I'm not defending TYT's actions here, and I don't exactly take TYT seriously. Like Chingalera said, they're tabloidistic and unprofessional.

But again, to claim that the latter part of the article was a "purely fictional account" simplifies it excessively.

What Card did in the article was essentially the same as racists tend to do when they say, "I'm not a racist, but..."

Card was essentially saying, "I'm not saying that Obama is equivalent to Stalin, but Obama is equivalent to Stalin."

Now, Card says that the events described in his thought experiment were "unlikely," but they still erred on the side of insanity, and when he puts that in an article he's going to have to expect opposition. You can't just say whatever you want and then expect it to go unopposed simply because you loosely framed it as a "silly thought experiment" beforehand.

But every single quote that TYT ran there was from the AFTER part of the article where Card has clearly stated this is the fictional account of what the future under Obama would be like in the event that he was a Stalin or Hitler. Prior to that Card just discussed his own opinion, with strong right leanings, but hardly any worse than is daily said against Bush by Cenk.

Bold face lying about what Card said is not made OK because he happens to be a republican that believes the Iraq war was justifiable and that the media outside of Fox has given Obama a free ride.

This needed to be the first post!

Referenced article can be found here:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2013-05-09-1.html

Card very clearly qualifies that the quoted statements are entirely a 'what if Obama decided to act like Stalin or Hitler' mental exercise and not his personal beliefs. The stuff he throws in prior as his actual opinion is far more moderate and not nearly so nutty. This has gotta be one of the lowest points I've seen from Cenk...

@radx, perfect title, brother. Spot on, this is pretty much a Stalin era show trial.

Worked great for Stalin....

When you inform on your fellow citizen, you're helping gangsters everywhere better control and maintain a safe-passage throughout their personal stables, for decades to come.

Sure, there is no need to speak in terms of civil war. Unless you're one of these guntoting, armed to the teeth nutjobs who think it would be a good idea. You know, the kind of people who buy an *assault rifle* for self defense.
However, no matter how well trained your riot police is, their less than lethal tactics are only useful up to a certain amount of people, they can become rather useless if the crowds get too big to contain or simply too violent themselves. That's when it gets interesting, that is when protest can turn into riots.
When the cops face huge, somewhat peacful crowds, they might enter Tiananmen Square. At what point would american cops or military personnel start thinking that it's unwise or inhuman to start firing into the crowd? Before the first shot? After the second magazine? On day three?
It's not the 1960s anymore but the sixties are not forgotten. Not by those who faced police officers willing to fire into the crowd. You know, black people. The kind of people whose parents and grandparents are still alive to tell them about their fight against oppression. This is still alive in the american concious, it shaped your country and it won't go away soon. Just ask Barak about his birth certificate.
Civil unrest is part of your recent history, the seed is there. Even under a President Stalin all you'd need go from isolated, contained riots to complete and irreversible shitstorm is a Martyr, a Neda Agha Soltan or a Treyvon Martin. No matter what ethnicity (although african american would be nice), that would present a tipping point.
Your police can bring out the tanks on Times Square if they want but if half of NY shows up, these guys inside the tanks might want to get out ASAP.
The Erich Honecker regime of the German Democratic Republic was basically brought down by somewhat peaceful demonstrations of people shouting "I'm mad as hell and I won't take it anymore" in east german accents.
The StaSi, the Ministry of State Security, who was efficient enough to make *every* citizen a potential informant in the eyes of their opposition, ran from the protesters like little girls. They used to imprison and torture people who spoke up.
The east german border used to be the most secure in the entire world. It was protected by minefields and guards who shot and killed anyone who tried to cross it. Before David Hasselhoff even had a chance to put on his illuminated leather jacket the government caved and just fucking opened it. People just strolled through Checkpoint Charlie and bought Bananas as if it was Christmas.
This was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. You know, the guys who lost over 20 Million people in WW2 and still kicked the Nazis in the nuts.
Nobody brought a gun. All the east germans had was shitty cars and lots of anger. They tore down not just a dictatorship, they tore down the iron curtain.
And they didn't even have a Nelson Mandela. Or Lech Walesa.
I still stand by my point: strength in numbers, not caliber.

@dag - What I like best about your comment is that you present constructive criticism, while the rest of the media, government and public are preparing the tar and feathers.

I'm frustrated by the way we focus on personality and ignore the systemic nature of these kinds of issues. Once we tar and feather Obama, the next president will find herself/himself in need of effective national security measures and will likely go along with whatever the NSA thinks is best. Hillary is Stalin! Rand Paul is Hitler! Rinse and repeat. This is part of the reason why nothing ever seems to get done.

As an aside, I've certainly been on the offensive side of these crusades with Bush, McCain, Hillary and Romney, so this newish perspective is something of an epiphany. Not to say I didn't voice legitimate gripes, but I took cheap shots aplenty.

In short, I'm probably feeling what the rest of the world has long known, that Americans are immature, aggressive and completely unproductive in the way we manage their civic affairs, and it's not going to stop till we wise up.

(So just give up)


Anyway.....

LMGTFY

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women."

Seems pretty fair to me.

I think you made some good arguments earlier in the thread, but saying that "feminism is the concept of female supremacy" is just too broad a generalisation. Are there some elements that believe that? Of course.

And there are some women who hold ridiculous (elevatorgate) or hypocritical (pycon) positions.

But there are also some atheists who have done some pretty bad things (Stalin, Mao), but their views are not representative of atheism as a whole.

I know plenty of feminists (IMHO, it's kinda hard to meet an intelligent woman who isn't a feminist) and none of them espouse that kind of belief.

Personally, my favourite definition of feminism comes from a NZ blog:

"I couldn't help wondering though for a while afterwards what I should make of all this, you know, as a feminist? My conclusion is that feminism is essentially about women having choices and if your choice is to fling your undies at someone famous, I guess I'm allowed to be a bit embarrassed for you but also pleased that you won't be flogged by your father or brother for it."

Why is deduction based on experimental knowledge impossible without a God?

You have never told anyone why this is not possible.

Could you be wrong about everything you know?

My answer for Stalin is nine posts up - you missed it.

Could you repaste it? I don't see it.

Fuck Jesus - his innovations are that you don't need to take personal responsibility for this life, this life is a transient thing to suffer through, and there is hell is a consequence. It's all pathetic fearmongering.

On the contrary, when you follow Jesus you have to take personal responsibility for every last bit of your life, including owning up to the wrong you've done in your life and making amends for it. Secular morality only operates when people can see you; God see's everything and you can't hide anything from Him. Your conscience is my witness to what I am saying, that you've broken His laws. People put on a front and say they're good people based on what people know about them, but God knows our hearts. Jesus said hell is a real place and that everyone who has not received Gods forgiveness will be going there. Jesus wasn't fear mongering when He said that; He said that to warn you about what is going to happen to you when you die. That's why He died on the cross. He died so that you could be forgiven and wouldn't have to go there.

Why is deduction based on experimental knowledge impossible without a God?

You have never told anyone why this is not possible.

My answer for Stalin is nine posts up - you missed it.

Fuck Jesus - his innovations are that you don't need to take personal responsibility for this life, this life is a transient thing to suffer through, and there is hell is a consequence. It's all pathetic fearmongering.

Actually, that's exactly what I say, and average modern human morality is considerably superior to the filth that the biblical God advocates.

The moral standard of western civilization is founded upon judeo-christian beliefs. Read:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595555455/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366921071&sr=8-1&keywords=book+that+made+your+world

Following the morality the biblical God advocates is the hardest thing you will ever do. The standard of today is a superficial, politically correct morality where you pretend to be nice to people but curse them when they aren't around. God requires a transformation on the inside where you have genuine love for your fellow man.

I am only saying that they are wrong by todays generally agreed upon moral standards. Some of these moral standards are extremely effective and have been around since very early human communities, so they only have the illusion of being absolute due to high adherence rate.

Are you saying nigh universal adherence to certain moral standards isn't evidence for an absolute standard of morality?

Murder, theft, oppression and incest are three fairly obvious examples. The evolutionarily advantageous trait of society building tends to list it's effectiveness when such things are widespread. But we have a very long human tradition of sanctioning and celebrating murder and theft as long as it occurs well outside our cohort. Killing other tribes is celebrated in the bible, as is stealing their possessions. Ethically justified slavery took another 4000 years to mostly get rid of, and hell, it was common practice to fuck your fifteen year old cousin all the way up to about the late 1800s here in the good old US of A as long as it was under the marital auspices of the church, of course.

Yep, but thank God that his just definition of morality - if we didn't have god's guidance through scripture, we'd probably do crazy shit!

You don't understand what God was doing in the Old Testament, or why He did it the way He did. It is morally consistent with His goodness and holiness, and there are logical reasons for why this is so. So far you are not interested in hearing them or discussing them. When you are let me know. In the end you don't have any excuse for suppressing the truth about Jesus, no matter what you think about how God acted in the Old Testament.

Using the word 'absolute' is a concession to brevity, but nice try - seriously dude, this is laughable and it wouldn't even stand up in Jr. High debate - absolutes do exist, they just need to be well justified, and yes if you want to be nitpicky about it there is an ever so remote chance that 1+1 is not equal to two in some distant corner of the universe. But as humans with an admittedly limited scope of understanding, we have to accept that level of certainty. If you want to relegate your theory to claiming its space somewhere in the possibility that we might be wrong about the whole 2+2=4 thing, go right on ahead.

There, that's what I meant by absolute. happy?

Basically, what you're saying is that because 2+2 probably equals four everywhere in the Universe, you are free to make absolute statements about morality? The fact is that your belief system leaves you with no justification for any absolute statement what so ever. Why should 2 + 2 always equal 4 in the first place? Can you tell me why the laws of physics should work in the same way 5 seconds from now without using circular reasoning?

Can you justify any piece of knowledge without God? If you can then tell me one thing you know and how you know it. Could you be wrong about everything you know?

Well then thanks for the offer, but I think I'll pass in the whole god based morality thing. I prefer to have a really good reason to never slaughter innocent kids. But thanks for finally answering my question: there has been a good reason to butcher a toddler after all! Praise The Lord, for he is good!

It comes back to the same question: As the giver of life, and the adjudicator of His Creation, is it wrong for God to take life?

And here's another interesting brain tickler. If everything god commands is right, and god has a track record of testing his faithful with their willingness to commit infanticide, how can you say that this lady isn't moral?

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2001-08-17/news/0108170166_1_baby-s-death-baby-s-father-documents

The scripture is finished and anything which contradicts it is not of God.

Wrong, I know that things are wrong because humans and cultures have a long history of interacting with reality, and certain strategies have been more successful than others. You haven't spent one iota of your time discrediting this notion, whereas I have given you plenty of examples crediting mine and discrediting yours.

What I am supposed to be discrediting? You're asking me to nail jello to a wall. You have not even defined what "successful" is supposed to mean beyond pure survival. In that case, every civilization has been successful. Tell me what your definition of success is supposed to be.

For the millionth time, I have no hopes of convincing you of anything - you'll defend your stance against literally any proof. But you seem to come here on the sift with the intent of demonstrating to others that there is some logical basis for your beliefs.

What proof? The foundation of atheism stands upon the shifting sands of relative truth. You, the atheist, ultimately make yourself the measure of all truth. Because of that, you can't tell me a single fact about the world that you can justify.

Well you're failing miserably, mainly because you are only capable of restating the following sentence as if it is an agreed upon truth:

"Not only is the entire concept logically contradictory, but it doesn't match our experience, which is that some things are absolutely wrong. "

I don't expect you to have any good support for that, but the audience out there just waiting to be convinced, they will need at least something.

Torturing babies for fun; not absolutely wrong?

I'm still waiting for you to give Stalin some kind, any kind of argument as to why he should adopt your morality and abandon his own. If you can't tell Stalin why he is wrong, then you have no hope of escaping the charge of incoherency.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ERB, Mother Russia' to 'ERB, Mother Russia, rasputin, stalin, lenin, gorbachev, putin' - edited by xxovercastxx

Your video, Rasputin vs Stalin. Epic Rap Battles of History Season 2, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I wouldn't say anything, I don't think that it would be particularly effective. We all have our own idea of what morality is, and Stalin's is a very complex result of innumerable factors like upbringing, disposition and circumstance, and it would be a bit self important of me to think that I could argue that out of him. He lived, acted, died and left his mark on history. The paremeters set forth by the physical world and the collective actions of everyone else who has lived either as a contemporary or since has judged which of those actions have value and will live on. It's a messy process, certainly, but it's just how things work.

In other words, you don't have any argument as to why Stalin should adopt your morality and abandon his own. If you do I invite you to post it here. How can you escape Ravi's charge that atheism is incoherent in the absence of any such argument?

Thankfully, we seem to be heading in a direction that diverges considerably from that Stalin would espouse. I think that a certain evolutionary tendency towards beneficial collectivism is responsible for that.

Mind you that I'm not arguing for a one world government here, but rather I think that a sense of connection and personal responsibility for the wellbeing of everything else on this planet, ecosystem and all, will bode well for how I and my descendants experience this thing we call life.

It's only one of many competing survival strategies, and nothing more.

So if Hitler had won and the world was in the grips of his totalitarian regime, this would just a particular evolutionary tendency playing out? What makes one better than the other?

"Do you believe that there has ever been a case where slavery has been justified, and do you believe that there has ever been a good reason for anyone to butcher a toddler with a sword?"

Why is it wrong to do either of those things?