of other values held by any particular person, and those other values can be as varied as people are variable.
As it happens, I also value choice, hence liberty; but I recognize that by itself it is not a value system and thus must co-exist with mutually held social values, education, duty, responsibilities. If you cannot have all that, then some form of socialism is next best, and if you cannot have that, then some form of communism is next in line, and if you cannot have that, you’ll have feudalism.
“Also, your libertarian views on drugs and prostitution are interesting.”
I don’t remember expressing opinions on these things. One libertarian is not usually similar to another except on the sole topic of liberty: I choose for me and you choose for you.
What you do is your business until it becomes my business, and it becomes my business if I have to pay for your business or the consequences of your poor choices.
“If you know much about history and toxicology, you realize that addictive drugs can destroy a society”
Yes. Drug addicted persons afflict society at least two ways: Affirmatively by destructive behaviors and by negligence; failing to engage in civic duties.
“If you don’t think that prostitution should be regulated, then how will your libertarian society prevent child prostitution?”
Libertarians would not intervene as a social duty but rather each might intervene on his or her own initiative and based on whatever moral code is held by that person.
There’s some pretty good evidence that my father pimped out my sister to his friends. Law did not prevent that behavior. I don’t believe there’s a rigid “age of consent” but rather a maturity level each person has, and also it is not binary; one day a thing is bad the next day a thing is good. As a child grows older the kinds of liberty or choice she can make expands; and she will make those choices whether you like it or not. It can be more open and controlled; or it can take place dangerously in secret behind a barn or at the high or middle school. I would rather children avoid adult behaviors entirely until their 20’s generally speaking.
“Are you accepting of pimps and other exploiters of prostitutes?”
In a libertarian society there would be no pimps. If a woman wanted to hire protection, she would make that choice, and she would choose her customers carefully. The customers would also be choosing carefully. Websites rating both customers and providers would exist helping avoid problems; legal brothels would exist to reduce risks to both customers and providers.
Those who morally object to it would not partake. Those who protest that others ought not to be doing so are free to protest but not to interfere, for that would not be libertarian.
So you see, libertarianism hasn’t really been tried, nor can it be without nearly universal common education, language and cultural norms.
“Are you okay with human enslavement?”
To varying degrees all humans are enslaved. But I presume you mean the kind of slavery by force and violence common in the southern United States in the early 1800’s. I am morally opposed to that sort of thing and would take personal initiatives to remedy it. However I am a bit less comfortable for governments to intrude in yesterday’s problems because that gives them a right, or at least expectation, that it/they can intrude on what it imagines are todays problems. You were happy to have Barack Obama intruding, now you are not so happy to have Donald Trump intruding.
ALL rights flow from human beings. The only disputes are WHICH human beings are the source of any particular right.
Government cannot have a right that I do not have, or that you do not have. Collective rights cannot exist because there is no collective! Power exists, rights do not! You can point to power, exercise power, but you can only claim or declare rights and hope someone believes you.
If you cannot think of why YOU, personally, have a right to tell your neighbor how to raise her children, then neither does Government. But if you CAN find in yourself a right to intrude on your neighbor, using your own personal moral code, then you have also accepted the inevitable conclusion that your neighbor has the same right, but of course, intruding on you using his or her moral code.
That leads to war.
Maybe over i your neck of the woods you were born when your granddad fucked your mum, “mike”, but not for most people.
PS The opposite of dying of thirst would be, um, drowning, but you’re a fruitloop, so who cares.
Greg, “Michael 2” is a troll from over at climate asylum (Barry Bickmore’s site).
Wow “Greg, Michael 2 is a troll from over at climate asylum”
Greg knows me well. As nearly all of my extended family is from Minnesota he knows that you can always tell a Norwegian; you just cannot tell him much 😉
I don’t know why he puts up with me but I help keep things lively.
Same shit, different Mikey.
The left prime motive is “self”
The constant anti-mitigation pussyfooting from right-wing fucks like Ricky, Mikey and MikeyToo is the very definition of selfishness.
Jesus saves; Atlas shrugs.
M2
You are dodging the point in an execrably dishonest manner.
I doubt that Jesus would approve. IIRC he had a problem with hypocrisy.
Christianity is ‘we’. Even I understand that, and I am an atheist.
BBD “I am an atheist.”
Who then can doubt your qualifications on arguing Christianity?
I actually laughed (well, chuckled audibly) out loud.
As we are discussing the totalitarian government of George Orwell’s “1984” I think this is drifting a bit. I’ll drift with it but we’ve been down this yellow brick road already which if pursued leads inevitably to the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz.
BBD wrote: “Christianity is ‘we’. Even I understand that, and I am an atheist.”
The example you cite as proof of “we” contains no “we”. There’s a wounded man and a Samaritan. He made a choice. It appears to have been uninfluenced by what other Samaritans thought of Jews, or of what Jews generally thought of Samaritans.
The Good Samaritan was a libertarian. There is no “we” in that story.
Interesting to note that the ONLY group that Jesus of Nazareth did not show understanding, tolerance, and forgiveness for were the hypocrites. Everyone else got a break, possibly because they could feel sorry for their behavior. Hypocrites only ever self-justify and double-down. He also had very bad news for the future disposition of the wealthy. Likely a connection there, too.
>appear huge if you zoom right in and pack them close together in a small area..?
Likely just trolling by you, but on the small chance that you are too stupid to read the directions: if you can’t see the Washington Monument, you are doing it wrong.
RickA- “Lets stop treating people as babies and let them make their own decisions – even if we disagree with them.”
Please speak with more semantic precision. Otherwise what you write becomes just another slogan..
Babies are, or at least they should be, treated with compassion, love, kindness, understanding. Babies should not be abused. Babies should not be poisoned. Babies should not be carelessly exposed to toxins for the sake of profit.
Babies grow up to be adults.
By the time you are an adult, you are, or may be capable of making good decisions. Or not. What if you are not? What if your executive functions are weak or damaged? Does that mean that it is okay to let you be exploited by sociopaths? Tough shit, say the libertarians? Survival of the fittest? Let the weak die? What are you saying? Does that mean you think that people who are vulnerable should be thrown to the wolves? If you have an expensive to treat disease caused by the Kocho Brothers toxic paper plant, should you have to go bankrupt in the process of treating that disease…. and then run out of money and get sick and die? These are the sort of questions that the libertarian philosophy doesn’t really seem to have a mature, compassionate approach to deal with. Maybe I am wrong, but libertarianism seems to be a celebration of a lot of things that don’t really exist. I strongly suspect that the whole philosophy of libertarianism is a fire stoked by people like the Kocho brothers, people who benefit by having an army of supporters to attack the government.
Failure to recognize the interdependence of people is not a philosophy. It is a flaw.
I’m sorry that you can’t buy beer on Sunday. Why don’t you do what we did here, if that means so much to you. Change the law. Or buy some extra beer on Saturday. This is America. Typically, among the people who are fighting the Sunday laws are the liquor store owners who don’t want to pay more wages and weekend pay and overtime pay and more utility bills when they know they will sell about the same amount of booze in six days as in seven. I think that those people are called businessmen.
SteveP wrote some things (so did I).
Preface: I sometimes use two forms of Libertarian; the Capitalized form sometimes refers to the Libertarian Party, a Libertarian has, or is expected to have, a set of beliefs and behaviors, it is an identity. Unfortunately no Libertarian has authority over any other so really it is meaningless.
Little “L” libertarian simply means someone that wants to choose for himself and respects your choices that you make for you. Beyond that he may and probably does have philosophies about things entirely dissimilar from other libertarians. He may judge your behavior right or wrong, good or bad, but if not intruding on his life, wont intrude on yours.
I appreciate your thoughtful words and careful expression. It avoids ambiguity and reveals intelligence. As we are expressing a topic hoping for some clarity I necessarily simplify, maybe even take a “devil’s advocate” position to ensure a point of view is properly represented by its opposite. What I feel about things personally I do not necessarily arrogate or delegate to government in the hopes that you will do likewise. Hillary and Trump are dangerous because so much of our lives have been handed over to government that it now matters a LOT who sits in the white house. It wasn’t always that way.
“Babies are, or at least they should be, treated with compassion, love, kindness, understanding.”
There’s an unstated condition: IF you want them to grow up, breed successfully, grow food, get along with neighbors while still repelling enemies, THEN you must (do the above).
If you really don’t care how they grow up, or even IF they grow up, or even if they are born at all, well then all of those “shoulds” evaporate and you’ll get what is found in parts of southeast Washington DC.
“What if your executive functions are weak or damaged?”
I do not understand “what if” questions. The possibilities are infinite.
“Survival of the fittest? Let the weak die?”
You exist because your ancestors did exactly that. Where are the Neandertals? Dead, all of them. “In the book ‘Indians of North America’ Fiona Reynoldson and Paul Shuter write that the Lakota had a practice of leaving elderly people behind to die when they could no longer travel with the tribe. The tribe had to travel to find food and survive.”
[https]://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070707164921AAxjL1S
See also [http]://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2160/did-eskimos-put-their-elderly-on-ice-floes-to-die
“Does that mean you think that people who are vulnerable should be thrown to the wolves?”
No; but neither do I believe it is socially useful to de-volve by defeating natural selection, or trying to. Still, what is learned by caring for the weak or poor might in some cases strengthen society. If I ever acquire a terminal illness such that during the period of illness I can do nothing useful, I don’t see a need to prolong my suffering or impose the cost of my care on society. But if I can still do something then that’s a different matter.
Jesus taught “the poor will always be with us”, namely, you cannot actually cure poverty or at least he had no expectation of doing so.
Giving alms to the poor is not for their benefit, it is to humble the giver. To be sure, the poor need alms, but no amount of alms will ever solve the problem of poverty. Poverty is the normal condition of all animal life. Breed until you’ve hit the limits of resources. In economics a similar principle is titled “The Iron Law of Wages”.
“These are the sort of questions that the libertarian philosophy doesn’t really seem to have a mature, compassionate approach to deal with.”
Correct. Libertarianism isn’t a philosphy of its own; it is a detail or overlay of whatever else IS your philosophy!
“Maybe I am wrong, but libertarianism seems to be a celebration of a lot of things that don’t really exist.”
I use the word in a simple but strict manner that boils it down to its essence. In other ways I am socially sensitive; my religion is communitarian but with choice. Socialism as practiced in the United States has removed many or most choices.
“Failure to recognize the interdependence of people is not a philosophy. It is a flaw.”
That is not a proper and correct sociological viewpoint anchored in anything objective. There are no flaws in science. There is only what *works*; and that depends on where you are!
In higher latitudes that have strongly defined growing seasons and winters, you also have greater interdependence and thus socialism. In equatorial climates you have less socialism and less interdependence; such things weaken a tribe and it quickly falls prey to more warlike tribes.
Socialism is the flaw in equatorial Africa; individualism is a flaw in the Arctic.
Between those extremes a blend is most appropriate.
The Good Samaritan was a libertarian.
Jesus actually laughed (well, wept) out loud.
?
The Samaritan was Good because he acknowledged the ‘we’ and not the ‘me and mine’. That is the point of the parable.
BBD “The Samaritan was Good because he acknowledged the ‘we’ and not the ‘me and mine’. That is the point of the parable.”
No. The point of the parable is choosing to serve someone else, in this case, and to make it more clear, the enemy. Was the Samaritan any kind of “we” with his ENEMY? No!
By making it absolutely clear that there was no obligation, no duty, no affection, no common kinship or religion or nationality; Jesus emphasized the ONE thing remaining: Personal charity.
I am a good samaritan when I give aid or courtesy to someone that has been shunned by others, when I take it upon myself to do a thing without obligation or law compelling it. I don’t do it because of any “we”, in fact, it falls to me when “we” failed.
That is a point of honor to a libertarian; you steal honor from a libertarian by compelling what he would have done anyway.
These libertarians write a lot of crap about the meaning of being a libertarian, but when it comes down to policy the only themes are
– I got mine so screw everyone else
– There are no problems in the world unless something bothers me directly
– The poor, minorities, people in other countries, and women, are disgusting and don’t deserve anything
What a vile collection of individuals.
dean, struggling to understand libertaraians, writes:
“I got mine so screw everyone else”
It is more likely the libertarian won’t worry about everyone else; whether others have more (in some cases) or less (in other cases).
“There are no problems in the world unless something bothers me directly”
That’s the definition of “problem”.
“…and don’t deserve anything”
Do you have a right to my labor, my property, my life, merely because you exist? I think not. I “deserve” nothing and neither do you.
“What a vile collection of individuals.”
“Basket of deplorables” seems to be the expression. Thank you for your concern.
Yes.
It’s fascinating that you deny this.
Which means ‘we’ over ‘me’.
“honor to a libertarian”
That’s a tremendous laugh.
Libertarians talk all sorts of principles, but it’s just drugs.
” There is no “we” in that story.”
It’s M2’s standard bullshit, lads and lasses. They don’t care what anyone else thinks and if you tie them down to a claim, they’ll admit they don’t care of you listen and they don’t care to listen to you either.
Over at climate asylum JoseX managed to nail M2 down; to their basic reasoning for posting and accepted that there was genuinely no point in either listening to or replying to M2’s bollocks.
And JoseX doesn’t swear at people so you know he’s right.
Michael2 – You do have access to the internet and you know how to operate a search engine? I’d think you’d be able to find the passage from the bible and come up with a little better explication.
Luke 10:25-37 New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
…. and verses 30-37 fill out the rest of the Samaritan tale.
The whole story is set forth to answer the one question: Who is my neighbor? The obvious answer is that all men are your neighbors.
P.S. Given Christ’s antimaterialist message, your adoption of him as a libertarian standard bearer is quite droll.
Kevin O’Neill writes: “The whole story is set forth to answer the one question: Who is my neighbor? The obvious answer is that all men are your neighbors.”
ANY man is my neighbor, not ALL men. The difference may be subtle but relates to a possibility principle. It is usually possible for me to help any man; it is not possible for me to help all men.
Jesus’ counsel is personal; it does not depend on the existence of a “we” to create that personal duty to render aid to a person, not a group of persons, where you have the resources for it.
The parameters of the parable seem designed to remove any hint or possibility of “we” in order to make this duty perfectly clear as a personal duty; one giver and one recipient, no other bond or knowledge or group membership between or among them.
Kevin, M2 doesn’t care what you say or whether you believe him or argue against him, he will not EVER change his view, because he doesn’t WANT to. He won’t listen. He will, if he feels like it, pretend words don’t exist or don’t have a meaning, just like he redefines “we” to not exist.
Wow “M2 … will not EVER change his view, because he doesn’t WANT to”
You could always try writing something relevant and correct.
Exactly, and just as I pointed out to M2 the last time we had this go-around about his hypocrisy and Godless ways.
The man is a professing Christian, btw, which really does make this stink like rat shit.
BBD writes “The man is a professing Christian…”
And you are a professing atheist. Leave it to Christians to define Christianity (well, one of about 7,000 flavors anyway).
Michael2 – “..no other bond or knowledge or group membership between or among them.”
Ummm …. wrong. The catechism is for those who seek inheritance of life eternal; did you not read verse 25?
So, if a family of 5 was trapped under a burning car, and it took two men working together to get them out, your “one giver and one recipient” would apply exactly how?
When you build yourself a semantic foxhole you should at least make sure it passes the simplest of smell tests before you decide to hunker down in it.
Kevin O’Neill wrote “Ummm …. wrong. The catechism is for those who seek inheritance of life eternal; did you not read verse 25?”
It is unlikely that the Good Samaritan was aware of, or seeking, eternal life. No mention is made whether the wounded man was aware of, or seeking, eternal life. The parable exists to portray desired behavior.
“So, if a family of 5 was trapped under a burning car, and it took two men working together to get them out, your “one giver and one recipient” would apply exactly how?”
Probably a rock-paper-scissors thing to decide which of the two rescuers was going to be in charge of the rescue. Maybe see who can pee the farthest. This may be why Jesus did not set up the scenario with this degree of complexity.
However, in the scenario you present, it would still be the case that I cannot rescue all 5 instantaneously; I must make a choice about which to rescue first, and the second, and so on.
Should it happen I need help to open a door, *I* will ask the other man, “Let us open this door”, or “help me open this door”. It is still me, deciding what I am going to do, and seeking help in doing what I am going to do.
Now, if the man next to me is my buddy, THEN there’s a “we” and I can presume on “us” but the parable does not so presume.
“When you build yourself a semantic foxhole you should at least make sure it passes the simplest of smell tests before you decide to hunker down in it.”
Always good advice from you.
I persist on this (as does BBD) because it illuminates the huge difference in thinking, or not-thinking, between the left and right (brains; politics). BBD cannot think, cannot be compelled to imaging a scenario of “self” because his brain isn’t wired that way; it is scary to contemplate.
I on the other hand can barely imagine the existence of “we” and struggle to identify a scenario that is clearly a “we”. I program computers by myself; I photograph the world and events by myself; I usually go hiking with someone out of the wisdom of it but even then I am noticing what I notice and my buddy notices what he notices. I get no “we” at church and I sense that what SEEMS to be clusters of “we” are actually competitive in that group, choosing alpha, shunning omega.
At work I see groups, typically G4 in size, they do everything together instinctively as if they were incapable of individual action or decision. This is fascinating to me.
This blog is an example of typical group behavior. It isn’t even a “we”, unless of course you believe it is. Most of the regulars here are constantly jockying for position, choosing alpha, shunning omega. Your interest in any topic is revealed by how little discussion of the topic takes place.
I am a disruptor of the linear continuum; alpha to omega. I am off to the side and it causes a disturbance in the force. Attempts to shun me don’t work, I don’t care about being insulted. I am not trying to insert myself into dysfunctional “we” groups, but if I did, where would I go? The top.
M2
Why? You clearly haven’t got a clue. You deny the core tenet of the religion you claim to profess and you don’t understand the scripture you quote.
BBD, responding to “Leave it to Christians to define Christianity”, asks:
“Why?”
Perhaps for the same reason that climate scientists ought to be considered the authority on climate and deniers not be considered authorities. Of course, you might have a point; a denier might indeed be as authoritative on climate as you are on religion.
“You deny the core tenet of the religion you claim to profess”
Leave it to an atheist to lay out a nice strawman.
At any rate, the core tenet is somewhat variable with some nuances as to whether Jesus was the Son of God (which is what it says) or was God himself (which it doesn’t say but many denominations of Christianity profess).
Neither of these, whichever is correct, pertains to the Good Samaritan, or to “we”, or to George Orwell’s 1984 which is about totalitarianism and one man’s attempt to escape groupthink.
You are unapologetic in your ignorance and selfishness, and you wouldn’t know Jesus if his balls were slapping your chin.
“The top” – no, you’re a glory hole, at best.
Michael2 – “The parable exists to portray desired behavior.” in order to inherit life eternal. This is the given of the parable. What the Samaritan believes or disbelieves is irrelevant. If one believes in Christ and wants to inherit life eternal then one must love god and love all men as one loves oneself.
You seem to completely miss the point of my simple example; if being a Good Samaritan *requires* that we act in concert then we have an obligation to act in concert; otherwise the whole logical edifice falls down like a stack of dried turds in a windstorm. You seem unable to abandon your dried turd pile.
P.S. “BBD cannot think, cannot be compelled to imaging a scenario of “self” because his brain isn’t wired that way”
Is a load of shit. Does writing stuff like that impress anyone you know? Word salad gobbledygook.
Kevin O’Neill writes “What the Samaritan believes or disbelieves is irrelevant.”
It is somewhat irrelevant to the parable since it is not stated; it is relevant to BBD’s argument of “we”.
Three earthworms digging through the dirt are not a “we” because presumably they don’t know or care what the others are doing. The existence of a set is known to the observer, but not to them.
It is crucial to the parable that the Good Samaritan NOT be a “we”, but to have chosen to perform a charity out of the goodness of his heart and character, and not because he will be verbally abused by everyone on this blog if he deviates from the authorized Groupthink.
“if being a Good Samaritan *requires* that we act in concert then we have an obligation to act in concert”
Maybe, but the example does not go there. Suppose you DO have an obligation to act in concert, but nobody wants to join your concert. Then what? Do nothing?
The point of this parable is that you can ALWAYS choose to do good when you are not in bondage to a “we”. Don’t wait for others. You are saved (or not) by your own behavior and choices, not by the actions, or lack thereof, of others.
“I am a disruptor of the linear continuum”
You are a disruptor because you are continually wrong – usually due to intention.
dean suggests “You are a disruptor because you are continually wrong – usually due to intention.”
What is the mathematical probability of always being wrong?
What is the probability of me simply not agreeing with the groupthink?
What are the odds that the Group is correct on all matters?
What is the probability that an atheist is correct on a thing that he thinks is fiction anyway?
Do dragons have 3, 4 or 5 toes?
Constitutionalist Jesus says,
Property, bitches!
Doctrine of selfishness.
Doctrine of selfishness. ‘Fuck it’, said the Samaritan, and passed by on the other side of the road…
But M2 cannot afford to admit just how much trouble he is in. So we get this kind of nonsense:
What desperate, wriggling dishonesty. Christian teaching holds that universal compassion is paramount. This means willingness to help anyone is paramount. Not that you must try to help everyone at the same time. That’s just an infantile evasion tactic. Christianity requires that you live in the ‘we’ universe, not the ‘me’ universe. Trying to deny this by going all literal-minded is just the lowest sophistry. But desperate measures are required. You have been exposed as the most appalling hypocrite and forced to confront the truth that Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with doctrines of selfishness like libertarinism. So, the dishonesty goes into high gear.
Again, just twisting evasions. Christian teaching holds that universal compassion is paramount. Entry to heaven hinges on universal compassion. Everything is about living as ‘we’ not as ‘me’. Selfishness is anathema to Christianity. Liberarianism is anathema to Christianity.
More junk sophistry. It’s a personal duty of Christians to be universally compassionate. That’s the key to how you transcend the personal and qualify for potential entry into heaven. Selfishness is the opposite of Christianity.
More sophistry. The personal duty is to live a life of universal compassion, not to seek group membership or bond with those helped.
Watching you deny the very basis of Christianity while claiming to profess it is horribly entertaining but also instructive. Christians have it right: selfishness is evil.
BBD “Doctrine of selfishness.”
It is also known as respect for the privacy of other people, a thing valued by many.
“It’s a personal duty of Christians to be universally compassionate.”
By Jove, I almost think we might be getting somewhere: Personal duty.
@Michael 2:
I’m currently an agnostic, but raised a catholic. And yes, BBD “gets it”, as the expression says.
Kevin O’Neill also gets it.
BBD again:
Thank you both.
Julian Frost “And yes, BBD “gets it”, as the expression says. Kevin O’Neill also gets it.”
Naturally. Several of my comments pertain to Groupthink. To deviate is anathema.
Think outside the box? Unlikely. I see some titanium boxes, figuratively speaking.
Jesus is NOT the Lord & Savior of libertarianism, or Libertarianism.
Lord Mammon is the lord & savior of libertarianism/Libertarianism.
With that understanding, the whole of M2’s stance and values make perfect sense, and he is neither in conflict with Mammon’s principles, nor a hypocrite by Mammon.
He’s simply calling himself a “Mammon Christian”, where the term “christian” denotes a lord, savior, etc whose principles one aligns oneself with to guide behavior and values. BBD is relating the principles of a “Jesus christian”, which conflicts with M2’s christian figure (as well as his intentional misrepresentation of the figure in the New Testament).
You don’t have to be PC here, M2. (You’re too transparent anyway to pull it off.) No need to try to hijack the Bible’s Christ to try to hide your choice of lord. You make it just too obvious, so arguing over it is silly.
Brainstorms “You don’t have to be PC here, M2”
I have to be PC on any leftwing blog but I appreciate the tolerance and inclusion I have been shown so far.
“No need to try to hijack the Bible’s Christ to try to hide your choice of lord.”
Inasmuch as about 7000 different Christian religions cite the same Bible it is probably not as rigid and reliable an authority as some seem to think.
Libertarian Jesus says:
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek pull out your concealed carry and blow him away; and him that taketh away thy cloak second verse same as the first, deadman.
Kevin O’Neill wrote “Jesus says: And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek pull out your concealed carry and blow him away…”
Pretty close. His actual words were to advise his disciples to possess a sword, and to sell a garment and buy one if they lacked a sword.
Kevin O’N
Excellent. And is it not time for some alternative scripture? We’ve had alt-everybloodythingelse.
* * *
Julian Frost
Thank you. M2 should beware the assumption that atheists do not know their bibles.
BBD “M2 should beware the assumption that atheists do not know their bibles.”
But do you know God? No. Just some words in an old book; words often conflicted by other words in the same old book. To whom was Jesus praying in the garden of gethsemane?
“dean, struggling to understand libertaraians…”
I understand them just fine. Everything you say supports what I said.
And yes, mikeN, you meet the conditions for “vile” and “deplorable”.
The libertarian “philosophy” (there really is no such thing) boils down to the world view of a spoiled 4 year old — as you so perfectly demonstrate.
dean wrote “The libertarian philosophy (there really is no such thing)”
Thank you. I have written that many times seemingly to no avail.
All it means is I choose for me and you choose for you. It says nothing about what exactly I choose for me or what it means for you.
But if I am choosing for me, that implies that you are NOT choosing for me, and that violates the socialist principles of someone, somewhere (BBD probably) choosing for me.
Therefore, even though libertarian thinking is not only extremely common and harmless, it is the enemy of the left.
Is there ANYONE here that does not wish to choose for himself and not have others choose for him?
for me the novel 1984 contains the importance of debunking fascism. I hope the lemma ‘a trump’ and of words related to ‘a trump’ might be of some help:
trump, a new word in American-English and international vocabulary:
a trump, a person who willfully sees him- of herself as the most important and know-it-all on earth, and who downgrades all supposed opponents and opposition to the level of fake and overestimated, and who uses bigotry and/or various techniques that are arrogant, autocratic, bossy, dictatorial, domineering, imperious, peremptory, bear no contradiction, feature ad hoc reasoning, wilful denial of data, the uttering of wild accusations, and/or character assassination of suspected opponents or opposition. This without respect for the other one and regardless of any consequences for safety and togetherness of society.
Other lemma’s related to the lemma ‘trump’:
to trump, verb, to despise, having no respect for, denying a person of his or hers human rights and fundamental freedoms as laid down in several international treaties, like inter alia, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948, United Nations, Paris (General Assembly resolution 217 A);
trumpish, adjective, example: this is a trumpish truth of Trump or whoever;
trumply, adverb, example: Trump or whoever said that very trumply.
Laren NH, Thursday 23 February 2017, 20.00 PM DT
For me the message of 1984 is the necessity of debunking fascism. In Ben Santer on Seth Myers I put down a new lemma concerning ‘a trump’. Hope it can add to debunk ‘trumps’, ‘trumping’, ‘trumpish’ and ‘trumply’.
Laren NH, 2017, February 23, 20:07 PM DT.
In short: michael 2 will tell any lie to justify his despicable behavior.
dean wrote “In short: michael 2 will tell any lie to justify his despicable behavior.”
I laughed out loud. I mean, what is introduced by the book “1984”? Newspeak.
Truth is lies, lies is truth. Eventually persons lose the ability to discern truth and language becomes merely an instrument of social control, itself maintained by “I don’t like you” on a herd of bipedal creatures terrified of not being liked.
Facebook likes. Huffpo followers. Twitter followers.
Maybe I am missing out on something. Not sure what.
Messianic Constitutionalists – cloaking selfishness and denial in a flag and a crown of thorns.
Michael 2 #158 asks “Do dragons have 3, 4 or 5 toes?”
Excellent question.
I have it on good authority that Chinese imperial dragons have 5 toes.
As for Gladiator Jesus…that’s just gay.
Universal compassion is not the core tenet of Christianity?
Who knew?
BBD “Universal compassion is not the core tenet of Christianity? Who knew?”
About a billion Christians.
[https]://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed
[https]://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
“I laughed out loud. I mean, what is introduced by the book “1984”? Newspeak.”
When you lay out what libertarianism means to you, and describe your beliefs and actions as entirely different, you are lying.
When you make your comments about climate change and present arguments against it – contrary to what the science says – you are lying.
The fact that you imply that you are not lying only provides more evidence of your dishonesty.
dean wrote: “When you lay out what libertarianism means to you, and describe your beliefs and actions as entirely different, you are lying.”
I wish sometimes that your comments rose to a level of comprehensibility sufficient to answer it.
But as I mentioned, “newspeak”. Giving new meanings to old words, in this case, lying. The traditional meaning was to speak falsely but it includes knowing that it is false. Speaking falsely without knowing it is simply called error or mistake.
So let us examine your complaint. I lay out libertarian many times this way: I choose for me and you choose for you. A belief cannot be a lie; although I could be lying about what I believe the word means. There’s no way for you to know that since I have expressed this many times in the same way.
As for my actions, you do not know them. All you have are my words, and my words are that I choose for me and you choose for you.
As for my beliefs, if you stick around long enough you will pick up a few of my beliefs.
“When you make your comments about climate change and present arguments against it – contrary to what the science says – you are lying.”
More “newspeak”. Science says nothing. It has no mouth to speak nor hand to write. People say things, not “science”.
Second, should it happen that I argue against some person somewhere, that is not lying. He or me is likely mistaken, but that is not lying.
I can see why Winston experienced frustration. When the ordinary meaning of words is no longer ordinary, how do you communicate?
You don’t, and that’s part of the message of “1984”.
The fact that you imply that you are not lying only provides more evidence of your dishonesty.
So the Bible is wrong?
Who knew?
The alternative explanation is that you are wrong and unable or unwilling to recognise it.
BBD writes: “So the Bible is wrong?”
Parts of it are likely mistaken as to factual claims made.
“The alternative explanation is that you are wrong and unable or unwilling to recognise it.”
That is certainly possible but hardly limited to me.
It becomes as an argument similar to discussing the correct pronunciation of Vulcan or Klingon words.
M2
Why is this we-not-me ‘Do unto others’ thing called the Golden Rule?
BBD asks: “Why is this we-not-me ‘Do unto others’ thing called the Golden Rule?”
There is no we-not-me rule as you have described nor can there be since “me” is part of “we”. If you make it “we-except-me” then it isn’t “we”. It’s a collective “you” (or them or they in the traditional third person plural meaning of them and they).
To elaborate on that thought. The Golden Rule is personal, not collective. It advises me, not we, to treat others as I, not us, wish to be treated.
“I enjoyed being molested;
Ergo,
Your children are fair game.”
Milo’s Dictum
If only you actually understood this.
“Science says nothing”
I forgot. You do the like what the data, physics, analysis, and results say, so you hide behind meaningless word games to claim your interpretation is equal to that if the scientists.
How were you raised that you turned into such an ignorant and shitty person?
Dean wrote “You do the like what the data, physics, analysis, and results say”
Something like that .
“so you hide behind meaningless word games to claim your interpretation is equal to that if the scientists.”
Scientists use words precisely and carefully. So do I.
Wnen it comes to political decisions my interpretation is the only one that matters to decisions I make.
“How were you raised that you turned into such an ignorant and shitty person?”
That’s a long story and I’d love to tell it to willing listeners. The short version is that I have a high I.Q. and a rational mind that quickly uncovers weakness in arguments. That’s not exactly endearing to others.
I appreciate also your contribution to a discussion of the Golden Rule and how to be a compassionate, literate and polite person (or not).
So the three branches of Mercan gubmint have been taken over by fascist people with the science IQ of a dead gerbil. This is not good. It appears that a large swath of the republican group feelers ( they are not thinkers) believe that what scientists say about fossil fuel combustion gases and infrared photons and climate is bullshit or irrelevant. Worse, these group feelers appear to believe that there is a socialist conspiracy of scientists out to destroy profitism! Oh Heavens! Not that!
In a slightly more elegant world, the fossil fuelers might have said, “Let’s talk about this. We all, or at least most of us, care about the Earth we leave for future generations. We had better see if your figures are correct, and if they are, we should see if there is anything that we can do to prevent possible future catastrophes.” Ha ha ha ha ha. People acting like civilized beings instead of asshole adolescent libertarians? Ha ha ha ha ha. Gimme a break!
Instead, science and scientists are turned out like unwanted stray dogs with socialist rabies. .
That Arctic ice used to be such a nice hidey hole for one of the legs of our nuclear triad. Where ya gonna hide it when the ice thins out a bit more?
How many lives were lost when megastorm Sandy hit a heavily populated coastal area with an infrastructure designed for sea levels almost a foot lower than today?
So, is Merca great yet? Or what….
The golden rule counts for all people, everybody. It is a rule for everybody in relation of the self with anyother or anyothers. It is singular as well as plural at the same time.
Laren NH, Friday 4 February 2017, 3.39 AM DT.
G. Bogaers writes “The golden rule counts for all people, everybody. It is a rule for everybody in relation of the self with anyother or anyothers.”
I see. So everyone here hurling epithets and scatological references my way really wish for that treatment for themselves. That seems odd.
Perhaps the Golden Rule is to be obeyed only by your opponents, sort of a Saul Alinsky thing where your opponents are held to a higher standard.
Fortunately, I *am* that higher standard and my language is clean and civilized.
So instead of accepting you got it wrong, you dismiss our arguments as “groupthink”. And you can’t recognise how utterly dishonest this is.
Julian Frost writes: “you dismiss our arguments as groupthink. And you can’t recognise how utterly dishonest this is.”
That is correct, more or less. The word “dishonest” appears to mean something to you different than it means to me; a hallmark of “newspeak” since we are on the topic of “1984.”
I wonder how many of you are in there? Is it really possible to have an “our” argument? I am genuinely fascinated by this Borg Collective; groupthink, where your arguments are not “my arguments” but “our arguments”.
Who exactly is this “our” of which you write?
How is it possible for you to challenge the existence of groupthink in the same sentence as one of the best demonstrations of this phenomenon? I shake my head in wonder at your power of Doublethink.
“So instead of accepting you got it wrong, you dismiss our arguments as “groupthink”. And you can’t recognise how utterly dishonest this is.”
He does. But he doesn’t care a bit.
Not hearing any libertarians complaining about Arizona’s attempt to silence people with the force of the RICO act:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCScj2h_TT0
Wow “Not hearing any libertarians complaining about Arizona’s attempt to silence people with the force of the RICO act:”
It is uncharacteristic of libertarians to complain. Complaining is an admission of weakness, that someone else can, must or should make me happy.
You complain rather a lot.
You have no honor, MikeyToo.
Expletives or no, you are substandard in every way.
Corey “you are substandard in every way.”
Then I am a cup that is not filled (Avatar) meaning there’s plenty of room for you to explain things and fill in these standards.
M2 is nothing more than a disagreement bot.
No point in having a “discussion” with a piece of cleverly written software…
Brainstorms suggests “No point in having a discussion with a piece of cleverly written software…”
Such as Siri. I’ve often wondered of there was a point to having a discussion with A.I.
Did you have a comment to make on George Orwell’s “1984”?
I like M2. I like the way he writes and I like the way he thinks.
Very interesting thoughts.
Thank you Michael 2.
No surprise rickA. The lack of fact based argument in his writing is ide rival to yours, he is as lacking in integrity and understanding as you are, and his disdain for anyone non-white and male equals yours. You are twins on the despicable scale.
dean “You are twins on the despicable scale.”
I’m not so sure about that but I’ll admit it’s a pretty close judgment.
George Orwell’s “1984” is an absolutely brilliant piece of writing; as its the somewhat easier-to-grok “Animal Farm”.
“How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?”
Winston thought. “By making him suffer,” he said.
“Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? “
This describes narcissists and totaltarian governments. A narcissist is revealed by his attempts to make other people suffer. Here on the internet all you have is words; a narcissist uses them as weapons.
Most commenters have no interest in giving or receiving actual knowledge. It is about power and how do you know you have it? By making someone else suffer.
But in this cesspool called the internet exist brilliant sparkles of knowledge, wit, at times even wholesome entertainment.
Anyone from Minnesota automatically gets Plus Ten Upgrade because all the children are above average!
(It’s true; Army test scores are about 1.6 points higher for inductees from Minnesota).
But still mostly mendacious twaddle, as when you deny the well-understood message about universal compassion at the core of Christian values.
And now you have the added burden of responsibility to RickA, whose impaired comprehension skillz have led him to believe that your discourse has merit.
I like M2. I like the way he writes and I like the way he thinks.
Very interesting thoughts.
Thank you Michael 2.
That was an uncanny impersonation of Judith Curry. Just substitute Murry Salby for MikeyToo.
M2
This from the man who carefully concocted this bullshit to avoid having to admit that universal compassion is central to the Christian message and antipathetic to libertarian selfishness:
Now those words didn’t just arrange themselves by chance. They were chosen by someone being dishonest.
And that same person is now pretending that they are not a mendacious little shit (a title already held by RickA) which is, frankly, a bit much to take at this point in the game.
Libertarian Logic:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore, all men are Socrates.
A profession of Christian faith:
– John Donne
BBD quoted a beloved poem. Thank you; that was nice.
“And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.”
Compassion for others is the second of the two great commandments.
(I see that Ricky is going full Cicero across the hall.
Go, Ricky!)
So, our Orwellian Whitehouse has banned CNN, NYT, LAT, Politico From a White House Briefing …
What the fuck. This Trump administration sure knows how to look like a fascist state, don’t it?
Trump, IMO, is being steered by people like Bannon and Miller, although maybe he didn’t need much alignment, maybe just a nudge.
So, Trump has picked fights with his intelligence services, and with the media. Does this asshole know whom him be messin with?
Trump has the conservative strategy of projection down to a fine tuned art.
There is something very very wrong in a nation where Alex Jones is in front of a microphone instead of a garbage can. Trump is using Alex Jones as some sort of alternative reality news source. Russia must be so proud of him.
Peeps, we’d best dump this monster soon, before he gets much stronger. Everyone who recognizes that Trump is cracked better get united and do some impeaching fast.
SteveP wrote “This Trump administration sure knows how to look like a fascist state, don’t it?”
I think a new word will be needed.
“Does this asshole know whom him be messin with?”
Bet on it. His attacks have been carefully chosen.
“There is something very very wrong in a nation where Alex Jones is in front of a microphone instead of a garbage can.”
It’s called the “land of the free”. Plenty of places you can go where Alex Jones would not be permitted at a microphone. Leave this one to me.
Then just for you, an edit. #197 should have been
A profession of Christian
faithvalues:Then I am a cup that is not filled meaning there’s plenty of room for you to explain things and fill in these standards.
Your entire blog history is a denial of reality and an endless attempt to justify your selfishness. Your cup runneth over long before this thread.
Corey writes “Your entire blog history is a denial of reality”
Maybe. As soon as you declare something you believe to be real then we can see whether I deny it (and whether it is real).
“endless attempt to justify your selfishness.”
What a strange concept. From whom would I seek license (justification) to make my own choices?
I decide for me, you decide for you. That is reality. Perhaps you were hoping to decide for me. That is not reality.
M2
But, but…
Back to M2:
And:
Right, not a narcissist* then. Next up:
Nope, no hint of narcissism there.
Again, not at all narcissistic.
*A hard word to type correctly in all its forms.
BBD notices a problem with the definition; writing: “a person who has an excessive interest in or admiration of themselves.”
Define excessive 🙂
Narcissism exists to varying degrees in essentially all people. Identifying the bad flavors of it, the “excessive” in your definition, is not all that easy or precise.
As you are fond of scripture, perhaps you know that I am instructed to love others as myself. It presumes upon my self-love as a guide to loving others. People that lack self-love probably cannot love others.
George Orwell’s presentation helps calibrate the bad kind.
People whose actual achievement, intelligence or capacity is either weak or perceived to be weak by that person, has a couple of choices:
1. Learn; strenghthen the weakness and become better
OR
2. Put everyone else down, starting with those that are most threatening to your self-image (illusion).
In the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes, the child that exclaimed the emperor to be naked was protected from immediate repercussion by being surrounded by other people. Had it not been so the story would have a different ending, and I suspect the next chapter not written did have a different ending; a visit by the King’s guards.
A narcissist has a need to win. His brain is wired to win. He doesn’t have to be superior in any specific way; just “superior” period.
The good way to win is to actually be superior in some field of endeavor. The bad way is to sabotage others and put them down so they are not even permitted to compete; shut them out of climate journals for instance, perhaps get them unemployed where possible, banned from blogs, or, as George Orwell’s “1984” showed, worse things such as torture and revising history.
So it’s okay for libertarians to ditch it then?
BBD wrote: “So it’s okay for libertarians to ditch it then?”
I do not understand “okay” questions. It presumes the existence of a universal judge, a thing I accept but you do not. Since I do not know what is “okay” to this universal judge, and it is irrelevant to anyone else, I can only answer for me.
Yes. Each libertarian will choose for himself everything from ice cream to whether or not the great commandments are binding upon him personally.
As you are an atheist, you are not bound to the great commandments hence it is “okay” for you to ignore them.
As I have accepted to be bound by the great commandments it is NOT okay for *me* to ignore them. The important part of this complete breakfast is that I *chose* this path.
But it has nothing to do with libertarians! It has everything to do with whether or not you have personally subscribed to that particular social contract.
Then again, it is possible I am mistaken that anyone else here (other than RickA) has chosen his path. I find that nearly impossible to comprehend so in my mind y’all are libertarians, not very polite, but definitely choosing each his own choices.
” So do I.”
No, you do. Or use words carefully. You distort the meanings of results to fit your opinion, not with regard for the truth but in contradiction of it.
High IQ? Sure you do — although if true, it’s clear you haven’t applied it to logic or science. It’s more likely that you buy the fiction that IQ is an indicator of intelligence rather than what it truly is, a measure of test taking ability.
dean wrote “You distort the meanings of results to fit your opinion, not with regard for the truth but in contradiction of it.”
Likely so; but that was the point of one of my comments. In what way are you exempt from that? A result must overcome my opinions. This is true pretty much for everyone. For me to convince BBD that there’s a God I would have to overcome his opinion that there is not such a thing; and the evidences of such a thing will be interpreted by him in a way that does not compel this conclusion.
Truth may be objective but your ability to know truth is limited by your senses and your language.
“High IQ? Sure you do — although if true, it’s clear you haven’t applied it to logic or science.”
Also true to a limited extent. IQ is processing power, problem solving ability. It can only work on data that it is given. Logic is my specialty (Boolean logic in computers anyway); science, by the time it reaches me, is a series of human claims, some with demands attached.
“It’s more likely that you buy the fiction that IQ is an indicator of intelligence rather than what it truly is, a measure of test taking ability.”
It is both since testing taking ability is also an indicator of intelligence, which is problem solving ability. Provided that the test invokes problem solving ability it is accurate and relevant in its intended realm.
It is a model. Y’all just LOVE models and don’t say you don’t because you can guess what comes next.
Evidence-based policy is Groupthink, and Jesus is a Confederate.
Oh, and you are VERY intelligent.
Did I forget anything?
Corey suggests “Evidence-based policy is Groupthink”
It can be but is not the essential characteristic of groupthink.
“and Jesus is a Confederate.”
He’s our gardener (at work) from Mexico. Your capitalization suggests more meaning than is immediately obvious.
“Oh, and you are VERY intelligent.”
Yes. I don’t emphasize it lest it discourage discussion and conversation but as there doesn’t seem to be much I might as well admit to it.
“Did I forget anything?”
Probably.
Anti-mitigation fuckery.
This is why you are here.
This is why I enjoy turning moldy and offensive lumps of American cheese like yourself into Swiss.
To neutralize you.
Corey wrote “To neutralize you.”
Sounds exciting. Do try to relate it somehow to George Orwell and “1984”.
Yes. I don’t emphasize it.
Except in every third response.
Probably.
Hilarious. You’re a child.
That you missed the pun shocks no one.
No denial of the “anti-mitigation fuckery.”
The Confederate Jesus response was…insufficient.
Corey suggests “Evidence-based policy is Groupthink”
It can be but is not the essential characteristic of groupthink.
Reality is groupthink when you don’t agree with reality.
I was right. Mike has no clue about what IQ measures but he knows it makes him smart. The bit about logic being his specialty is, using his comment history as evidence, pure bullshit.
dean wrote “Mike has no clue about what IQ measures but he knows it makes him smart.”
Oh well.
(…Assuming, as I am, that groupthink is pejorative. If not, are not ALL “known things” groupthink?)
Corey writes: “Assuming, as I am, that groupthink is pejorative. If not, are not ALL known things groupthink?”
Groupthink is a word that describes an observed phenomenon. Whether it is pejorative depends upon one’s point of view. It is a pejorative term when used by a libertarian as he prefers to think for himself and will inspect the claims made by others before adopting them.
However, members of a group need and defend groupthink, for without it there is no group. How do schools of fish know to turn simultaneously, or flocks of birds? How do herds of leftwingers know who to insult when no one has directed them to it? It is an emergent phenomenon, the magnetic forces of the pecking order. You can no more resist the urge to insult me than a fish can resist the urge to swim with the school and its a pretty safe bet that you have no idea why you engage in this behavior.
It is a model. Y’all just LOVE models and don’t say you don’t because you can guess what comes next.
I LOVE that smart people by the thousands have lent their talents to find, as best they can, the truth behind the current warming and the likely results of different emissions pathways.
I’m sorry if I don’t say it enough.
Corey writes “I LOVE that smart people by the thousands have lent their talents to find, as best they can, the truth behind the current warming and the likely results of different emissions pathways.”
Let us restate and change only a couple of words.
I LOVE that smart people by the thousands have lent their talents to find, as best they can, the truth behind current theories of intelligence and the likely results of different educational pathways.
(To BBD:) Do you know God?
I spoke with Him this morning, and He assured me that MikeyToo know NOTHING of His work.
(In fact, “MikeyToo know NOTHING about my work!” were His exact words, so help me MikeyToo’s gardener.)
Corey wrote “MikeyToo know NOTHING about my work!”
ESL.
Corey, the thing is M2 isn’t smart. They don’t comprehend the meanings of words and have merely aped the pseudo intellectualism of the school debate forums for personal aggrandizement.
It’s REAL easy to “look”smart as long as you don’t give a shit what words mean, but heard them and they sounded complex.
See “Spirit Science” for how that works on youtube.
In short, the kid has wealthy parents and they took some sociology course and have just bullshitted their way to the end and now, finding no jobs for his talents, trolls the internet.
The kid really isn’t smart. Probably not even average.
And who, exactly, is your flaccid prose meant to intrigue?
Corey “And who, exactly, is your flaccid prose meant to intrigue?”
I have studied Wow for a year or two since I think he is not a natural person but is rather an avatar of a person who in real life is not permitted to speak his mind freely. His animosity pops out here and Barry Bickmore’s blog and that’s his purpose. Relatively harmless I suppose but occasionally sucks in another leftwinger trying to be his buddy. That tends to last one or two exchanges.
Me and a couple of other people help keep him grounded by giving him someone to complain to and something to complain about. Deep inside I feel some genuine sympathy for him; his real life must be pretty bad. He might not be a student as such, he could be and probably is a teacher or professor constantly under scrutiny, pinched between academic freedom versus political correctness and the realities of competitive academic life.
Crosstalk sucks.
ESL
Already addressed, but thanks for the continuing racial undertones.
And further pussyfooting around your anti-mitigation fuckery.
Oh…I GET IT!
Your pointing out the cross-posting that I – again – referenced long before you.
Honorless AND witless? Yours must be a frightening existence.
Corey wrote: “Oh…I GET IT! Your pointing out the cross-posting that I – again – referenced long before you.”
I don’t think so. My “ESL” is simply a gentle reminder that the word should have been “knows” not “know” in the sentence in which you used it.
It is likely that a Supreme Being would use Supreme English; unless of course, English is God’s Second Language.
So maybe I was a bit too clever.
As to my style of writing, it is a natural style but crafted to isolate and nullify scripts. Anyone that has been online for a long time develops scripts, semi-automated responses. It is groupthink but not necessarily your thoughts. While some value exists in knowing the groupthink, I am more interested in your own actual thoughts on various things but to get to them can be quite an ordeal. You have obligations to perform before you can speak your mind, and you might be unwilling to do so at all.
Corey writes: “Yours must be a frightening existence.”
So it seems although I consider myself harmless. There is little to fear from me.
What we are seeing today is surprisingly close to nazification. CNN, NYT, LAT, Politico were banned by the Trump White House. And then there are his attacks on the FBI for not caving to his propaganda directives….. just more tinder for his impeachment bonfire.
I love it that the Republicans are now too scared to hold town hall meetings. What cowardly things they show themselves to be when they are not sucking up to their fossil fuel and insurance industry sugar daddies.
You and your fellow trash, MikeyToo, are undermining my child’s future.
Deliberately, unapologetically.
You’ll excuse me if I publicly skullfuck you – with words, of course [yours or mine; either are damning].
Corey “You’ll excuse me if I publicly skullfuck you – with words, of course”
Yes of course. I am not here, only my words. But the dagger of your words is easily parried by the shield of my civility and openness, kind of a Judo thing I suppose. I do not need a weapon; I need only turn you back on yourself and when you are exhausted then maybe we can talk about something.
I spoke my mind. Speak yours.
Justify your anti-mitigation fuckery.
Corey asks “Justify your anti-mitigation fuckery.”
On a different blog page it would be more appropriate. Here we are discussing aspects of George Orwell’s “1984” but maybe I can wrap it together.
In “1984” an enemy was created; it might have been real, probably not, it doesn’t matter to the story or its purposes. What mattered was state control or party control of a large number of people by keeping them focused on the enemy. Besides the enemy nation also exist an enemy person, and to keep people hating something, since apparently it is natural to hate something (you demonstrate it fairly well), Goldstein was invented.
So it seems that at least some influential people don’t really care about global warming but DO care about creating a world government which necessarily doesn’t include the liberties enjoyed in the United States (which aren’t anywhere near was was envisioned, but still pretty good).
Therefore an enemy is made of carbon dioxide, but you need a person or several persons. Right here, right now, I am that person you have apparently been told to hate, but you’ve used more than your two minute quota for the day.
Keep in mind that in “1984” the actual existence of the Enemy is unclear; there may actually be an enemy. So it is that climate change may well be a danger, but the advocates of mitigation aren’t motivated by mitigation and such efforts as have been proposed offer only minuscule reductions in global warming.
If you were to propose climate stabilization techniques that don’t involve global governments and liberty losing you’d probably find a bigger audience particularly among farmers.
Read mike2 bullshittng on his view of wow. Think “I’m sure he jumped on the hacks who tried to diagnose Trump during the campaign” –as we all should have. The difference CE isn’t that mike2 is correct while the armchair doc’s were wrong, it is that mike2 is wrong and a massive hypocrite. His real issue seems to be that he feels jealous that he can’t understand math, statistics, or science, while others can.
And here I sit, awaiting substance and integrity I’ve no right to expect from you.
Corey “here I sit, awaiting substance and integrity I’ve no right to expect from you.”
That is the most intelligent thing you have written all day.
You have no right to expect anything at all; unless of course you imagine that right into existence in which case suddenly you do 🙂
I have to remind myself that you are not me. To a libertarian mind, rights don’t actually exist; only inter-human agreements exist. But to a leftwinger, rights DO exist, out there somewhere, cosmic! But they change somewhat unpredictably and magically. Today a right, tomorrow not; or vice versa.
Crosstalk AGAIN!
And yet, my last comment stands.
Fuck your avoidance of science and embracing of conspiracy nonsense.
You are avoiding rational discussion of a physical phenomenon.
Hello?
Corey writes: “You are avoiding rational discussion of a physical phenomenon.”
That is correct. I’ll admit to having to exercise some discipline to stay on the topic of this page. Your behavior suggests your interest in physical phenomena is less important to you than insulting an opponent.
That kind of behavior is (partly) how Donald Trump came to be President; when the basket of deplorables turned out to be rather larger than the left wing imagined and largely a product OF the left wing by its eliteism and rude behavior.
A problem with Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is that they are intended for use on the left; not the right and certainly not on libertarians for whom those rules Just Don’t Work ™.
Study instead Bob Altemeyer’s writings, freely available on the internet, about RWA’s, Right Wing Authoritarians. He eventually acknowledged the existence of LWA’s but Donald Trump is a type of RWA; a pack leader. Strong leaders attract followers. The difference between LWA and RWA is in the realm of what is recognized as “strength”. The left admires clever insult (Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart), the right admires more tangible evidence of successful leadership, money in this case.
What helped Obama get elected was his relentless insult of Republicans, going to take away their car keys. How’s that working out for Democrats right now? The “worm has turned”. Obama relentlessly insulted Donald Trump specifically at a White House press dinner event a few years ago; you could see it on DT’s face that is probably when he decided to run for President and its a good bet that DT is going to erase Obama’s legacy down to the last executive order. That’s probably not good for America but I consider it likely that is what is going to happen.
THAT is also a message of “1984” — the enemy suddenly became allied, friend (and then back to enemy) flipping and flopping in the book.
Since you never know for sure who is actually your enemy, it seems wise to treat everyone with at least some civility. Hillary Clinton would probably be President if she could have found some civility; but she has insufficient of her own and couldn’t borrow any from staff.
We have every right to expect integrity in your participation, but you consistently fail to deliver.
Corey says “We have every right to expect integrity in your participation”
Well there you go. Rights come into existence the moment you think it into existence.
I’m not sure what you mean by those words. As I use those words, honesty and integrity is what I provide. It appears that you have re-defined these words into their opposites, which appropriately is a theme of George Orwell’s “1984”.
I could call you every name I could think of, but it would not detract from my attempts at ascertaining truth.
You silly person.
Corey writes “I could call you every name I could think of, but it would not detract from my attempts at ascertaining truth.”
Yes, it would detract. You see, when you are talking you are not listening; when you are writing you are not reading. Ascertaining truth requires mostly listening and reading.
Therefore, wasting time calling me names is rival with your search for truth.
Still, I hope for new epithets; something clever and creative. Make me laugh out loud even at my own expense.
You are here to obfuscate.
Fuck you.
Corey writes: “You are here to obfuscate.”
Thank you! I asked for and received a new epithet and I chuckled. You are right to think I am avoiding discussing global warming on a page about George Orwell’s “1984”.
Did I forget anything?
Probably.
[H]onesty and integrity is what I provide.
Bullshit.
Attempting to define all of our inconvenient understanding as Groupthink is exactly why your here.
LIberating humanity from the shackles of First Year Physics is why your here.
Corey writes: “LIberating humanity from the shackles of First Year Physics is why your here.”
Did it work?
Not at Bickmore’s; not here.
No integrity.
No honor.
You are shit.
But your First Amendment rights are in no danger from ME, you bad hombre.
Therefore, wasting time calling me names is rival with your search for truth.
Dismissing trash like you takes exactly zero time from my focus on reality. It’s reflexive.
Corey “Dismissing trash like you takes exactly zero time from my focus on reality. It’s reflexive.”
Whereas writing responses takes quite a bit of your time.
But it’s important.
Bullshit left unchallenged risks being mistaken for truth.
Or something.
Corey “Bullshit left unchallenged risks being mistaken for truth.”
About every 10th to 20th comment from you is intelligent. That is what distinguishes you from Wow.
Plus, you know…Swiss cheese.
And one last thing before bed:
Antimitigationfuckery.
“As I use those words, honesty and integrity is what I provide”
Except that, when it comes to issues of science, politics, etc., your words are in messages that are not in agreement with what we learn from science, or what is happening in society. In other words, you are not telling the truth, and you have never (here) demonstrated a hint of integrity.
“It appears that you have re-defined these words into their opposites, which appropriately is a theme of George Orwell’s “1984”.”
Odd words coming from someone (you) who is playing the real world version of the Ministry of Truth from that book.
Lie to us again about your high IQ and mastery of logic.
dean wrote: “your words are in messages that are not in agreement with what we learn from science”
There is no WE. You believe some things and you label them “science” as if it is some sort of god. Other people believe different things. This god of yours is weak; how is it possible to have 60 different ‘scientific” excuses for “the pause”?
So here we in New England are having a record breaking warm day. Summer weather before the end of February. Of course, one or two days of extreme weather do not prove much of anything. What is more telling, though, is that our Orwellian CIC, or one of his lackeys, excluded news organizations from a news gaggle, and the excluded organizations happen to be the ones that do not tell the Breitbart fairy tale about global warming.
It is definitely turning into Trump’s war on science, the arts, the humanities, civility, and just about anything that western culture called a virtue a few decades ago. We have a true barbarian at the helm. He is the ideal vehicle for delivering a Russian smack down IED to the Murkan democracy, and that is becoming more and more obvious every day.. The narcissists, the sadists, the psychopaths, and the idiots who selected him are today celebrating having their voices heard.
I wonder when Trump is going to reach someone’s breaking point and trigger the Trumpejection mechanism, and what that process is going to look like. Working in concert with his white supremacist asshole friends Miller, Priebus, and Bannon, he cannot help but soon accumulate enough enemies to be able to guarantee the premature end of his term Can’t wait.
SteveP complained: “It is definitely turning into Trump’s war on science, the arts, the humanities, civility, and just about anything that western culture called a virtue a few decades ago.”
It does not require a scientific genius to observe that the war on civility emanates from your team at least here on this blog.
Virtue is vice, apparently. A bit of 1984 newspeak.
Weall have a part to play.
The total global sea ice extent is today the lowest it has ever been for this day of the year during the satellite record period. Not surprising.
So here is an interesting scenario for the economics minded in the group to tackle. Hard working, low paid immigrants, both documented and undocumented, do much of the back braking agricultural labor in Murka. Things that a robot cannot yet do like pick grapes or work on a low tech dairy farm. What if that labor pool is diminished by the Trump gang’s Murka Furst fascism? Ditto for tough jobs like roofing, that McMansion need a lot of. Does that drive the price of those ugly monstrosities up?
Another interesting scenario. Summer temperatures are thawing the ground and inducing fruit trees to bud. If a typical Arctic air blast passes through as they often do, how does that effect fruit tree production?
Donald Trump is poised to fix something that wasn’t broken. He is trying to tune up a working machine with a sledge hammer.
I should probably not be so surprised that conservatives and their libertarian co-conspirators are poised to put the pedal to the metal on the fascism Hummer. Even though many are well educated, and should recognize the signs and dangers of fascism and totalitarianism, they can’t, for some reason. Maybe their bullshit sensors are fouled? Maybe it is a long standing secret admiration for the Nazi machinery, the strong authoritarian father figure system, the practical common sense answers that feel good ( inconvenient math and science be damned) , the fascist dollah be praised philosophy, Tough “love”, spare the rod and spoil the child, cruelty is a virtue and a right, civility is a weakness. It is all coming together now, and the fires of fascism , fanned by self love, fear, stupidity, insensitivity [ You think insensitivity is a virtue? Good. May your doctor use an insensitive stethoscope to check your heart. May your pilots use insensitive radar to fly you around. May your broker use insensitive indexes to balance your portfolio.May your dentist be insensitive to your pain.]
Trump is currently ruling with an ignorant and somewhat mentally defective ( no offense intended!) mob, and he is in so far over his head that his all the shit snorkels in the world aren’t going to help him.
So the battle lines are being drawn up. It sure looks like ignorance, ugliness,alternate reality, and fear on the other side. I hope we can disarm this situation before it goes South, but maybe we can’t, because it already has gone South. The crowd that nurtures creationism, states rights, cruelty, slavery values, and money is running the juggernaut. Hold on tight to the ones you love, because the ride could get very bumpy.
I wish you a nice day.
In the spirit of providing food for thought for ways to bring down the dumb bastard illegitimate incompetent fool and his entourage, you can look at this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd4WZ3LqCKw
It is curious that the white nationalist/confederate/nazi trash never seem to win the war.
I blame it on low testosterone.
Or maybe it’s Jesus trying to tell them,
Wrong again, idiots.
M2 #211
See #208.
By attempting to skip over that, you demonstrate once again that you are dishonest. That you are a hypocrite, fake Christian and a narcissist is already established.
BBD writes: “That you are a hypocrite, fake Christian and a narcissist is already established.”
Then why are you still here trying to establish it?
It is as “1984” reveals; it is not enough for you to believe you are right; it is important for you to know that I believe you are right, as otherwise you do not know that I am obeying your will rather than my own:
“How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?”
Winston thought. “By making him suffer,” he said.
“Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own?”
You are here for power.
SteveP is here for testosterone. Testosterone leads to power.
Wow is here to sharpen his insulting skills. Insulting leads to power; or at least that is what Saul Alinsky tells his followers. That’s true also for dean and Corey.
Not one person came here for science; including me — I came for politics and an interesting discussion of “1984”.
M2 #213
Oh yes you do. That’s why you dodged it. Dishonest, hypocritical and #FakeChristian triple-whammy!
I have to say that M2 never fails to amaze. How *anyone* could read ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ as an endorsement of narcissism and libertarian selfishness just boggles the fucking mind.
The testosterone angle is interesting and important. The Testosterone levels in a troopof baboons sorts itself out based on dominance hierarchy and other things. I’ve coined the expression “Testosterone economy” to describe how human males sort themselves out in this way. Men like to have lots of testosterone, they can increase it by winning fights.If they lose a fight, any fight, even an argument or a chess match, they have an automatic loss in testosterone.They can start to build their level back up by bullying a lesser member of the troop. My guess is that any other arrangement has probably resulted in species weeding themselves out by fighting to death; if testosterone rose when a males lost a fight, they would probably keep ramping up their aggressive behavior until they annihilated themselves.
So If Steve Bannon has low testosterone, he might be trying to increase it by beating up as many liberals as he can. Ditto with Stephen Miller and his racism, beating up minorities, and Reince Priebus and Democrats. So yeah, I can buy into the low testosterone hypothesis. Something is definitely messed up in that whole crew. And where do their followers fit in? They won the election, that was a testosterone boost. Fear of submitting to Muslims had lowered their testosterone, so now they have restored it to a new equilibrium with the pick of an islamophobic daddy figure. The tribe that slays together stays together?
So, is the inability to apologize or acknowledge even the slightest defeat a sign of low testosterone? Or is if a pattern of behavior that speaks to some related malady, like a lifetime of predicating one’s behavior on predation of other beings in order to get that testosterone fix? Its getting complicated. Here is a research project for somebody. Darting nazis to get blood samples to check their testosterone levels.
And off we go again with the dishonesty. Science is not belief. False equivalence; dishonest rhetoric.
60 = straight-up lie. Scare quotes around ‘science’ for rhetorical effect = dishonest insinuation that something’s wrong with climate science. See also ‘excuses’.
Nobody ever said that natural variability in the rate of warming was caused by a single factor. So pretending that there’s a problem is dishonest.
You’ve stuffed an impressive amount of dishonesty into a few short lines there, M2.
SteveP writes: “So, is the inability to apologize or acknowledge even the slightest defeat a sign of low testosterone?”
Good idea but wrong direction. Men with high testosterone do not apologize or acknowledge defeat. Men with low testosterone act more like the traditional view of women; not exactly submissive but taking a lesser role in society.
I believe an ability to apologize is not directly linked to testosterone either high or low. Perhaps a bit of science could come your way.
To our libertarian friends!
1. Please learn to distinguish between an observation and a complaint. It will so improve the level of our discourse.
2. Please note also, that when libertarians and conservatives migrate themselves to the politics section of a science blog, and they get into disputes with the other denizens of said blog, and when, further, they decry political correctness, why the fuck on Earth should they expect civility from the normal denizens of the politics section of the science blog? Can you enlighten me?
Have a nice day!
A more serious reply to Steve:
SteveP writes: “why the fuck on Earth should they expect civility from the normal denizens of the politics section of the science blog? Can you enlighten me?”
Your hypocrisy attracts my attention; like a moth to flame I call it out. I have written nothing on this page to stimulate these attacks on me; I have not denounced science nor anyone else’s preferred lifestyle. I find it fascinating.
I do have an innate skill to detect and amplify hypocrisy; I’m not sure whether there’s social utility but since it exists it must have an evolutionary purpose.
It is likely that I am more scientific than most people here simply by nature of my analytical personality type combined with intelligence, broad experience and much book learning.
I am certainly more civilized than most here.
So when you come along wailing about the decline of western virtue, well, that’s a product primarily of the Democratic party. What was once sin is now marriage. What was once prognostication is now science.
Science still happens, in the field and laboratory. How much have you performed in the past year?
Religion also happens. How much of that have you or BBD performed in the past year?
They are quite similar; the main difference being science is supposed to be reproducible on demand and deals with things that you can touch, see, measure.
“here is no WE. You believe some things and you label them “science” as if it is some sort of god.”
That. That is why you are widely known as an ass. Saying that your interpretation of a result in science (or statistics, or math, as you’ve shown you believe) is as valid as the interpretations and
descriptions of experts in the field is foolish. There is no worship of science as if it were a god – the latter ignores evidence and functions though gullibility (faith). Dismissing thousands of articles of supporting data and research as nothing more than ramblings of prophets an incredibly dishonest move – not a new one, as creationists, anti-vaccination folks, and racists have been doing similar things for a very long time.
It’s becoming clear that the only truthful comment you’ve made is that you are a libertarian — they would be the only people stupid enough to claim you as one of their own.
dean wrote, in reply to: “There is no WE. You believe some things and you label them science as if it is some sort of god.”
“That. That is why you are widely known as an ass.”
Precisely. I am not in your herd, pack, hive, anthill. That is all it takes. Nothing else matters. You have hidden signals and I failed to signal. I am an intruder.
What makes it interesting is that it is entirely verbal (well, linguistic at least). You signal each other in some way that is not obvious to me. if you were dogs you would pee and sniff each other’s butts.
“Saying that your interpretation of a result in science (or statistics, or math, as you’ve shown you believe) is as valid as the interpretations…”
Perhaps if I write s-l-o-w-e-r you’ll get it. My opinion is mine. When I go to the poll and vote on something; I vote my opinion, just as you vote yours. If I believe that spending a trillion dollars of money this nation does not have is also not going to fix a problem that is not known with certainty, that is my “interpretation” and, being mine, isn’t merely the equal of yours, it is superior.
You do likewise of course but dare not admit it.
“There is no worship of science as if it were a god”
Absolutely there is right on this page. You use “science” semantically in the same way and for the same purpose a religious person says “god”. It is an authority; but more importantly, a singularity. “Science says…” is semantically identical to “God says…”
You have “anthropomorphized” science! Deified it, personified it, worship at its altars, carry its banners and pay homage to it..
“you are a libertarian — they would be the only people stupid enough to claim you as one of their own.”
There is no “they” among libertarians. It is not a group. Can you not see this? Probably not.
SteveP writes: “why the fuck on Earth should they expect civility (*) from the normal denizens of the politics section of the science blog?”
* I don’t 🙂
Notice how M2 walked into my trap, everybody. I have such glee! He gets to proudly display his misogyny…. as well as his tacit admission that the behavior of the nazi leader he so loves is essentially mediated by his hormone level, just like the leader of a baboon troop. So devo.
Enlighten us some more M2, do! This is fascinating!
SteveP writes: “Enlighten us some more M2, do! This is fascinating”
Indeed it is. Stay tuned to this channel, do not touch that knob…
Meanwhile, think up some commentary that we can discuss about George Orwell’s “1984” or maybe “Animal Farm”.
I’m not ‘trying’ to establish anything. That’s been done. I’m just pointing out what a pile of dishonest crap you spout. Think of it as a service.
Or it’s just push-back against your crap… You are trying to frame this in a way which delegtimises reaction to your hypocritical, mendacious peddling. But in fact the reaction is the only legitimate thing on the page. I know you think you are super-clever and subtle etc, but actually, you are bloody obvious and clunky.
Like in the way you keep blanking inconvenient observations about your hypocrisy, mendacity, narcissism and #FakeChristianity.
BBD writes: “I know you think you are super-clever and subtle etc”
Too subtle sometimes, but yes. Eventually others here will declare something, either on topic or some other topic besides me. Perhaps nobody else has read “1984”.
“My opinion is mine.”
True. Nobody said otherwise. The other thing that is true is that your opinion of what various results from science show is 100% wrong. You can play your stupid little games with words and think you are making a point about science — but you are simply reinforcing the fact that your level of understanding is zero.
And if it’s crap, you have crap opinions and get hammered for them. QED. No groupthink necessary (except as a crude rhetorcial attempt to delegitimise accurate critcisms of your crap).
Here’s some crap from you earlier (#246):
Oh wow. World government, socialist plot, CO2, LIBERTEEEE!!! The full tinfoil. Wrapped round a flat-out lie:
When you lie blatantly like this, you reveal what’s really going on behind the curtain. Nutty conspiracy theories. Paranoia Americana. Reds under the bed. As Teh Donald would say: sad.
BBD, using a language of violence, writes: “you have crap opinions and get hammered for them”
I am not here. Good luck with the hammering.
Did you have a comment on George Orwell?
But soooo modest.
Feeling the heat, are we?
The white supremacists have finally won the civil war and are currently being represented by Donnie Tyrump, and his entourage of Stephen Miller, Stephen Bannon, and Reince Priebus, four of the ugliest human beings on the planet. Really. Those four have got a major dose of the ugly gene. And I’m not just talking about the physically ugly gene. No. They have the very special internal ugliness that comes from hatred, arrogance, and contempt for people who are not ugly white men like themselves. Tyrump in turn loves Vladimir Putin, another pug ugly racist dictator who looks like a cross between a rat and a weimaraner.
The Tyrump gang also has the market cornered when it comes to narcissistic sociopathy. Stephen Miller is so overtly sadistic that they will probably name a syndrome for him in years to come. Bannon …. a box of fruit loops shaped from bat shit. Priebus.. A goose stepping little nazi who wakes up in totalitarian nirvana every morning and pinches himself to make sure it is real. Tyrump, of course, is well known to be a malignant narcissist who has a great deal of trouble telling the truth… his testosterone reserves are probably so low that he cannot afford a single ding from the slightest slight. Pathetic,
So here we have some of the best arguments AGAINST white supremacy that one could muster. A bunch of white males who are so ugly and pathological that, really, they are not much of a standard to hold up as evidence of a supposed white superiority. Not one of these little goose steppers impress me with their racial ” superiority”. They won the white house? A black man did that twice in the last ten years , and he did so without having to resort to gerrymandering and the stupid electoral college. They are wealthy? Certainly not from invention or cleverness or talent. They are smart? Oh please, not one of them has given evidence of being able to have figured out the mechanism of current global warming, or at least figured out who the real experts are in the field. Virtuous? Maybe if you consider lying and hatred and contempt to be virtues. Ideologically loyal? Well, yes, to the ideology of fascism.
If these assholes want to preserve their recessive genes by selective inbreeding, then by all means go ahead. We’ll be watching to see the results of their experiment. Tiny noses like Bannon, tiny hands like Tyrump, tiny face like Miller, beady eyes like Priebus…. , expect something that looks like a classic space alien in a millennium or two. It will be white, have a high IQ, but won’t be able to dance. Perfect mate for a Borg.
SteveP wrote “The white supremacists have finally won the civil war”
More language of violence from the left.
As to the rest, TLDR. You seem unusually interested in testosterone.
Do you have something to write about “1984”?
The cowardly CIC has backed out of the correspondent’s dinner! “I will not be attending the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner this year. Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!” Yeah. We know Donnie. You got so humiliated by that black man when he made fun of your crazy fucking birther theories a few years ago at one of those dinners. It must have lowered your testosterone something terrible!
In other coward Republican news, Republican law makers are running and hiding from their constituents. They appear to be afraid. They know that people are wising up to the fact that their Republican lawmakers represent fossil fuel company interests and insurance company interests far above the interests of their constituents.. Their testosterone levels must be plummeting when they go to their town hall meetings expecting to be the alpha male, and then find that, son of a gun, they are the omega dog!. Ouch! That must hurt!
So Tyrump has picked on Mexicans, Muslims, US Intelligence Agencies, and The Media. The guy sure knows how to pick his fights, doesn’t he? He got pumped up fighting down trodden immigrants, then moved on to US Intelligence Agencies, Smart move Donnie! Good job! And you know you don’t have to worry because Vladimir has your back! You can do it!. Now Donnie is inciting his asshole supporters to fight the media! Wow! And even Fox News is fighting back!
In other news, the local tea party-ish squadron of atv’s roared up the road a while back, as did a pickup truck committing flag abuse with the US flag. Such a tasteful group! Talk about a fast and unstealthy way to get shit heads through the woods from point A to point B. Golly! Maybe they hope they can scare any scary bears or squirrels or spiders out of the way with their noise! I hope they have a nice day. Be very very careful for the neck cow fences boyz. Hard to see and can really mess up the lead rider! Have fun!
SteveP writes: “It must have lowered your testosterone something terrible! … Their testosterone levels must be plummeting. I’ve coined the expression Testosterone economy”
Could you try for something on topic? What, in your opinion, was the purpose of the Two Minute Hate in “1984”? Tie it in to testosterone if you must.
“The cowardly CIC has backed out of the correspondent’s dinner! “I will not be attending the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner this year. Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!” ”
Possibly (probably?) preventative PR by someone in his staff. He got away with the lies he spewed at CPAC because the attendees were stupid enough not to realize they were being lied to or so fundamentally flawed themselves that they didn’t care.
That wouldn’t be the case at the dinner: not only would his usual lies not be taken well, but the amount of coverage that dinner gets would broadcast the crap to a much wider audience.
Lowlifes like rickA, mikeN, and mike2 wouldn’t care about the lies – they’d defend them, most likely – but a much larger audience seeing the president as the empty suit he is? Not good PR.
Side note: Apparently he really likes lying about the sizes of crowds where he appears. From CPAC ““There are lines that go back six blocks. I tell you that because you won’t read about it.”
We didn’t hear about it because it wasn’t true (just like the claim that his inauguration crowd was larger than the press showed was blatantly false).
http://theslot.jezebel.com/heres-a-picture-of-the-crowd-lined-up-outside-cpac-to-s-1792713722
Still trying to delegitimise reasonable criticism and divert attention.
I notice that you can’t respond to most of what I have been obliged to say to and about you recently. Consider yourself hammered.
And since you are a prolific troll feeding your own narcissism by provoking irritation in others, you don’t get to whine about being off-topic. Your capacity for hypocrisy is remarkable.
BBD commented on 1984, the novel, saying: “Your capacity for hypocrisy is remarkable.”
Thank you; I aim for excellence in all I do.
At any rate, it is clear that no one here is interested in the topic.
“Still trying to delegitimise reasonable criticism and divert attention. ”
M2 is also trying to get away with “misunderstanding” you when you say “Hammered”. He does that a lot.
“At any rate, it is clear that no one here is interested in the topic.”
Nobody here is interested in what one of the textbook examples of “deplorable person” –you–will say about it, given you’ve never uttered anything truthful or logical.
dean writes “Nobody here is interested in what you have to say about it”
I assumed as much. Perhaps you could discuss it among yourselves while I and the rest of the world observe.
The topic of all these written accounts is the novel 1984. After having read these accounts I must establish that anger and hate mostly prevail over reason, exactly one of the main themes of 1984. My sympathy is with Michael 2, who – despite all personal attacks on him – stays polite and cohesive. Many reactions I think have a high trumpish character. Where is the willingness of comprehension, a basic condition for a fruitful discussion? I don’t see a discussion. I see a marketplace filled with people condemning Socrates to drink a cup of poison. I read accusation on accusation, swearing, scolding, I don´t detect respect for the minority in this organized mob, I read anger and hate, unwillingness of authors accepting the possibility of following a less justified argument. The afore mentioned scriberish shows an intensely divided America. In my opinion the best possible prescription of a well trained psychiatrist for us all, including you as part pro toto of USA and the world today, would be: read 1984 three times a day, and wake up. Compare 2017 with 1984. Hope it helps and heals, which is, as I presume, the purpose of Greg Laden, political antropologist of having chosen 1984 as today´s topic. Laren NH, Monday 27th. February 2017, 23.11 PM DT.
G. Bogaers wrote good words. “read 1984 three times a day, and wake up.”
Many here probably experienced the cold war and Soviet Union, more so yourself because of proximity. “1984” and Animal Farm deal with different aspects of the same phenomenon; failed attempts at socialism.
“1984” in particular deals with Winston Smith, gainfully employed changing history so that current politicians were never wrong. But he had some desires and thoughts that were not Party approved. He wanted some independence. Not a lot, but more than was permitted by the Party.
Greg Laden hasn’t written enough to reveal why he posted this provocative reminder of its existence; perhaps as a reminder that whoever is in power also controls the media to a certain extend, and where not actually controlling it can certainly manipulate it.
The Democratic left has spent the past year (well, past 8 years) whipping up a hatred of Republicans and libertarians as you can see right here; no reasoning is offered for this hatred, it just exists and needs only to be directed.
Trump has also taken advantage of many hatreds and accomplished what seemed impossible only one year ago.
But it isn’t hate per se, it is *fear* that moves people. The Two Minute Hate existed to maintain a high level of anxiety and fear in the population which made them willing to sacrifice liberty and the most basic freedoms of choice in order to be protected from the things they feared, without requiring much in the way of evidence that anything existed as portrayed.
So to me two messages of “1984” is to be less afraid of what one has been told to fear; but more afraid of what is behind the telling.
“despite all personal attacks on him – stays polite and cohesive.”
Look at his history of dishonesty in his posts. He’s long ago proven himself to be someone with whom you don’t want to be associated.
dean “He’s long ago proven himself to be someone with whom you don’t want to be associated.”
Thank you for this demonstration of one of several effective social control mechanisms. One of the more pronounced instances of this sort of thing is known as shunning.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign against the Deplorables was more of the same; one does not wish to associate with deplorables.
An amusing British comedy pokes a bit of fun at that thinking, a show called “Keeping Up Appearances”.
Gerrit, when Satan interacts with Jesus in Matthew 4, Satan is very polite and very cohesive in what he has to say.
Does that make Satan’s arguments and minority views something that should be respected and seriously considered?
Conservatives think the answer is “yes”. What’s your view?
Brainstorms asks “Gerrit, when Satan interacts with Jesus in Matthew 4, Satan is very polite and very cohesive in what he has to say. Does that make Satan’s arguments and minority views something that should be respected and seriously considered?”
Yes.
“Conservatives think the answer is yes.”
Obviously it doesn’t take much to be a conservative. 🙂
Anything that is still found in a book about 2000 years later must have been considered extremely important at the time and remains important enough that a few hundred million copies of those words are in print.
I presume you speak of this: “And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.”
The meaning seems clear but I doubt that it is as easy as it seems. If Jesus knew he was the son of God, then he did not need a demonstration of his own power. If he did NOT know he was the Sun of God (or what that might mean), jumping off a high place would be unwise. So, Satan is offering Jesus a choice between unnecessary and unwise.
Throughout his life, Jesus was tested similarly but in each such instance the logical fallacy of the false alternatives is on display leaving Jesus to reveal a third way.
From such comes modern phrases like “think outside the box” where your opponent has put you into the box, or at least is trying to. That is very common here on this and other blogs where the asker supposes he can constrain your choices, just as his own choices were probably constrained.
Now then the story does raise a small question; who was the scribe? How is it that we have these words? It’s a story; you can “swallow camels while straining at gnats” but it works better the other way round.
You do not know whether someone has something worthy to say until that person says it, by which time it is too late if it turns out not to be worthy. Furthermore, your judgment is personal; you may judge a writing to be interesting while another will prefer to insult it and the majority of human beings will ignore it or be entirely oblivious to this conversation.
“social control mechanisms.”
Your cluelessness seems to know no bounds.
dean wrote: “Your cluelessness seems to know no bounds.”
That is correct. Clueful grows upward, clueless grows upward as the reciprocal of clueful with limit->0.
Consequently clueless = 1/clueful and as clueful approaches zero, cluess approaches infinity, or as you say, “it knows no bounds”.
And your repeated lies and dishonesty, exhibited by the “campaign against the Deplorables” do one thing: emphasize how utterly without integrity you are.
Why do folks like you choose to toss out lies (not just this latest, but almost every item you post) about the Clinton campaign when it would be easy to base arguments on fact? (Rhetorical question: people in your sphere of the political spectrum have as much interest in the truth as a potato does – and you have the same intellectual ability as the potato.)
dean wrote “Why do folks like you choose to toss out lies about the Clinton campaign when it would be easy to base arguments on fact?”
It is not easy to base arguments on fact largely because it is extremely difficult to obtain facts. Therefore, one has a choice to say little or nothing (my approach), or invent stories that you believe are true or at least you wish others to believe are true.
Whether such stories rise to the level of lying depends on a person’s actual knowledge of the truth. Otherwise its just a fiction or a mistake.
But then, that is my usage of lying; your definition seems to be different.
Interesting weasel words. You’ve had many things pointed out and still continue with your climate science lies. You repeat debunked political conspiracies.
I can’t imagine being like you, unencumbered by any integrity or decency. That does make you the classic libertarian.
Dean “I can’t imagine being like you”
So it seems. I appreciate the effort you are making.
“That does make you the classic libertarian.”
That’s not really for you to say; but so long as I choose for me and you choose for you, then it is not a difficult judgment to make.
February 27, 2017
Brainstorms asked Gerrit (313):
“Gerrit, when Satan interacts with Jesus in Matthew 4, Satan is very polite and very cohesive in what he has to say.
Does that make Satan’s arguments and minority views something that should be respected and seriously considered?
Conservatives think the answer is “yes”. What’s your view?”
Being prudent is not an exclusive choice that only so-called conservative minded people can make in their way of coping with the world, of which good and bad are together woven threads. Prudence is a classic virtue which fits all people and this attitude is a necessary tool to get to a higher level of civilization, if possible, together. Each and every one of us is a mixture of good and bad, and we have to deal with that daily It starts with respect and it ends with respect as a good compass to make choices. What does the other wish to say and express and why? What does the other wish to reach, to strive for? In whose interest? And at the cost of what? How is it with yourself? What’s the best choice for community, for souls, for your soul? It involves making choices, what’s the most rewarding choice out of respect of civilization and souls? Not without good reason Jesus and Satan took each other very seriously. I can follow Jesus completely in the choices he made, the answers he gave, the path he followed. For me He is the Son of God who was sent to mankind as a compass.
To come back to climate change better earth change, Jesus and his Father are both extremely angry with us, people, who have been making a mess of our planet, which has become completely messed up by radiation, poison, extra output of greenhouse gasses, over-mining and polluting industries, overfishing, overexploitation, wrong sweetwater-policies, terrible energy-governance, the worldwide killing of life, etcetera. The too often too soft and wooly criticism of church leaders and politicians, the lack of backbone and cooperation to address these problems properly. As God and Jesus both have been saying (of which I have been a witness as off 1984 ! till 2005 and so on) ´we the people´accelerated the biological clock of earth, we speeded up the timeshift from interglacial to glacial, and we are in for a terrible earth change. So stop scolding each other and with ostrich behavior. Sart working together to save mankind as much as possible. Thank you for responding as They ask.
Kind regards, Gerrit Bogaers, author of the apocalyps of planet earth in five acts, based upon 85 seances 1983- 2005 and messages given by spiritual representatives of God to Kees de Haar, medium in Alpen aan den Rijn, Netherlands. The study (three books) has been written in 2015-2017. I wrote it in the capacity of a trained scientist-solicitor, practicing environmental and property law, both in the civil as administrative fields of law, as of 1980 till now. My family is of mixed catholic and protestant background and comes from all parts of the world and of various ethnic backgrounds. A tradition we continue. Mother Australian, having nursed American wounded ful and wonderful wife from Aruba, father of two beautiful children (sun 28, daughter 26). Earlier in this blog I was cursed as a bloody fucking idiot and of producer of horse excrement. I wear these as a Geuzennaam, a name of honor.
Without fucking idiots earth would have come to a standstill thousands and more years ago.
You enrich dry unfruitful soil with manure. Who is ready to catch, gets it.
By the way, both are examples of non-respect, but time will teach. Interesting to say, yesterday the news was spread that Michel Crucifix (nomen est omen) has explained the rhythm of ice ages, (published in Nature Thursday 23 February 2017). Crucifix is on the same track of Kees de Haar, a professional mason, who heard in his séances about the biological clock of planet earth as of 1984, this is thirty years earlier. As predicted the messages given to Kees de Haar about climate- and earth change would be acknowledged by earth science some decades later. That is exactly what is happening right now. Mr. Trump might be so over-estimating himself that he wants media and scientists to shut up, but he is worsening developments in an accelerating way into the opposite direction Mr. Trump wished for. Gods ways are inscrutable, but this speeding up of things happens as it is the only way of saving earth while it still exists.
I love the New testament, I have got another saying I received after I had written the last lines of the three books on January 29, 2017, it is form Paul to the Corinthians, 1,26-29, New International Version (NIV):
26 “Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”[a]”
Laren NH, Tuesday 28 February 2017, 10.52 AM DT.
Except that it hasn’t and this is essentially a lie. A rewrite of history, if you like.
Interestingly, Troll2 cannot seem to see that Trump, by demonizing Islam and Mexico as the other and attempting to delegitimise the media outside his control are straight out of the 1984 playbook. He started trying to rewrite history right from the outset with the absurd lies about the size of the inauguration crowd…
A failure that some would see as indicative of hypocrisy on his part.
BBD writes:
“Except that it hasn’t…
and this ^ is essentially a lie”
Indeed. 🙂
I know it isn’t what you meant but this conversation has reached a stalemate so might as well have a bit of fun with the English language. As to the truth of my claim; I obtain nothing by persuading you. Those who remember “stupid Cambridge police” and “basket of deplorables” and “take the Republicans car keys away” very likely agree with my assessment of Democratic party behavior. Their ideals are often pretty good but their behavior is ungood, occasionally double-plus ungood.
BBD writes: “Troll2 cannot seem to see that Trump, by demonizing Islam and Mexico as the other and attempting to delegitimise the media outside his control are straight out of the 1984 playbook.”
Finally, a topically relevant sentence! Anyway, yes, Trump plays this game exceptionally well. HRC also played it, but chose poorly, designating as the enemy half of her own nation. Duh, you designate someone else as The Enemy, not your own potential voters!
You and Dean play the same game attempting to de-legitimize me and, where possible, controlling media by banning opposing points of view.
I do not consider Trump to be either libertarian, or Republican (or Democrat for that matter). He’s in his own Party. I note some similarities between D.T. and the Time Magazine “Man of the Year” for 1938. That man did actually make his nation great again but at a terrible cost.
This can be avoided if we avoid accepting the designation of enemies. I suspect that many people, probably a majority, cannot help themselves and will “hate on” the designated enemy without reason or thought. These are they that are portrayed as sheep in “Animal Farm”.
A failure that some would see as indicative of hypocrisy on his part.
This sentence got a bit orphaned at the end. It refers to M2, not to Trump. The #FakeHistory is that Obama was as or more totalitarian than Trump. Clearly, the Trump administration is authoritarian in deeply worrying ways not seen under Obama (#FakeHistory). The hypocrisy arises from pretending that 1984 is a warning against socialism* rather than against the likes of Trump and his crew of media manipulating, fearmongering liars.
*1984 wasn’t really about left or right, it was a warning about totalitarianism itself. And right now, that warning applies to the present administration in ways that it never did to the previous one.
BBD writes “The #FakeHistory is that Obama was as or more totalitarian than Trump.”
I do not know anyone having made that claim (although I do not say it was not). It is more relevant to compare Trump to Clinton (the HRC variant). That is where a comparison is made by libertarians who is likely to be more totalitarian (more bad, less good).
“Clearly, the Trump administration is authoritarian in deeply worrying ways not seen under Obama”
Agreed. It was barely possible to decide that HRC was even more totalitarian than them all. Not with certainty, but certain enough since we had a preview of HRC.
“The hypocrisy arises from pretending that 1984 is a warning against socialism* rather than against the likes of Trump and his crew of media manipulating, fearmongering liars.”
That would be true for persons proposing that 1984 is as you suggest they have said. It is clear that 1984 is about totalitarianism; and, as I started all this, what is the opposite of totalitarianism? Libertarianism (but with a “little L”).
If totalitarianism is bad, then libertarianism must be good. It is not clear from “1984” whether it could be said to be left OR right.
Of course, totalitarianism is not always bad and libertarianism is not always good. As the saying goes, “It depends…”
Many people prefer totalitarianism and the freedom from decision making that comes along with it.
“The hypocrisy arises from pretending that 1984 is a warning against socialism* rather than against the likes of Trump and his crew of media manipulating, fearmongering liars.”
Remember that he is a strong libertarian, which by definition means he’s given up all ethics and integrity. Honesty is a weakness, and helping others is by (his) definition socialism and “theft” from him.
When you troll, the topic is you, which is why you troll, because it feeds your narcissism. We have already established this and its corollary, which is that whenever you mention topic like this you are being hypocritical.
Lies. HRC said something like ‘about half Trump supporters … basket of deplorables’. Something which is arguably true since Trump numbers a worrying amount of racist scum amongst his core supporters. But somehow, the problem once again gets shifted *away* from Trump and onto the Democrats. #FakeHistory #JustLies
No, we point out that much of what you say is lying, partisan, hypocritical, #FakeChristian etc. You delegitimise yourself by what you say.
And the plague of fake news strangling the internet is a liberal phenomenon? Er, no. The titanic wave of bullshit (aka fake news) spewed out online is a right-wing production. Except according to you, but you are a partisan liar.
Muslims, Mexicans and the (not) fake media. Too late. Your guy is well down the road to perdition. Good luck.
BBD “because it feeds your narcissism.”
There is no “it”. You feed my narcissism.
“We have already established this”
There is no “we”. You have established it.
“whenever you mention topic like this you are being hypocritical.”
The topic is George Orwell’s “1984”. One of its features is “newspeak” where old words get new meanings, often the complete opposite of their traditional meanings.
“Lies. HRC said something like ‘about half Trump supporters … basket of deplorables’. Something which is arguably true”
Um, so which is it? Lies or arguably true?
Re: You and Dean play the same game attempting to de-legitimize me
“No, we point out that much of what you say is lying, partisan, hypocritical”
Do tell; WHY do you “point out” this behavior? Are you seeking my favor? Or is it an attempt to warn others; that is to say, “de-legitimize me”. But here, on this blog, I have no legit anyway so your efforts are pointless. Its just your habit, a reflex to the word “libertarian”.
Typical libertarian whiney-baby crap. Note that people who make reasoned arguments, based on fact, supported by logic, and who admit that assumptions/assertions they’ve made are wrong when others point out demonstrations of such, can’t be de-legitimized by others.
You don’t do any of that (your repetition of fake problems with climate change science, your repeated spreading of “news” that was shown to be bogus long ago, your “video of hrc on 9/11” bullshit conspiracy, and now your “she called half of the country despicable” line of crap). You are not taken seriously because of how you choose to behave: in classic libertarian style you took advantage of the structure society has built to help people move forward but now want to destroy that structure for others — most likely because you see people of the wrong race and sex advancing their lives. You double down on the aura of lies by spewing nonsense about religion (and other issues).
“This can be avoided if we avoid accepting the designation of enemies.”
Wow — I’m not sure how this was meant, but if you think it is a sincere statement it shows how completely absent of self-awareness you really are.
dean wrote “Note that people who make reasoned arguments, based on fact, supported by logic, and who admit that assumptions/assertions they’ve made are wrong when others (*) point out demonstrations of such, can’t be de-legitimized by others.”
* Provided, of course, that these “others” are themselves on the Authorized List saying Authorized Words. In other words, if I accept your words, then you will cease to de-legitimize me. If I do not accept your words at face value just because you spoke them, then you will continue your efforts to de-legitimize me on a blog where I have no legit anyway 🙂
“You don’t do any of that”
Correct. I do not take your words as “truth” just because you wrote them. Neither do I call them “lies”. I call it “claims” and where important I will try to verify the truth of your claims. If a number of your claims turn out to be true, then my faith in the probable truthfulness of future claims will be increased.
Re: This can be avoided if we avoid accepting the designation of enemies.
“Wow — I’m not sure how this was meant, but if you think it is a sincere statement it shows how completely absent of self-awareness you really are.”
All of my statements, except where clearly marked (or in the case of Wow) are sincere statements.
A libertarian chooses for himself; friends and enemies alike and neither designates other persons to receive anti-social behavior and tends to ignore himself being targeted for anti-social behavior.
Designating an enemy is herd behavior, mind control, keep the sheep’s minds on the designated enemy rather than real problems not so easily solved.
BBD #329 said “When you troll, the topic is you, which is why you troll, because it feeds your narcissism.”
See, I think that when you attack someone, usually by name calling, you make the topic about the person you attack.
You attack M2 – he responds.
You attack me (RickA) – I respond.
It only looks like the topic is about M2 or RickA because instead of responding to the content of the post, the attack makes the thread about the person defending themselves from the attack.
In other words, this is all your fault.
Stop name calling and just engage the comment and the threads will be much shorter and more on point.
RickA wrote “You attack M2 – he responds.”
Well, to be fair to BBD, I did “troll” him by dropping a “trigger word” (libertarian). It is a sparkling, flashing, irresistible lure.
What I had hoped for, and it is finally becoming, is an exploration of totalitarian versus libertarian. Many here seem not to think of libertarian in the same way I think of it (really?) so using George Orwell’s “1984” as the example of the perfect opposite of libertarian illuminates “libertarian” because it is everything totalitarianism is not (and vice versa).
I certain do not expect sheep to become horses, but sheep might at least understand horses.
“In other words, this is all your fault.”
And the other clueless congenital liar chimes in.
congenital. Con as in “a trick or deception” and genital as in “a complete ball-sack”.
Sounds about right!
I suppose, if you are incapable of, too lazy for, or not interested in critical thinking and basic human decency, libertarianism is the choice for you.
We are lucky that most people strive to be better than those who go down that path.
Aaaand we’re back to peddling the same crap that was crap over 200 comments ago.
Totalitarianism and libertarianism are extremist ideologies and there are no examples from history of good flowing from extremist ideology.
Repeating old falsehoods is called ‘dishonesty’ M2. And your crap is still crap.
Why don’t we take another tack? Instead of blaming us for being irritated by your crap, stop peddling it constantly here.
Then you wouldn’t need to get all butt-hurt over other peoples’ fully justified irritation and the threads will be much shorter and more on point.
Link fail at #336:
“that was crap over 200 comments ago”.
“Instead of blaming us for being irritated by your crap, stop peddling it constantly here.”
Alternatively, they can stop being such butthurt kitty snowflakes and stop whining about the mean words.
Remember what I said about the tone argument? It’s over on the RationalWiki if you want to refresh, BBD.
This whinging is just their way to make you dance to their tune. Indeed this is 100% the reaons why M2 repeated back on full retard cycle to the original 200-posts-ago claim about libertarianism totally not being an extreme (because M2 is a libertarian and no monster sees what they are in the mirror).
The only time the tone argument should work is when you didn’t intend the insult or swearing. Absent that mistake, it makes no odds if you use the word “fuckwit” when describing someone who you think is being a fuckwit.
Wow, returning from a long absence (he found a computer in other words), commented on 1984, the novel, saying:
“they can stop being such butthurt kitty snowflakes”
I think the phrase is kiddy (childish) not “kitty” (cat, feline). Kitty snowflakes conjures a rather amusing image.
“and stop whining”
versus
“This whinging”
Suggests a bit too much travel between US and UK.
“is just their way to make you dance to their tune”
There is no “they”. I come here for my own reasons and so do you.
“claim about libertarianism totally not being an extreme”
RTFC. Libertarianism is the opposite of totalitarianism; if totalitarianism is an extreme then Libertarianism cannot be; for it is opposite, and what is the opposite of extreme? Mellow, relaxed, laissez-faire, conveyed by “I choose for me, you choose for you”.
“no monster sees what they are in the mirror”
Monsters do not have a reflection!
Oh, you were lying. HRC at most referring to one quarter of the actual voting electorate. Your claim was:
A lie.
BBD wrote “A lie.”
Or, as Spock would say, an exaggeration!.
So you assert that HRC designated only 1/4 of the nation as her enemy (deplorables).
Mitt Romney designated 47 percent.
Let’s look for some evidence of love for 3/4 of Americans from HRC and we’ll see who is lying.
Or just mistaken 🙂
“Hillary Clinton is loathed by Republicans, and she loathes them back — working with people she describes as enemies is not likely to be her strong suit. ”
“The candidates had been asked: ‘Which enemy are you most proud of?’ Clinton responded by citing a predictable litany of bad guys (the NRA, the drug and health insurance companies) before adding, with a big grin: ‘probably the Republicans.’ ”
So. Were you lying or merely mistaken? This comes from a LWAS (Left Wing Authorized Source):
[https]://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/20/what-hillarys-claim-that-republicans-are-her-enemies-is-really-about/?utm_term=.acfc8a79b1d9
Because lies need countering. And Greg hasn’t booted your sorry arse into the nether dark.
BBD “Greg hasn’t booted your sorry arse into the nether dark.”
So start your own blog then boot me from it 🙂
Perhaps Greg recognizes a kindred spirit from Up Nort. Minnesota is a place where left/right sometimes takes backseat to “neighbor is stuck in the ditch” and there’s more important things than creating echo-chamber blogs.
Perhaps he realizes that a blog is more interesting when controversial. Huffington Post used to think that way; sometimes deliberately posting conservative headlines quite opposite their normal far-left viewpoint.
Which bit of this was too hard for your sheepy brain:
Totalitarianism and libertarianism are extremist ideologies and there are no examples from history of good flowing from extremist ideology.
Repeating old falsehoods is called ‘dishonesty’ M2. And your crap is still crap.
?
Narcissism, like kitty, does need regular feeding.
And you can fuck of with that ‘coz it’s a lie. Opposite extremes of a spectrum are both extremes.
Git.
BBD “Opposite extremes of a spectrum are both extremes.”
This isn’t a continnum. It is a scalar from zero to extreme, mathematically zero to infinity, the set of real numbers.
Thus the opposite of decision making is NOT decision making, not merely a different decision!
The opposite of control is un-control, not merely a different control.
So whatever is “totalitarian” stick “not” in front of it and that’s approximately “libertarian”.
I do not use “extreme” with zero; it sounds weird like having a really intense, extreme nothing! Indistinguishable from a plain ordinary everyday nothing, but one is extreme! Therefore bad.
I’ll remind you why I am here; these conversations are informative and interesting. I do not think as you think, and yet I value the possibility that your thinking has virtue and merit in some circumstances. I *try* to think as you do, but I doubt I have it right; for it seems you *start* with identifying friend-or-foe and from that deduce everything that follows. Is that common? I think so.
Remember, M2 is using a “special needs” definition of the word “extreme” where it means he’s always right. This will not be the only words he doesn’t know the meaning of, either.
Just a heads-up.
It isn’t hard to think of what libertarian means, it has been stated before: “I got mine, everyone else can get fucked.”
Secondary: Might makes right.
” Libertarianism is the opposite of totalitarianism; if totalitarianism is an extreme then Libertarianism cannot be; for it is opposite, and what is the opposite of extreme?”
You really seem to be as stupid as your science comments paint you.
Nope. You’ve got way too much previous. A lie. And you won’t even admit it when you get caught out, which makes it worse.
Away with you.
BBD “And you won’t even admit it when you get caught out, which makes it worse.”
Indeed. Perhaps you will admit your error; your lie that I lied about the Democratic Party, HRC in particular, designating half this nation as her enemy. I have provided a citation. Where is your admission that I was correct in my estimate?
To persist in calling me a liar is to exemplify “newspeak” in George Orwell’s “1984”.
You cannot even describe yourself. You needed to stop at “I do. It think.”
HRC exact quote was given above:
Since you force me, here’s a repeat of my #343:
Oh, you were lying. HRC at most referring to one quarter of the actual voting electorate. Your claim was:
BBD “You were lying.”
I did not, and do not, expect you to retract. I suppose I will leave it at what it is and discuss this matter no further with you after this comment. Readers can and will decide for themselves, except of course those readers that look to you to be told how and what to think.
One might quibble whether Republicans are half the nation (or what “half” means) but it does not seem a quibble that HRC does consider half the nation her enemy, and by so stating, has directed the attention of others in that direction.
I concede that in the particular quote, the basket of deplorables, is half the Republicans or 1/4 the nation.
She was more correct in declaring all Republicans, or half the nation, her enemy although I think most Republicans don’t think in those terms.
As for your usual ‘words mean what I say they do’, it’s still bollocks. Libertarianism is an extreme ideology. Totalitarianism likewise. Therefore you are still wrong and still refusing to admit it.
Long, long ago in comments here I gave you a *massive* amount of slack and tolerance. You lied and bullshitted your way through all that patience and now you have the fucking gall to come out with this. And you wonder why you get treated with contempt.
BBD “And you wonder why you get treated with contempt.”
Not really. The short version is “it is what you do” (but others do not).
The longer version involves DNA, biology, learned and innate behaviors, Malthusian scarcity, mate-selection and competition and probably some other things I’m not thinking of right now.
Interestingly, George Orwell’s “1984” revolves around the same human instincts; a desire for safety and breeding which can be accomplished various ways, but a common way is to destroy your enemies and control your friends and use them as a buffer between you and your enemies.
It then becomes necessary to designate the enemy so that your friends can destroy or at least harass your enemies and at the same time keep your friends attention distracted as to what they are, or are not, getting out of this arrangement.
“Secondary: Might makes right.”
Actually, “My might makes right”. After all, government is mightier, and THEY’RE not right, according to libertarians.
I honestly have more respect for anarchists than libertarians, for one simple reason: libertarianism allows slavery, anarchists insist that you can’t, even as individuals, have power over any other. You can get someone to sign over their selves or others to slavery, but the slave can just walk away and never bother with the deal.
Smashing cars is what hollywood tropes as anarchism, when it isn’t. But since it’s what a lot of people see as “anarchy” when they see it in the movies, that’s what they claim they are when they riot and break shit.
“The longer version involves DNA, biology, learned and innate behaviors, Malthusian scarcity, mate-selection and competition and probably some other things I’m not thinking of right now.”
It’s almost cute when people without the capacity for nuanced thought (like Mike 2 here) try to sound thoughtful. That doesn’t explain the foolish babble about control, enemies, and other foolish crap.
Retract what? I was correct in everything I said. You weren’t. But somehow I’m supposed to ‘retract’. Bit of a thing with you, this black-is-white inversion of reality, isn’t it?
Still with this crap:
Half the US population (‘the nation’) ? Republicans. Not even close. You are muddling up the politically affiliated with the total population for rhetorical effect. It’s called ‘dishonesty’.
* * *
Extreme government control = totalitiarianism
Extreme lack of government control = libertarianism
Libertarianism and totalitarianism = both extreme
You = wrong.
Words mean what they mean. You don’t get to twist everything to your own purposes.
So stop lying.
BBD wrote “Extreme lack of government control = libertarianism”
Impossible. There cannot exist “extreme lack”. Only things that exist can be extreme. Things that do not exist cannot be extreme.
The correct lower limit of government control is called “anarchy”; not-archy, not government.
Libertarian simply means I choose for me, you choose for you. I might well choose communism, socialism or other isms that aren’t coming to mind right now.
Less government is a likely outcome of libertarian, but not a requirement. Icelanders are highly libertarian and also strongly socialist with taxpayer supported education all the way through university and taxpayer supported medical. They chose it in a highly responsive democratic government; a thing possible having only 1/4 million people in the entire nation (as of when I lived there).
BBD writes: “Words mean what they mean.”
No. Words mean absolutely nothing; meaning happens in a human mind, not in symbols or sounds. You see a word or hear a word; but the word does not exist as a tangible object with fixed properties. Of course, it may be that “word” IS the thing once instantiated in your mind and is not the symbols thereof. But that’s a different conversation.
For instance, you re-define for your own purposes:
“You = wrong. “
That is your own definition. It is likely that other people will have different definitions of “you”.
But for our conversation, this is your intention for the word “you”, you have given it a meaning. I do not have the same meaning; therefore your use of “you” is likely to lead to failed communication since it does not match my definition.
It is a libertarian principle that nobody has authority over others. Therefore:
i>”You don’t get to twist everything to your own purposes.”
Actually, I do; and so do you. Each person gets to define words, twist words, use them, abuse them, avoid them.
George Orwell’s “1984” invokes “newspeak” which explores the power of twisting language.
Mike2, your weasel wording to avoid having libertarianism described as what it is can only be described as astounding.
Not astounding that you are capable of such asine commentary – that’s well documented. Asinine in that you think anyone would take it seriously.
dean writes: “…wording to avoid having libertarianism described as what it is can only be described as astounding.”
I believe it can also be described as “astonishing”.
Perhaps “clever”.
The truth is obvious; words mean to you what you want them to mean to you, and they mean to me what I want them to mean. That is a libertarian point of view.
What is not libertarian is for you to want me to use your meanings instead of mine. It would be nice, and it would enhance communication if you were instead to use my meanings for words I use.
But since I am libertarian and you are not, I do not impose my wishes upon you (not that such a thing is possible). Therefore, you are free to continue to have words whatever you want them to mean; but I caution, it is guaranteed to be so only to you, by you, for you.
For me the essence of “libertarian” is that I choose for me and you choose for you. Anything beyond that is your invention and you are welcome to it; after all, my definition is my invention and I am welcome to it.
Wow writes “your words are being reinterpreted… being whatever he wants them to be.”
In what way do you differ? All people interpret words according to their culture and learning.
What is the UK slang word for a cigarette, and what does the same word (usually) mean in the US? Which of these various meanings is correct?
The most correct meaning is Roman in origin denotes a bundle of sticks (so far as I know and can remember). But there’s no universal law or enforcer that says this original meaning must be the meaning eternally. All words become whatever anyone wants them to be.
“THIS is why Jose stopped trying to talk to the moron”
I see; Jose has appointed you to be his guardian, his explainer. It is more likely that Jose simply has nothing to say on George Orwell’s “1984”.
As an example of changing the meaning of words, “moron” used to mean someone intellectually challenged but now cleearly denotes someone of considerable intellect, learning, wisdom and charity.
“Actually, I do; and so do you. Each person gets to define words, twist words, use them, abuse them, avoid them.”
As you have done, in claiming that your interpretations science, even though in contradiction to what the experts say, is as or more valid than theirs. You’ve done this repeatedly lied about incidents with Hillary Clinton, and again when you lied about what she said — all because of your “words don’t have meaning until I say they do — crap.
A ploy originally used in attempts to keep libertarians from having to take responsibility for their actions — only others have to do that, apparently — you’ve adapted it to continue your repeated arguments against reality.
The problem is that your arguments are lacking any supporting data, logic, or other evidence. They are long-winded versions of the child’s “nu-uh, is not”. But that’s the upper limit of discussion for libertarians (A group that, if you need to be reminded, includes such wonderful “thinkers” as Rothbard, who argues that it is within the right of parents to starve their children to death, since that type of decision is outside the important stuff like property rights and violence. A group that sees nothing wrong with indentured servitude or sweat shops. A group that had “We oppose laws infringing on children’s rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory education laws” as its platform.)
I don’t think you are a moron: I think you made a cold, calculated, choice to adopt a philosophy in which being asked to think hard about anything is looked down upon, integrity and honesty are viewed as hindrances, and being an all around horrible person is accepted. You’re doing well in those things.
“I don’t think you are a moron”
He is. By his own choice. Which is even more moronic.
“He” is a bot, gentlemen.
It’s beyond the bleedin’ obvious that it is utterly pointless to attempt argumentation with “him”. His programming will not entertain anything like legitimate discourse.
You don’t get anywhere. You never will. You’re trying to argue with a machine that doesn’t argue; it only refutes everything it’s given. Coldly, relentlessly, without emotion (except that which is feigned).
It gets old…
Brainstorms writes “Coldly, relentlessly, without emotion.”
You describe the perfect scientist.
“It’s beyond the bleedin’ obvious that it is utterly pointless to attempt argumentation with him.”
That too.
The ultimate definition of bad faith.
Okay, that’s it. I’m out.
BBD writes: “that’s it. I’m out.”
You were never in. Did not engage on the topic of this page.
It’s the definition of non communication. there really is no point when words mean nothing to someone and can only ever be “interpreted” by the retard claiming to be libertarian.
If words don’t mean anything, why does this moron insist on telling anyone they’re wrong with the word they use?
Because the definition of bad faith is that their arguments are not applied equally and are instead done deliberately to twist and turn and evade conversation.
Als niemand luistert naar niemand vallen er doden in plaats van woorden, Jana Beranová. Poem for Amnesty International, nearly 40 years ago, meaning: If no one listens to no one deads will fall instead of words. The discussion above makes me remember this line. It’s a pity, especially after having read the following thoughts of Michael 2, quotes:
328 Michael 2
February 28, 2017
I do not consider Trump to be either libertarian, or Republican (or Democrat for that matter). He’s in his own Party. I note some similarities between D.T. and the Time Magazine “Man of the Year” for 1938. That man did actually make his nation great again but at a terrible cost.
This can be avoided if we avoid accepting the designation of enemies. I suspect that many people, probably a majority, cannot help themselves and will “hate on” the designated enemy without reason or thought. These are they that are portrayed as sheep in “Animal Farm”.
340 Michael 2
February 28, 2017
Designating an enemy is herd behavior, mind control, keep the sheep’s minds on the designated enemy rather than real problems not so easily solved.
These words have not received the treatment they deserve.
The addressed persons responded accusative and angry, instead of reaching out to a catharsis. Words like exploding bullets were backfired. I may say: missed opportunities of cooperation. The gap between people appears to be big, growing to bigger. Instead of cooperating together to make the world a good place to live in, I see the creation of ennemies by words thanks to personal preferences.
No wonder that men like Trump c.s. grab the world by its neck to introduce new episodes of exploitation.
The inhabitants of the USA better stop locking themselves up in anonymity and or in ‘noms de plume’ , and better begin poldering as brave people. See here under:
The polder model (Dutch: poldermodel) is consensus decision-making, based on the acclaimed Dutch version of consensus-based economic and social policy making in the 1980s and 1990s.[1][2]
The polder model has been described as “a pragmatic recognition of pluriformity” and “cooperation despite differences”.
It is thought that the Dutch politician Ina Brouwer was the first to use the term poldermodel, in her 1990 article “Het socialisme als poldermodel?” (Socialism as polder model?), although it is uncertain whether she coined the term or simply seems to have been the first to write it down.[1][3]
For this item see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_model
Laren NH, Wednesday 1 March 2017, 16.03 PM DT.
“That man did actually make his nation great again”
The fact that micheal2 could actually write that, apparently seriously, should tell any sane person that he is too vile to be considered a rational actor.
dean defines “sanity” thusly: “The fact that micheal2 could actually write that, apparently seriously, should tell any sane person that he is too vile to be considered a rational actor.”
So if you want to be considered by dean to be not-vile, you must do as he says. There will be many things you must do; each do or not-do will earn you some sort of respect points or at least avoid losing respect points. That is how society is regulated.
How would anyone know, M2, you’ve never told us what you mean by “in”. Nor the meaning of any of the other words you use.
Wow asks: “How would anyone know, M2, you’ve never told us what you mean by ‘in’. Nor the meaning of any of the other words you use.”
Now you start to see the problem. The words I use to explain the words I use must themselves be explained by using words that then need explaining, and so on ad infinitum
That y’all assume you understand each other is part of this complete astonishment. For a while in my younger years the Oxford University Press was accepted (not mandated; accepted!) as the global authority on the Meaning of English Words since it is useful to have a “standard” but authorities tend to be resisted.
Now we have many authorities, you and Dean included, and no particular standard beyond Facebook and Twitter. Words change meanings regularly; a previously cited but unanswered example being the name of an ancient Roman bundle of sticks that became and is now a name for cigarettes in the UK, but in the US until recently referred to a male homosexual but now refers to someone silly and stupid (with no assumption of either cigarettes, sexual preference or bundles of sticks).
George Orwell’s “1984” discusses this phenomenon at length; calling it “newspeak” and the purpose appears to be to deliberately make it difficult to have a serious conversation about topics the Party did not want discussed; most of all, the concepts of liberty and choice, which you see right here on this page these concepts are deprecated as “vile”.
And yet, you choose for you, Dean chooses for Dean, BBD chooses for BBD. Each of you is libertarian as to your own choices. Where you cease being libertarian is not respecting MY choices for me.
If you could hold some sort of election and choose among BBD, Dean or Wow, and that person and ONLY that person told everyone else what to do, it might work. In fact that is the military chain of command model.
But “no man can serve two masters” and I have three right here on this page; never mind my employer, spouse, neighbors and all the other people that think to tell me what to do, think, say, watch, eat, drink.
So figure it out. Who is in charge of everyone else? Until you get it figured out, I will be in charge of me.
Wow writes: “you’ve never told us what you mean by ‘in’.”
Reminds me of Bill Clinton’s famous statement: It depends on what the meaning of “is” is!
[http]://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html
“So if you want to be considered by dean to be not-vile,”
Typical misrepresentation by you. We’ve come to expect nothing resembling fact-based, rational, commentary from you.
dean “We’ve come to expect nothing resembling fact-based, rational, commentary from you.”
We have one vote so far for Dean to be Locutus of Borg, to speak for We.
In fact, you held that expectation from the first. How much discussion have you contributed to George Orwell’s “1984” so far?
You can plainly see my comments are abundant with fact, logic and on-topic discussion. You are involved somewhat involuntarily I suppose as an example of groupthink and group behavior; you cannot help it. It is what you do and what you are. Saying “we” when you mean “I”.
@Dean in 378, responding on Michael2 in 328, cited by G. Bogaers in 377.
328 Michael 2
February 28, 2017
I do not consider Trump to be either libertarian, or Republican (or Democrat for that matter). He’s in his own Party. I note some similarities between D.T. and the Time Magazine “Man of the Year” for 1938. That man did actually make his nation great again but at a terrible cost.
This can be avoided if we avoid accepting the designation of enemies. I suspect that many people, probably a majority, cannot help themselves and will “hate on” the designated enemy without reason or thought. These are they that are portrayed as sheep in “Animal Farm”.
Dean took words out of context. M2 only points in 328 at common features between Donald Trump, DT (2017) and Adolf Hitler, AH (1933-1945).
Both stateleaders aim(ed) their political goals on making their respective states grow in power.
Both men use(d) the making of state-enemies as a tool for gaining power and or as a means of destroying those ´declared´ enemies to make the world shape to their own liking.
DT is a fascist, AH is a nazi.
The line which divides both men is a question about the borders they are willing to cross.
DT till now: denial of Human Rights of some groups of people he dislikes or hates or considers as enemies (democrats, free press, peoples).
AH went far beyond that, inclusive state organized genocide of Jews and Gypsies and or starvation of homosexuals, political and or religious opponents .
Main important common features of DT and AH as far as power is concerned, creating and finding the state-enemy.
That’s the point M2 wanted to make, avoid destruction of civilization, beware of enemy-making.
Dean in criticizing M2 made a willful choice of not mentioning this. Instead he cites a sentence of M2 in 328, of which the first part of that sentence – out of context – can make people’s eyebrows frown, namely – speaking about AH – “That man did actually make his nation great again”. Dean willfully forgot to name the next words “but at a terrible cost”, let alone that he spoke about the other context of M2’s message.
Dean apparently wishes to make M2 shut up, by using a technique fit for character assassination, by putting in 378 into the shoes of M2 the sentence, as if M2 propagated or propagates about AH (quote) ‘That man did actually make his nation great again’ and by adding to this quote out of context Dean’s ‘verdict’, quote (SIC):
“The fact that Micheal2 could actually write that, apparently seriously, should tell any sane person that he is too vile to be considered a rational actor.”
I’m sorry to say but my experience with this blog of Greg Laden is that more and more people stop reacting on this blog (in my opinion) because of these unfair and unethical techniques, consisting of making up false statements that falsely are being attributed to another person, whom is then violently attacked about a claim which that person had not even made.
The anonymity of the participants which Greg’s Blog provides by giving to participants the possibility of choosing a ‘nom de guerre’ or pseudonym, create helpful foxholes out of which also malicious people can start shooting their words.
The whole so-called discussion has lost its credibility and respect, and this blog has got the character of fairground attraction like catch as catch can, which has nothing to do with honesty and fairness.
Whoever wishes to participate on this blog beware, the porch of entrance bears the words ‘miserere nobis’. Misery.
For people like me, who are interested in the way these processes go, this kind of behavior is interesting and helpful to understand reality and techniques of reasoning in the USA, inclusive unethical reasoning .
For society as a whole one might ask himself what is the benefit for society or for the common good of the multitude of speech, corrupted by unethical reasoning=
We all have to fulfill basic standards of factual truth and completeness, logic and ethics, required for a careful discussion.
Whom the cap fits…
Laren NH, Wednesday 1 March, 2017, 18.34 PM DT
Mr. Bogaers has it exactly right. What is less obvious is the nature of the test; why I carefully chose my words to see whether the regulars here fear most of all Donald or me.
Those that feared DT more than me would notice my comparison to AH and agree on those similarities. Those that fear me more than they fear DT, would ignore this opportunity to agree on something, and actually take the same side as DT in order to remain in opposition to me.
What it shows is that Dean prefers to oppose me even in the case that he and I would agree that DT is dangerous. This is a type of contrarian behavior.
For society as a whole one might ask oneself what is the benefit for society or for the common good of the multitude of speech, corrupted by reasoning from unethical principles.
Brainstorms writes: “For society as a whole…”
Faulty assumption. There is no “society as a whole” as a single entity. The United States in particular is many societies co-existing. Each of those societies has its own preferred and accepted modes of behavior and speech.
Naturally, Brainstorms assumes the existence of only one such society, the one he is in.
“one might ask oneself what is the benefit for society or for the common good of the multitude of speech, corrupted by reasoning from unethical principles.”
None whatsoever. Each of these societies will re-inforce its own permitted behaviors and speech while deprecating all other behaviors and speech.
Freedom of speech is a negotiated agreement or settlement to avoid WAR. Rather than trying to decide which society is “best” (requires war), all societies will agree to let all other societies speak and behave as they wish within rather broad limits itself negotiated.
Gareth, you seem to be as clueless as michael2.
If you think Hitler made germany great you are accepting the way he did it and the damage caused. Tacking “at a terrible cost” on the end wasn’t Michael2 expressing anything resembling revulsion or horror, it was a PR move. His libertarian idea tell him that getting to the top is all that matters, and if someone else is hurt on the way, well them they shouldn’t have been there.
The rest of your prattle about your “study” of discourse is laughable
dean wrote: “If you think Hitler made germany great you are accepting the way he did it and the damage caused.”
Re-read your history books, then return and report.
But since you are not going to do that I will help you. This is why AH was Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” in 1938. Germany was in a terrible calamity after World War 1, the reparations demanded of Germany was impossible and impoverished the entire nation. Trying to set up a new Republic failed. Their monetary system collapsed spectacularly and remains the most dramatic instance of hyperinflation in history.
So “the way he did it” was to abrogate the reparations and resume industry, particularly in prohibited items.
It is unclear to me whether creating a State Enemy was actually necessary, but it gave the public something to hate since it seems so many people, you included, need to hate something or someone.
Now as to the parallel with DT; a few similarities. In particular, DT is in the process of abrogating the reparations that other nations believe are owed to them, a “climate debt” measured in trillions of dollars. DT has decided NOT TO PAY. He also is re-activating prohibited industry; for AH it was arms and munitions, for DT it is the Keystone Pipeline, and about $50 billion in more arms and munitions.
So it is a parallel suggesting to keep an eye on the ball, NOT ON ME. I am not your enemy, unless of course you think I am, more scary to you than either AH or DT.
Dean, you cannot be prosecutor, defendor and judge in your own case. You proof so yourself, your reference to what you call prattle means you lost arguments and the battle. Where arguments end, distraction and laughter begin. You are the living proof of that. It looks like you are unfamiliar with the expression laughing like a farmer with toothache. Your laughter sounds just like that.
As far as Hitler is concerned, there are not enough words for the continuous condemnation of Hitler. It is more than deplorable that people have let that happen. For the bravery of the people who finally stopped Hitler and his Nazi’s I have the deepest respect. Without combined allied forces we wouldn’t have been here enjoying mutual freedom. Do you think you all are able to restrain Trump c.s. by fighting senseless battles with non-existing, fake-enemies, using false arguments? Straighten yourself. Concentrate on Trump c.s. Laren NH, Wednesday 1 March 2017, 21.41 PM DT.
Royal Dutch Oil (Shell) published a rather forotten film in 1991 ‘Climate of concern’, ca. 28 minutes. The commentary says: “Our numbers are many and infinitely different, but the problems and dilemma’s of climate change concern us all.”
In 2017 the problems are skyhigh:
We have to cooperate instead of fighting eachother out of the tent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo
Laren NH, 23.26 PM DT.
What do you mean by “problem”?
And what do you mean by “see”?
Gerrit B
Then direct your criticism at the problem: people like RickA and M2.
You’ll note they’re not actually talking to each other, BBD. Well, M2 isn’t, and great boogers is mostly talking to others.
That’s because they’re both bullshitters and they know there’s no way for them to “win”, even by their standards of “winning” against each other, only amusement then boredom for everyone else watching.
So they’ll keep trying to get other people to talk to them instead.
What do you mean “remind”?
You have failed entirely so far, despite several requests for different words, to have explained the meaning you have for ANY of them.
Dean, this is, I think, pretty clear evidence that M2 really ISN’T smart and is, rather, dumber than a sack of spanners.
Wow writes: “What do you mean “remind”?”
What does mean “mean”?
Paging Bertrand Russell!
Will Bertrand Russell please sign in and begin development of language from logical axioms so that the posters here may have a discussion…
Thanks in advance!
Brainstorms writes “Paging Bertrand Russell!”
Seems like he’s busy with a teapot somewhere.
[https]://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
It’s amazing what useless little bits of knowledge I have (and obviously you also have).
Intelligent people don’t need any more evidence that michael 2 is nothing more than a low level troll and not someone interested in discussion and ideas.
If anyone is clueless enough to be on the fence about the issue, his post at #398 should be the proverbial straw.
dean, perhaps unintentionally insulting everyone here not just me, wrote: “Intelligent people don’t need any more evidence that michael 2 is nothing more than a low level troll”
Whereas everyone else (not intelligent!) DO need the additional evidence and explanation you are hereby providing.
As to Troll Level; well, 400 messages is hardly a record but not bad for the same three participants and still no discussion of George Orwell’s “1984”.
The deplorable Attorney General of the United States is in the midst of a scandal. We will know whether his fascist cabal have congealed their power if he does not recuse himself from the Russia investigation. If he does not, I offer that as proof that Trump will last until the 2018 elections and possibly beyond. If he does not recuse himself, it is because the Republicans have made a Faustian bargain, and the ink has dried, the concrete on the tomb of Democracy has started to set up. They have accepted a president who is far, far too cozy with the Russians. Paul Ryan is so smug in his ideological supremacy now, being able to throw people off insurance and move to some sort of stupid HSA system, punishing those who have not learned how to work within a corrupt system, punishing those who have not been willing to pledge allegiance to the business religion, punishing those who do not support the exploitation of the weak, the poor, the sick, the ignorant, the unschooled, the un-networked, the unlucky, the disorganized.
Well, at least we can be fairly certain that the Ryan/Trump gang is going to underestimate the rage and desperation of those thrown off insurance by the ACA repeal. America will not go gentle into that good night.
Why would a software bot be interested in discussions or ideas?
Why would anyone try to do that? To entertain lurkers?
Brainstorms asks: “Why would a software bot be interested in discussions or ideas?”
It will have been programmed to be interested. In what meaningful way are you not also a “bot”; merely an organic bot (or one may presume).
“Why would anyone try to do that?”
Traffic to free websites pays for the whole show. Increasing traffic is good. Controversy increases traffic.
Maybe they’ll go to Washington with some of those torches that Demonic Donny spoke about…
Why, Brainstorms? Practicing for its next big Turing test, that’s why. If “it” is becoming a problem, we can always do the freeze out. Don’t interact with “it”, and warn off others. Act as if the little droid isn’t even there. It is, at this point, a relatively benign irritation. I would advise having discussion without and around it, if only as an exercise in focus. So, Brainstorms, what do YOU think about the fact that Antarctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded? Cheers.
SteveP “So, Brainstorms, what do YOU think about the fact that Antarctic sea ice is at the lowest level ever recorded?”
Or you could start a discussion about George Orwell’s “1984”.
What do I think?
“We’re doomed.”
Humans won’t grow up and act responsibly when there remains an option to act solely in self-interest.