One of the great intellectual catastrophes of the modern world, and probably the harbinger of the ultimate doom of our civilisation, is the collapse in the distinction between 'compare to' and 'equate with'. We can reasonably compare almost anything to almost anything else, and how unfortunate that we can expect immediately to be confronted by some aggrieved outrage-peddler who imagines they have a right to find the comparison insulting.

It is a literal fact that any group of two or more people, or living things, or indeed most objects of any kind, will possess some internal differences. As a matter of certain truth, not subject to doubt, muslims share with rats and serial killers the trait that they evince diversity of behaviour and belief. This demonstrates the total banality of the 'but they're all different' argument. It's not for their differences that these groups are disliked.

That's probably enough of a lesson for one day, and certainly @oritteropo ought to know better. I don't want to take the trouble to argue deranged claims like 'there are muslims who don't believe in god', or tiresome diversions on how christians and other jews can be just as bad, or to debate the relative merits of various religiously mandated dress codes; but you are right about one thing @SDGundamX: I would much prefer that islamic violence and oppression were a harmless and overblown bogey, but ethics is not a children's game - these are real people, with real victims, and too many of both.

There are systems other than democracy which have the kind of cheques and a balances you are referring to.

Just that not all of them place that power indiscriminately in the hands of the demos. e.g. a Meritocratic system expects its voters to earn their votes by demonstrating competence in a given field (those qualified in healthcare can vote to choose administrators of health etc.)

Democracy as we know it is a deeply unsophisticated way of attending to the problems you describe. There are alternatives that may well prove better, were we to actually try them.

It's pretty clear actual unlimited democracy doesn't work as no country in the modern world uses it. So it appears it's only the recourse to peaceful regime change that's important here, not necessarily the means by which it is achieved.

But even then, that blow off valve is usually defined in pretty narrow parameters and the political landscape carefully maintained by societies elites. Were it not, the aforementioned repeal of the death penalty and such would likely have doomed the ruling regime to be replaced by something more representative of the demos's backwards attitudes.

Hell I could even conceive of ways to just apply enough of that same veneer of democratic accountability to Sophocracy, technocracy and Noocracy, without resorting to a full blown meritocracy or oligarchy. One need only define the parameters that limit the demos in a way which demands leadership candidates have requisite qualities/qualifications.

It really could be very similar to what we have now, but with the parameters shifted to define a different sort of viable candidate.

It's already a hybrid of elite and demos, just redefine the elite and let the demos keep the blow off valve within the new parameters.

And then one day in the future perhaps, leaders will not always have to be emotionally flawed humans?

Have any credible links to these percentages? I am assuming these comments are in reference to a specific event. And my point still stands, hating an entire group of people for the actions of only a few in that group is irrational and possibly racist. But hey, if you ever come across someone who's been raped by a non Muslim, feel free to let them know that their violation was much less statistically likely. I'm sure they'll thank you for it.
Both the Bible and the Quran have passages that exhort the reader to do things that would be unacceptable in the modern world. Yet I doubt you think all or most Christians are bad because of what the Bible says. So, no, the Quran really doesn't mean anything in that respect.
http://videosift.com/video/Gruesome-Verses-from-Bible-Disguised-as-Quran

I didn't agree with everything, but this is a *quality essay that uses its *scifi narrative to reflect on the *philosophy (and a smidgen of *history) of the modern world.

I thought DMT lasted much longer. I thought I had experienced it before. From his description it sounds exactly like Salvia.

Also, I agree with everything @newtboy says. Most of these videos have their little "educational use only" disclaimer at the beginning, but this guy actually sounds like he is advocating use (and irresponsible use in many of these cases), despite saying exactly the opposite.

Clearly he's not met many people who have had negative experiences; there are many.

Also, I can name many people, alive today, who have absolutely killed it in terms of contemporary success in the modern world, to speak to newts point about evidence of positive, individual evolution. If that's one way you measure success, I personally know multiple people who have made, literally, millions (billions in one case) and were significantly inspired by experiences like these in their lives. Two problems: It's an illegal substance, and it would be taboo to tie public figures names with it. Secondly, there are too many factors to attribute personal success to one event or influence, but there are also very few things in the world that can provide an experience so profound that it does impact your entire life long world view.

Yes it is important the field you work in. You are going to spend something like 40% of your waking hours doing it. If you think doubleshifting manual labour under scorching sun and whips is somehow equivalent to 8 hours in an office environment where you answer phones or w/e, you've lost the thread.

You're right that not everyone can change jobs. You grossly exaggerate what is required to do so, however. Yes, changing between highly skilled careers that required a significant amount of specialized knowledge isn't available to all that many people. But you can't even see the miseries of slave labour from the desk of your first career, they're so far away.

You haven't thought too much about infrastructure and what it would mean to have it removed, have you? Of course infrastructure is a benefit to employers, but that's not relevant to how beneficial it is to the 'slaves'. I expect casual access to electricity, water, and world wide communication would have done a lot for slaves, to name just a few of the elements of infrastructure. I'm honestly starting to doubt your sincerity now.

Slaves had good healthcare? Holy shit. I never expected to hear something like that. I don't need to make a counter point here, as you've ridiculed yourself. American healthcare is shitty -- COMPARED with other developed countries. It is light years ahead of anything that has existed outside the jurisdiction of a government.

Yes, the influential have an advantage. Nobody is disputing that. It doesn't utterly negate your rights across the board. You can still travel. You can still educate yourself. You can still own property. You can still address many grievances by wielding your rights. This list goes on and on. ALL things a slave couldn't ever hope to do. I think the rest of your paragraph should have been moved to the protection from hostility section so I'll address it there.

I was addressing hostility from other slaves. You are probably right in that the tribalism it fosters can be very dangerous where countries clash. In a system without government, spats would result in undending blood feuds, all across the territory ruled by the anarchy, whereas under a state, if they happen across borders they can erupt into something far worse.

I don't agree with the way the US has handled the extremist muslim situation that they mid-wifed in the middle east. But are you going to tell me that you're less safe, now, even after all the alluded too transgressions, than some rural farmer in South Sudan, who is effectively living without any guaranteed rights?

I'm definitely for more compassion and socialism than seen in modern US policy, so I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to claim that policies on slave plantations were more generous towards the slaves than our current policies are towards us?

Let's just say that I'm loathe to accept an unsourced opinion than medieval peasantry lead better lives than the average government-laden citizen nowadays. I'm sure there are some points on which they did better. Superstition, sickness, famine, war, flooding. We honestly don't have anything that even compares to these in the modern world. If you could link it or something though, I'd love to read it. It sounds interesting.

These posts are getting too long.

Pool technology is finally catching up with the modern world.

Part four (of seven) talking about their return to the modern world:

@blackfox42, I had the same reaction.

The more I watched, the more I felt this was symbolic of the modern world's destruction of the honeybees, the waste of their labor and their lives. Very disturbing.

I also thought that food fetishists are going to be buying this book in droves.

Sorry, Grimm, to be all political on an artistic statement.

But society tells a man, enshrined in law and tradition, that if he does not want to be forced into wage-slavery for 18 years of an unwanted child's life, he should not have had sex with the girl in the first place. It makes women victims of sex, not equal participants, fully capable and fully responsible. The woman chooses to have, abort, abandon or offer for adoption. The man does not have any choice over that, including if he wants to keep and she does not.

And that double standard stems from the inherent sexist bias that men are the big strong responsible ones, and women need protecting and helping. I keep seeing Emma Watson's face plastered all over facebook with "He For She" gash-tagged. He for she? HE... for SHE? She does not need he, and the campaign ridiculously reinforces the male hyper-responsibility and female hypo-responsibility that has led us to this system which is sexist to both males and females. If anything, we need we, but wee-wee probably isn't a good tag-line.

So why did i bring sexism up? Well, either you can't tell people to act a certain way if they don't want consequences, or you can.... and we as a society do not have a standard to use, because we legally force fathers into wage-slavery at the whim of the mother and tell him exactly that. Is it any surprise men are using the same unfair argument by which they can be and are financially crippled? That's the heart of the debate imo; society raises men to be fully responsible for their actions, but raises women not to be (which as we see is sexist and unfair to both).

Only one thing is certain - equality of the sexes is important for both sexes. Because when society is willing to accept that women can be responsible for themselves, men will not be held responsible for a woman's decision to have a child. And then maybe men will stop using the argument which they must bow to by law.

Pre-emptive edit:
I will never let it be said that the views expressed herein are sexist, nor that i am sexist. I am a huge proponent of the fact that women are gifted with the same cognitive potential as men, and that any physiological differences are irrelevant in the modern world. But equality comes with a price - and that price is real equality. I am not encouraging irresponsible male behaviour... i am stating, loud and proud, as a feminist.. that women should be allowed to be fully responsible for their choices and actions, because i believe them to be fully capable of it.

Doesn't look like a reboot to me.

I like the look of it. I don't want to see arnie pretending it's the 90s, but he's still that hero dad-type character to me, he always will be. Clint Eastwood deserves a rest and without him we don't have a true aging hard-ass. We never used to watch arnie films in the past for the story alone, even if he did appear in some greats. So if he's playing a role that makes sense, some time travel to set up inappropriate levels of mayhem in the modern world is passable because that's all that Terminator 2 did.

I'm in for the ride, i'll watch it with hope.

You remind me of David Mitchell on "Would I Lie to You?" when he pointed out that often people will think that something sounds so out-of-place and rehearsed that it inevitably has to be true.

Do you perhaps think that might be something you're doing? Would this shit really be satisfactory, based on your logic, to a grieving family? He wasn't a saint, neither are you, neither am i... but no one deserves to die for that, especially at such a young age... none of us know who we are by that age.. he had not made the decisions that would shape his life yet. Who does it benefit to have the rehearsed official police story relayed to us by the only man who could explain what really happened? It's more of a slap in the face to the family, is my point.

I tell you what i'd want if i was American - not to have to fear the American police. Because at this point it doesn't even matter if Darren was "rightfully killed" - because the arse-covering propaganda had already started; which is an admission to racism by way of feeling guilty.

And that SHOULD be enough for Americans to demand change - i.e. not every cop should be carrying a gun, because quite clearly not everyone is capable of knowing when to use it. But if it isn't enough, there's Trayvon Martin too. And another, and another, and another.

This isn't a one-off thing, so don't try to suggest that people should judge the video independently of the track history of American police which is to kill young black men, hurting the communities and individuals that they are designed to protect.

At the very least, the protection system is not working for the black community and needs fixing. At the most, there is a tendency towards racism and wild-west-justice in the American police, and that's not just a problem for black people.

P.S. American prison statistics for black people is a serious indictment of how black people are not treated equally in the eyes of the law. Who is really going to try and argue that black people are naturally, statistically more likely to be criminals to the tune of the prison imbalance? There is absolutely no way i am buying into that. The prison statistics remind me of this John Oliver video, perhaps police are being "fair" and stop/searching black people exactly as much as they do white people.. but that is an imbalance because they are not exactly 50% of the population.

(For the record: 60% of all prisoners are black but only 25% of total population. Incarceration at six times that of white people. 12% of the drug-using population are black, but account for 40% arrested for drugs and 60% in prison for drugs. Taken from the NAACP website, i've got to assume they're right. Don't get me started on antiquated drugs policies, or the history of slavery's affect on money/power in the modern world - meaning crimes committed in boardrooms and government go unpunished - let's not forget white leaders have led this world to the brink of complete collapse and we're not out of the woods - but let's stick to the issue.)

A positive example of leverage in the modern world!

I can't remember who said it, but I've always liked this quote:

Capitalism is a great engine for innovation, but it's a shitty way to have a just and fair society. (after googling, it seems lots of people have said something to that effect)

Capitalism is great, but it needs to be controlled.

I will disagree though. Voters have the power to make some huge changes The corporate world may have a huge influence over Gov't, but it's dependent on the populace not giving a damn and looking the other way.

There will come a point where people are pushed to a tipping point, then things will happen. Hopefully in a peaceful fashion. One way or another it will happen, because as Hedges already pointed out. Truly unrestricted capitalism will destroy itself.

The oligarchy is trying to create a modernized system of serfdom and perpetual debt. Give people the illusion of freedom, but they're really not. Every major life decision in the modern world usually involves going into significant debt and spending decades digging yourself out.

Want a good education? Gonna have to go into massive debt. Even if you're successful, it will take a long time to get out.

Want to get married? society says you have to have an expensive ring and go into debt for probably 30 years to get a house for your family. And you wonder why more and more people are flipping the bird to the "traditional family unit"

Want a decent car just so you can get around? Even more debt

Hope you never get divorced, because that's still more debt.

Hope you're lucky enough to not have a major accident or illness either. Yep, more debt.

I know a lot of people are able to successfully navigate these things and still come out ahead, but they're quickly becoming the exception, and not the rule. And it's often a question of luck, not of skill or smarts or being chosen of your preferred deity. blind stupid luck. So those that make it have no cause to look down their nose at those who didn't make it.

There is a reason feudalism system got thrown out. It's just been repackaged to fool people. When enough people realize it, it will be thrown off again.

And in the same breath you could say that rampant military conquest created the modern world and drove scientific advances etc, but while the Muslims were pottering around the the Middle East, Spain/England/France etc were plundering the entire world. Lead by militants and the religious. Oh gee...

Your conclusion that the majority of Muslim's is as factually bankrupt as the assertion that "playing video games makes people violent". Millions of people are Muslims, but extremist attacks are relatively minor on the grand scale of things. Your casual causality is not born out by what actually happens in the real world.