*quality

The political cartoon in my paper today:
http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/2011/10/03/104-mike-luckovich-cartoon-wall-street-protests/

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Boise_Lib.

"I have no evidence to back this up, but.." is a great way to discredit a point you have yet to make.

Unrelated, but my favorite thing about Cain is how he's introducing a brand new Federal sales tax with his 9/9/9 plan, yet his followers are too stupid to realize he's talking about raising taxes.

It's the same one he uses for stating that being gay is a choice. This guy is an ignorant fool.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

"I have no evidence to back this up, but.." is a great way to discredit a point you have yet to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

"I have no evidence to back this up, but.." is a great way to discredit a point you have yet to make.


In a rational and sane world yes, but we don't live in one of those. Strong baseless opinions work because they're easy to understand, no messy unclear facts and figures to get in the way, and pander to what people want to believe.

This idiot thinks these protesters are organized as a scheme by a political party? - These protesters are a spontaneous uprising. They aren't uprising because they are jealous, they are protesting because they and the public were and are being shafted over and over by the elite wealthy without concern for those they step on.

Now now, I believe there are many lefty voices who STILL accuse the Tea party of being Fox/Murdoch-sponsored.

Say what you will about Cain, but he's right on this: what do these people want? What do they want to achieve?

Sorry to poop in the punch bowl, but if you take any of these hippies and swap them with the guys in the skyscraper, they'll act exactly the same way and do the same exact things as the originals.


>> ^Sagemind:

This idiot thinks these protesters are organized as a scheme by a political party? - These protesters are a spontaneous uprising. They aren't uprising because they are jealous, they are protesting because they and the public were and are being shafted over and over by the elite wealthy without concern for those they step on.

I have yet to hear one of the protesters voice a plan. I'm with Cain, I don't know what they want. Was there greed involved in the sub-prime fiasco....YES. WE ALL KNOW THAT. PEOPLE ARE, BY NATURE, GREEDY. Congress's explicit approval of sub-prime lending, under the banner of "affordable housing for all" was mostly a lefty dem deal, (I think I hear Barney Frank somewhere), although both sides of the aisle should have been pistol whipped for letting such an obvious fleece go on for so long.

Lefty voices don't think the Tea Party is Fox/Murdoch-sponsored: the belief if that Fox and the Tea Party itself are funded by corporations (that top 1% everyone's talking about.) The middle class wants a more responsible system that doesn't simply reward the rich by allowing them to get discounts based on their purchasing power, while the small startup or poor individual is forced into debt for not having the capital in the first place. Go watch Zeitgeist.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Now now, I believe there are many lefty voices who STILL accuse the Tea party of being Fox/Murdoch-sponsored.
Say what you will about Cain, but he's right on this: what do these people want? What do they want to achieve?
Sorry to poop in the punch bowl, but if you take any of these hippies and swap them with the guys in the skyscraper, they'll act exactly the same way and do the same exact things as the originals.

>> ^Sagemind:
This idiot thinks these protesters are organized as a scheme by a political party? - These protesters are a spontaneous uprising. They aren't uprising because they are jealous, they are protesting because they and the public were and are being shafted over and over by the elite wealthy without concern for those they step on.

Cain is a smuck, but here is a question.

A movement without a direction is an oxymoron and a completely useless thing. Too, demands (Such as end greed or break this monopoly business has over our country) is likewise useless without self-obligations. I worry about Occupy Wallstreet for one reason---they will only ask the rich to change, not America. And so nothing will change.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, October 5th, 2011 3:12pm PDT - promote requested by Lawdeedaw.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Now now, I believe there are many lefty voices who STILL accuse the Tea party of being Fox/Murdoch-sponsored.
Say what you will about Cain, but he's right on this: what do these people want? What do they want to achieve?
Sorry to poop in the punch bowl, but if you take any of these hippies and swap them with the guys in the skyscraper, they'll act exactly the same way and do the same exact things as the originals.

>> ^Sagemind:
This idiot thinks these protesters are organized as a scheme by a political party? - These protesters are a spontaneous uprising. They aren't uprising because they are jealous, they are protesting because they and the public were and are being shafted over and over by the elite wealthy without concern for those they step on.



To clarify, I'm one of those people on the left who knows that the "Tea Party" protests have been happening for years -- a lot longer than Obama's been President anyways.

What was fake was their explosion post-2009. All of a sudden, the big GOP money groups and media outlets pimped and fluffed the movement, and changed it from a movement largely centered on a Ron Paul-style platform, to a totally straight down the line GOP platform, social issues and all.

What I was mad about was that the media only "discovered" them after they'd been turned into a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party, and continued to insist they were some sort of brand new, spontaneous, authentic movement, long past the point where it was super obvious that they were astroturf.

Now here's my prediction about the Occupy Wall Street group -- starting today, the media will go back to ignoring them, on the grounds that now they're just a front for Unions and Democratic political organizations. In other words, at the first signs that this protest might align with a broader liberal agenda, they'll go back to dismissing them, either for being astroturf, or simply because they look like dirty fucking hippies.

And yes, this is one of those predictions I hope I'm wrong about, but I kinda doubt it.

Am I the only one who thinks Cain would be better off as a liberal complaining about how life's not fair?

"His mother was a cleaning woman and his father, who was raised on a farm, was a chauffeur... Under Cain's leadership, his region went in three years from the least profitable for Burger King to the most profitable. This prompted Pillsbury to appoint him President and CEO of another subsidiary, Godfather's Pizza. Aiming to cut costs, Cain over a 14-month period reduced the company from 911 stores down to 420. As a result of his efforts, Godfather's Pizza finally became profitable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

>> ^quantumushroom:

Sorry to poop in the punch bowl, but if you take any of these hippies and swap them with the guys in the skyscraper, they'll act exactly the same way and do the same exact things as the originals.

>> ^Sagemind:
This idiot thinks these protesters are organized as a scheme by a political party? - These protesters are a spontaneous uprising. They aren't uprising because they are jealous, they are protesting because they and the public were and are being shafted over and over by the elite wealthy without concern for those they step on.



This is a very VERY Good point and I don't mean that sarcastically. Humans are fucked up, they do fucked up things when you make it EASY for them to do it that way. That's the point of the protest...to have the People oversee the corporations and check their power rather than corporations controlling everything. If the country was more democratic these private tyrannies wouldn't BE ABLE to do things of this sort. So the entire point of these protests is to try and bring a big bright light over the fact that Humans will be Humans...check their fucking power.

Thank you QM you made the best Lefty point in this comment section without knowing it.

just another person clinging on to hope that the current system won't fail, because he's doing quite well out of it thank you very much. It already failed good sir, that's why the protesters are in the streets, and they aren't stopping any time soon.

For anyone repeating the 'protesters have no demands' rhetoric, perhaps try reading? These were posted 10 days ago.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.



Once you've read them, and realize that there are actually demands, and that they have been posted for quite a while now, understand that the movement, by necessity has to be leaderless, so coming up with demands needs to be done in an organic fashion taking into account a variety of viewpoints - this takes TIME. On that note, expect the demands to change and improve with time, those demands are just a snapshot. The whole point of the protests is that things have just gotten rediculous, there are so many issues the Government is not dealing with, so what would be the point of protesting against just one issue?

Protests can involve more than one issue? How unthinkable!!!

>> ^chilaxe:

Am I the only one who thinks Cain would be better off as a liberal complaining about how life's not fair?

"His mother was a cleaning woman and his father, who was raised on a farm, was a chauffeur... Under Cain's leadership, his region went in three years from the least profitable for Burger King to the most profitable. This prompted Pillsbury to appoint him President and CEO of another subsidiary, Godfather's Pizza. Aiming to cut costs, Cain over a 14-month period reduced the company from 911 stores down to 420. As a result of his efforts, Godfather's Pizza finally became profitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

His argument: I was successful so everybody else should be successful.

Yet he also states how lucky he was to be instilled with values that helped him. So he accepts that he is not a self-made man, though his wealth might be, but rejects claims by anyone who is not successful regardless of their arbitrary luck of where they were born or how they were raised.

Ayn Rand, eat your heart out.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Now now, I believe there are many lefty voices who STILL accuse the Tea party of being Fox/Murdoch-sponsored.
Say what you will about Cain, but he's right on this: what do these people want? What do they want to achieve?
Sorry to poop in the punch bowl, but if you take any of these hippies and swap them with the guys in the skyscraper, they'll act exactly the same way and do the same exact things as the originals.

>> ^Sagemind:
This idiot thinks these protesters are organized as a scheme by a political party? - These protesters are a spontaneous uprising. They aren't uprising because they are jealous, they are protesting because they and the public were and are being shafted over and over by the elite wealthy without concern for those they step on.



As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

@Stormsinger

From this Business Week article on Cain's tenure at Godfather Pizza, it sounds like the company performed adequately. "Godfather's didn't go out of business; neither did it become a major combatant in the pizza wars." However, his success in rising to prominence within the Burger King organization seems more concrete and more under his control: "His region went in three years from the least profitable for Burger King to the most profitable."


Anyway, it still seems fair to say that if liberalism had successfully trained him to blame others for his problems and reject careerism, he would probably still be living in the impoverished environment of his youth.

Cain probably grew up in a worse environment than 95% of the people on Videosift.

"His mother was a cleaning woman and his father, who was raised on a farm, was a chauffeur." Keep in mind his parents were black in the 1930s in the south, and probably had a fraction of the education most sifters' parents had.
>> ^Kofi:

His argument: I was successful so everybody else should be successful.
Yet he also states how lucky he was to be instilled with values that helped him. So he accepts that he is not a self-made man, though his wealth might be, but rejects claims by anyone who is not successful regardless of their arbitrary luck of where they were born or how they were raised.
Ayn Rand, eat your heart out.

>> ^chilaxe:

Anyway, it still seems fair to say that if liberalism had successfully trained him to blame others for his problems and reject careerism, he would probably still be living in the impoverished environment of his youth.


You really should try to learn something about liberalism. Might make you into a better, almost decent, human being.

If being a decent human being is based on how much we contribute to humankind, the round-the-clock Silicon Valley work schedule I advocate makes me comfortable with that equation.

I don't see any way to argue that liberalism doesn't on average reduce career outcomes for its followers.

I'm open to changing my mind, though. If Rachael Maddow or TYT started devoting an entire 1% of their on-air-time to knowledge on how to build great careers (one of the most interesting areas of intellectualism), I'd applaud them.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
Anyway, it still seems fair to say that if liberalism had successfully trained him to blame others for his problems and reject careerism, he would probably still be living in the impoverished environment of his youth.

You really should try to learn something about liberalism. Might make you into a better, almost decent, human being.

>> ^chilaxe:

If being a decent human being is based on how much we contribute to humankind, the round-the-clock Silicon Valley work schedule I advocate makes me comfortable with that equation.
I don't see any way to argue that liberalism doesn't on average reduce career outcomes for its followers.
I'm open to changing my mind, though. If Rachael Maddow or TYT started devoting an entire 1% of their on-air-time to knowledge on how to build great careers (one of the most interesting areas of intellectualism), I'd applaud them.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
Anyway, it still seems fair to say that if liberalism had successfully trained him to blame others for his problems and reject careerism, he would probably still be living in the impoverished environment of his youth.

You really should try to learn something about liberalism. Might make you into a better, almost decent, human being.



Being a decent human being, as far as I see it, is largely about empathy, sympathy, and compassion.

Saying "I work a job that I think is awesome" doesn't give you license to say "everyone who makes less than me is lazy and worthless". Decent people instinctively understand that.

Decent people have some basic sense of humility. They realize that while they have some control over whether they make the most of the opportunities they're given, they have very little control over the opportunities that get made available to them. In other words, life isn't fair.

You should know this, given how often you talk about how much genetics factors into people's successes in life. Nobody chose their genes. Nobody chose to be white or black. Nobody chose to be born a man or a woman. Nobody chose to be born in America or Afghanistan. Nobody chose to be born to rich parents or poor parents. Certainly nobody chose to be born into a society where their race, sex, or class is treated badly.

Now someone could choose the other way to look at life. They could say to themself that life is completely fair, and everyone who struggles with it is just inferior. They could resent any and all schemes designed to make helping those inferior people automatic -- they want to choose whether to help or not, emphasis on the not.

Now someone who thinks that way might also believe that the people who think the other way are ipso facto inferior. They might even proclaim, without a single shred of evidence, that having a more grounded view of reality is in fact some sort of detriment to their success.

But personally I think harboring such petty notions only serves to handicap you, in all aspects of life.

@NetRunner"In other words, life isn't fair."

Right, that's what I'm arguing. But if Herman Cain was trained to think along the lines of your comment, he'd still be like all the kids he played with growing up: poor, uneducated, and blaming other people and refusing to adopt basic success strategies. Give poor disadvantaged people a break... encourage them to become success-oriented. The first step would be sincerely reading many business books.


On genes, I'm confused... is liberalism arguing that genetics substantially influence diversity in economic outcomes even to the point of diversity in the evolutionary history of ethnic groups, or is liberalism arguing what most liberal academics argue: we don't care if it's true and we'll break your faith in academia and liberal intellectualism by calling you the worst names in the language.

Anyway, hyper-sensitivity around the study of genetics is misplaced... genes make people's default temperament dislike reading and instead like time spent on dumb stuff. However, our mind/personality can be changed, and if we want to become a high human potential person, we can expect to have to develop and fine-tune our mind/personality in many areas, rather than relying on the arbitrary identity and habits we were born with.


One of the steps along that path is to look at people who defy the odds, and praise the personal innovations that made that possible. I personally took notes on descriptions of Cain's methods that produced his career successes. Liberal disdain for Herman Cain is surreal.

What do they want?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

There you go.

9/9/9 plan … followers are too stupid to realize he's talking about raising taxes.

No – his plan is a staged plan moving towards a fair tax with 9/9/9 as a starting point. Everyone is aware of what it is because it clear, simple, and down on paper. This is in stark contrast to Democrats who want to raise taxes on the middle class but are saying they only want to tax 'millionaires and billionaires’ as with the Obama tax scheme that he calls a ‘jobs bill’.

starting today, the media will go back to ignoring them, on the grounds that now they're just a front for Unions and Democratic political organizations. In other words, at the first signs that this protest might align with a broader liberal agenda, they'll go back to dismissing them

This is just one of those areas where you are going to have to admit you are completely off target Net. The presence of union & other radical leftists REINFORCES the image of these whackos in the minds of the media. You said the media would ignore the protestors 'starting today'. This morning on the news I saw no fewer than FIVE different stories on three networks about the protests ‘ratcheting up’, ‘spreading’, et al. The media coverage isn’t decreasing. It is increasing.

There is no secret about why this is the case. It is because the majority of the media is dominated by leftist sympathizers, and so they naturally gravitate towards these other leftists. For the media, the ‘occupiers’ are a romantic throwback to their own liberal college days. They love these schmucks.

Consider how they treat them. In almost every story the occupiers are given actual SERIOUS consideration. The reporters do not challenge them or their ideas. The reporters slant the stories so that the protestors are shown in a sympathetic light. The media hides away their crazy signs, their lunatic fringes, their violent chants, their anti-american Marxist speakers, their illegal street and sidewalk blockings, and all the other bad things they do or say. But they broadcast ad-nauseum the vids of the cops arresting them as they wail and cry about how they are ‘peaceful’… There are puff peice stories about them needing blankets, and food. Boo hoo hoo.

Now think back again and recall how the very same media treats the Tea Party. From the beginning, the media has tagged the Tea Party as astroturf, racist, hate-fuelled, radical, fringe purveyors of violence. They’ve gone out of their way to paint the Tea Partiers as crazy, evil dupes of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Interviews with TP members routinely come from a position of antagonism or outright hostility. Media goes out of their way to find ignore huge crowds of rational, everyday normal folks and thier simple message of fiscal responsibility. But if there's ONE bozo at a rally acting like an @$$hole with a "Obama is Hitler" sign then the media will devote whole news segments to that guy and try to make it look like he is the rule rather than the exception.

Two different protest groups. Two completely different styles of media treatment. And all because the news media is dominated by an east-coast knee-jerk position of leftist philosophy. They say they are unbiased - but talk is cheap. When talk ISN'T cheap, they prove they are biased. Almost 90% of all news media donations to political candidates in 2008 were to Democrats. When was the last time you were in ANY population that was so lopsided? In any normal population, you'll have like 40% GOP, 40% Democrat, and 20% 'other'. The news media is so slanted to the left that it is hard to find any other group quite as radically lopsided and not officially a 'cult'.

As far as Cain goes - he's 100% right. These bozos are attacking the wrong target. If you want to succeed in life you don't go about it by blaming others. You do it by rolling up your sleeves and going to work. The bulk of these protesters are lily-white college doofuses who have never had a real job. Maybe they should try it before they go hatin' on it.

Sorry Net – but you’re wrong on this and today’s media treatment alone proves it.

>> ^chilaxe:

"In other words, life isn't fair."
Right, that's what I'm arguing. But if Herman Cain was trained to think along the lines of your comment, he'd still be like all the kids he played with growing up: poor, uneducated, and blaming other people and refusing to adopt basic success strategies.

This is also why I'm saying "learn more about liberalism" -- you're doubling down on the idea that baked into my entire spiel above was some sort of resentment-induced self-destructive behavior.

Conservatives fall prey to that pretty easily, IMO. Most lash out at liberals in a pretty accusatory tone, saying their entire lives are being destroyed by taxes, regulation, the national debt and the Fed printing money. They like to talk about how rich they'd be, if only it weren't for taxes, or how it's just not worth it for them to work any harder, because taxes are higher on rich people. They say that any day now they might just "go Galt" and withhold their productivity to punish the creeping socialism that's invading their lives. They say unions are killing factories, immigrants are stealing their jobs, and the minimum wage is why people can't find work. It's not that they're not as creative as that liberal arts major, it's not that they're not as industrious as that Mexican immigrant, it's not that they should've paid more attention in class, it's liberals, immigrants, and government are to blame for all my problems in life.

What you're talking about isn't liberal, it's human nature. People generally wanna blame someone or something else for their problems, whether they're right or not.

What I mean by "life isn't fair" is that people are not always wrong when they feel that way. Some people are right to feel that way.

Just not the people whose biggest concern in life is a millionaire's surtax.

>> ^chilaxe:
Give poor disadvantaged people a break... encourage them to become success-oriented. The first step would be sincerely reading many business books.

Giving poor and disadvantaged people a break is the liberal position. Do what we can to equalize income, and improve the quality and pay of jobs at the bottom of the payscale.

Also, a free quality education, that teaches them not just facts and figures, but teaches them why what they're learning is important.

>> ^chilaxe:
On genes, I'm confused... is liberalism arguing that genetics substantially influence diversity in economic outcomes even to the point of diversity in the evolutionary history of ethnic groups, or is liberalism arguing what most liberal academics argue: we don't care if it's true and we'll break your faith in academia and liberal intellectualism by calling you the worst names in the language.

What, nigger? Oh, you must mean racist.

Let me try and explain. I'm saying liberals think life isn't fair. The real next step to being a liberal is to say "but it should be made as fair as humanly possible."

You believe racism still exists, right? Specifically, racial prejudice, conscious or unconscious, subtle and gross -- we still have that, right? And you also agree that that prejudice against your ethnicity will negatively impact the quality and number of opportunities made to you, right? You also agree that ethnicity isn't something you choose, or can change if you want to, right?

In a fair society, race shouldn't factor into the type and quality of opportunities people have in life. So for fairness's sake, we should try to discourage people from holding racial prejudice, because it's not fair to deny people an opportunity on the basis of their skin color.

In a market-driven society like ours, this means you should be hiring people based solely on their ability to do the job, not some unrelated characteristic (white, black, man, woman, gay, straight, etc.).

So the problem here is that while it's possible to make some sort of scientific observations about a link between ethnicity and intellectual capability, it's not really a question we should be terribly interested in as a society. And if someone does come up with some sort of empirical analysis validating one of those prejudices we're fighting against, it's morally wrong to then hand that kind of loaded gun over to the people who want to use that to justify denying opportunities to people on the basis of race.

In other words, that kind of study is rightfully controversial. The problem isn't the study itself, per se, it's how the wider world will use it. Racists will latch onto it as justification for their prejudices, just like they might cling to quotes from Bill Cosby.

None of that is a concern about the study of human genetics itself, it's a concern about the ways in which society might use that information.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

I have yet to hear one of the protesters voice a plan. I'm with Cain, I don't know what they want. Was there greed involved in the sub-prime fiasco....YES. WE ALL KNOW THAT. PEOPLE ARE, BY NATURE, GREEDY. Congress's explicit approval of sub-prime lending, under the banner of "affordable housing for all" was mostly a lefty dem deal, (I think I hear Barney Frank somewhere), although both sides of the aisle should have been pistol whipped for letting such an obvious fleece go on for so long.


http://videosift.com/video/why-Occupy-WallStreet

Glad you realize that human nature is flawed; the "sheriffs" who are supposedly going to clean up the town are also flawed and corruptible, and the last gang anyone should expect to "fix" the excesses of capitalism are anti-capitalists.

BTW, isn't Obama's biggest campaign donor(s) Wall Street?

Liberalism eats its own tail when it demands a government so huge it can supposedly stop any kind of perceived corruption. It ends up a cure worse than the disease.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Sorry to poop in the punch bowl, but if you take any of these hippies and swap them with the guys in the skyscraper, they'll act exactly the same way and do the same exact things as the originals.

>> ^Sagemind:
This idiot thinks these protesters are organized as a scheme by a political party? - These protesters are a spontaneous uprising. They aren't uprising because they are jealous, they are protesting because they and the public were and are being shafted over and over by the elite wealthy without concern for those they step on.


This is a very VERY Good point and I don't mean that sarcastically. Humans are fucked up, they do fucked up things when you make it EASY for them to do it that way. That's the point of the protest...to have the People oversee the corporations and check their power rather than corporations controlling everything. If the country was more democratic these private tyrannies wouldn't BE ABLE to do things of this sort. So the entire point of these protests is to try and bring a big bright light over the fact that Humans will be Humans...check their fucking power.
Thank you QM you made the best Lefty point in this comment section without knowing it.

NetRunner: Racists will latch onto it as justification for their prejudices, just like they might cling to quotes from Bill Cosby.


So are "racists" to blame whenever liberal moral relativism undermines traditional responsibility?

Bill Cosby's words and observations are as credible as they come, as he spent most of his life aiding Black causes monetarily and fighting for civil rights, because he is disgusted with needless Black failure.

Black illegitimacy is at 70%, a death knell for any community. "Racists" are not responsible for any Black man abandoning the mother and his children; he failed to STEP UP.

Where is liberalism in this equation? Justifying this wrong choice.

>> ^quantumushroom:

NetRunner: Racists will latch onto it as justification for their prejudices, just like they might cling to quotes from Bill Cosby.

So are "racists" to blame whenever liberal moral relativism undermines traditional responsibility?
Bill Cosby's words and observations are as credible as they come, as he spent most of his life aiding Black causes monetarily and fighting for civil rights, because he is disgusted with needless Black failure.
Black illegitimacy is at 70%, a death knell for any community. "Racists" are not responsible for any Black man abandoning the mother and his children; he failed to STEP UP.
Where is liberalism in this equation? Justifying this wrong choice.


You also need an education in liberalism. I think Bill Cosby's words are just fine. People do need to take responsibility for their actions.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't also try correct for the prejudice and inequality in our society that is also presenting problems for the black community.

It isn't all one thing. Their problems aren't only caused by white bigotry. That doesn't mean white bigotry doesn't exist, or isn't a problem. Bill Cosby is just saying it ain't 100% of the reason why they have problems.

I can agree with Bill Cosby. I can't agree with the people who want to use what he said as an excuse to repeal anti-discrimination laws, or spread racial stereotypes.

@NetRunner

1."What I mean by "life isn't fair" is that people are not always wrong when they feel that way. Some people are right to feel that way."

For people who care to be successful, it is always wrong to try to quantify how unfair life is. Business books always advise against it. Ycombinator's unofficial motto is, wisely, "Strap on some plums."

Herman Cain emphasized drive and proactivity instead of a victim world view and that's why he was able to contribute to society in ways more advantaged "victims" are generally unable to.



2. "Giving poor and disadvantaged people a break is the liberal position. Do what we can to equalize income, and improve the quality and pay of jobs at the bottom of the payscale."

If liberalism cared about bettering people's lives, why do Maddow and TYT never educate their audiences with the kind of career intellectualism that would actually better their lives?

How effective is 'promoting outrage' really? Unskilled workers are becoming less valuable each year everywhere in the world, and the next US president has good odds of being a Republican.


3."The problem isn't the study itself, per se, it's how the wider world will use it."

The problem is that all facts are connected, so if liberal academics intentionally lie in order to shape knowledge about human history and society, the increased inaccuracy created by those lies doesn't remain contained within those special areas. I hope we stay in touch for the next 20 years, so we can see if you reverse your position and start advocating reprogenetics to create actual rather than fictitious equality.

@chilaxe both your #1 and #2 points seem to be based on the premise that life is fair. You seem to believe that all anyone needs to do to become a millionaire is a positive attitude and hard work.

That's not true.

As for #3, I'm a little lost on what you're talking about. I didn't say people should lie, I was trying to explain why "liberal" people would say "we don't care if it's true" about studies that would seem to lend credence to racial stereotypes. I'm sorta curious what you'd like to see people do differently as a result of those kinds of studies.

And assuming you mean this when talking about reprogenetics, I'm all for it. Here's my kicker though, I'll be demanding that it be covered under everyone's universal healthcare.

#1, #2.

Netrunner said: "You seem to believe that all anyone needs to do to become a millionaire is a positive attitude and hard work."

Yes, that's definitely true for the majority of genomes in the US.

Step 1: Devote all waking hours to reading, working, and exercise. Do these things until you're smarter than everyone around you. Eschew meaningless experiential pursuits and don't get married until as late as possible.

Step 2: Profit.



#3 Netrunner said: "I didn't say people should lie."

Pronouncements that scientists should downplay, not publicize, or otherwise bias their results because we don't like those results (they "lend credence to racial stereotypes") has the final effect of countless liberal academics lying and using whatever means are at their disposal to force compliance.



#4 Netrunner said: "I'm sorta curious what you'd like to see people do differently as a result of those kinds of studies."

It's useful for predictions. We can accurately predict that billions spent on trying to close the achievement gap will never succeed. We can accurately predict that hyper-liberal Berkeley will always have the highest crime rates in the San Francisco bay area regardless of legislative policy because it's sandwiched between Oakland and Richmond, which have collected genomes that are bad at complex society.

We can know that it was probably a mistake for liberals to import 80 million permanently poor people from other countries between 1970-2010. If we really want population-replacement that bad, just import poor people from China, and they'll on average outscore White Americans within a generation.



At this point, the fastest way to decrease poverty, academic achievement gaps, and most associated trends is to increase funding for genetics and technologies that lead to reprogenetics. If you want universal access for the poor, that's good.




>> ^NetRunner:

@chilaxe both your #1 and #2 points seem to be based on the premise that life is fair. You seem to believe that all anyone needs to do to become a millionaire is a positive attitude and hard work.
That's not true.
As for #3, I'm a little lost on what you're talking about. I didn't say people should lie, I was trying to explain why "liberal" people would say "we don't care if it's true" about studies that would seem to lend credence to racial stereotypes. I'm sorta curious what you'd like to see people do differently as a result of those kinds of studies.
And assuming you mean this when talking about reprogenetics, I'm all for it. Here's my kicker though, I'll be demanding that it be covered under everyone's universal healthcare.

@chilaxe it seems to me that you do believe life is fair. Why you believe that is beyond me.

It also seems to me like you want to institutionalize racism again (and on pretty thin grounds at that).

I guess this begs the question, do you believe in fundamental human rights?

>> ^NetRunner:

@chilaxe it seems to me that you do believe life is fair. Why you believe that is beyond me.
It also seems to me like you want to institutionalize racism again (and on pretty thin grounds at that).
I guess this begs the question, do you believe in fundamental human rights?


1. Fairness:

How many people do you know who follow the path I described? Even here in Silicon Valley, people like that are rare, so the world is basically just waiting for people like that to come along.

I doubt most people are genetically incapable of following that path, if that's what you're suggesting.



2. Racism:

You could call me an intelligencist if you'd like... I believe immigration slots should be given to that portion of poor people who can, regardless of ethnicity, be statistically shown to have good odds of doing well in the US, both regarding themselves and their children born here.

Remember that it's liberals who believe in institutionalizing racism. Here in California, liberals are fed up with Asians contributing so much to society, so liberals are currently seeking to restore racist discrimination against Asians in universities.

California outlawed such racism in 1996, so schools like UC Berkeley and UC Irvine are almost majority Asian. Personally, I like 21st century societies, so I think Asian studiousness is good.



3. Human rights:

Yes. People are free to work for anything they want.

>> ^chilaxe:

1. Fairness:
How many people do you know who follow the path I described? Even here in Silicon Valley, people like that are rare, so the world is basically just waiting for people like that to come along.
I doubt most people are genetically incapable of following that path, if that's what you're suggesting.

Genetics isn't the only thing you inherit from your parents. You also get citizenship in the country they live in, you get raised and educated in their social and economic class, and you might also be able to take advantage of their network of business contacts. And that's not even mentioning the potential differences in parenting techniques and lessons they impart.

When I say "you think life is fair", I'm mostly saying that you seem to think we all have the same paths in front of us to choose from. We don't.

I had a lot of opportunities available to me that other kids from my neighborhood didn't, not because I'd done anything to earn them, but because my parents were well off.

I had a lot fewer opportunities available to me than my classmates at school, not because I hadn't earned them, but because I wasn't the child of the owner of a multinational corporation.
>> ^chilaxe:
2. Racism:
You could call me an intelligencist if you'd like... I believe immigration slots should be given to that portion of poor people who can, regardless of ethnicity, be statistically shown to have good odds of doing well in the US, both regarding themselves and their children born here.
Remember that it's liberals who believe in institutionalizing racism. Here in California, liberals are fed up with Asians contributing so much to society, so liberals are currently seeking to restore racist discrimination against Asians in universities.
California outlawed such racism in 1996, so schools like UC Berkeley and UC Irvine are almost majority Asian. Personally, I like 21st century societies, so I think Asian studiousness is good.

There's a pretty big difference between having a debate over what the most fair (i.e. non-racist) admissions policy would be -- policies that promote racial diversity, or policies that discount race altogether -- and what you were talking about.

We can accurately predict that billions spent on trying to close the achievement gap will never succeed. We can accurately predict that hyper-liberal Berkeley will always have the highest crime rates in the San Francisco bay area regardless of legislative policy because it's sandwiched between Oakland and Richmond, which have collected genomes that are bad at complex society.

We can know that it was probably a mistake for liberals to import 80 million permanently poor people from other countries between 1970-2010.

1. Some races can't be educated, no matter how much money we spend trying to educate them
   
2. Some races will always commit lots of crimes, and no amount of policy change will stop it
   
3. Some races will be "permanently poor", and no amount of economic opportunity will change that