I beg to differ. You are literally invoking Godwin. I'm literally invoking pedantry. See the difference?

Right, because every comparison to Hitler is meant as a rigorous historical analysis, and comparing turning off the TV to Abu Ghraib isn't hyperbolic at all. Good thing you've got so much perspective.

Are you being pedantic for any good reason? Hyperbole can be useful. The fact is, we don't fully know the extent of atrocities committed by American Empire. As you know, history is written by the victors. What little we do know suggests we could be the worst global offenders over the last 30 years. We imprison our citizens at a higher rate than any other nation. We engage in more wars, and have clandestine involvement in still more (estimates vary, but on the high end the figures are staggering). We provide the means of oppression to brutal despots to retain trade advantages. We manipulate the global economy, potentially starving millions, just to collect on our loans. We rationalize the torture of our enemies. We treat sovereignty like a worry for lesser nations. We shred our own constitution, while suggesting it as a blueprint for others to follow. I mean... what do you want? A fucking bar chart? These aren't trading cards. You can't just flip over your ballot to look at their moral batting average.

This, I think, is the primary function of the video. The bigger picture is that cell phones are moving rapidly in the wrong direction. Even user replaceable batteries are less commonplace. The only way to stop this trend is to apply market pressure. That is, show them that they will lose sales to a more modular/reusable/upgradable competitor. If the video convinces one device manufacturer to push just a little bit in that direction I'd consider it a win.

I think he chose his wording a little poorly. The purpose of perception is to estimate physical properties of the environment. It's just not meant to estimate the exact intensities and so forth. For example, in the Adelson checkerboard illusion, you are reporting your perception of the surface reflectances irrespective of illuminant. That's a perfectly sensible environmental property to estimate. It just isn't a direct mapping to the image falling on your retina.

My understanding is that Australia, on the whole, is somewhat more bigoted than the United States.

I live in Texas (as 'Merica as 'Merica gets). There was a vet with a rascal that had a dead battery. Dude weighed around 400 pounds. I pushed that son of a gun half a mile to a grocery store where he could plug in. Meanwhile in Canada some Inuit was called a harpoon chucker.

If it looks like a moron and it sounds like a moron.

Privacy and freedom are orthogonal. Privacy both grants freedom and takes it away. You're talking like there is a clear path for a centrist to take on this matter. My thought experiment was meant to expose a hypocrisy in too commonly held ideals. "Information should be free!" is often taken to mean that we should be able to access whatever information we want. On the other hand, "big brother" is a pejorative describing dystopian violations of individual privacy that reasonable people holding the former position often use.

We can't have it both ways. Either we get to know what people are up to (e.g. terrorists, banks, lobbyists, politicians, government agencies, etc) while coping with oversight of our own activities. Or we lock down all the information and cope with the inevitable cheat avoiding detection.

You can play the game of trying to break it down case by case, but the fact is surveillance can't really be implemented piecemeal. Once you decide to collect the information, you sort of get what you get.

Thought experiment: Would you prefer a world in which privacy was still paramount, or a world in which there was no privacy whatsoever? That is, either your emails aren't read, but it's very easy to cloak clandestine activity. Or would you prefer the latter, in which even your neighbor can read your emails at the click of a button, but you can read Barack Obama's. Discuss.

Al Green would be proud of that little dude.

That was my take. It was a nonsense exchange.

This is the dumbest one yet.

Juggalos - WHEN the fuck do they work?

Let's do that. The one point of agreement I have with this guy is we need to declutter the conversation. Entities like money, governments, corporations etc don't exist. There is only the fact of our material circumstances.

One point I found somewhat hypocritical was his take on policymakers. He says we should blame them when he openly admits they are all bought. In my mind, this is effectively voluntary purchase of the initiation of force. If nobody paid, politicians would have nothing to sell. Inevitably all force is initiated by the highest bidder. Wealth itself is power, and power wouldn't be so named if it didn't imply force.

As you've already pointed out in another thread everything we see, all of our material circumstances, were originally appropriated by conquest (the initiation of force). Thus, initial material circumstances were not morally obtained. Since material wealth begets a trade advantage this initial windfall is likely to entrench your power. For this reason all material gains are suspect.

For these reasons I view wealth itself as immoral. There is a reason Robin Hood has such high standing, and it is not because he robs from the state and gives to the private sector. It's not because he doesn't initiate force. It's because he redistributes ill-gotten gains by whatever means necessary.

Pacifism is selfish.