That was a bit hard for me to follow....
But I agree, it's not so hard....people just feel differently about exactly what constitutes being 'racist'.
racism:"noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement"

Some accept the generalized idea that it's only about negative racial prejudice, some accept the idea that it's about (falsely*) discriminating (used in the literal sense, meaning "to note or observe a difference") between races at all (*because in nearly every case, race is not actually indicative of a specific trait).

The difference between prejudice and racial prejudice is the latter is prejudging based on race. It can be a positive or negative judgment, in either case. EDIT: that's why when it's negative, you would say 'prejudiced AGAINST'.

that was hilarious. I love the PC Police as usual, doesn't even grasp the concept of free speech and comedy. Yes, some jokes are racist and offensive, but that doesn't automatically make them bad, or even make the person telling them an actual racist. And by the way, telling jokes isn't the problem with racism. Racism is the problem with racism.

Let's check the definition or racist:
. a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others

Is Louie CK a racist because he made that joke? Did he advocate the inferiority of black people in any way? And even if he did it, in a joke, it's completely different from doing it with a straight face and actually believing that shit.

It's perfectly normal that some people find that joke offensive and not funny at all. What's not normal is wanting to define the world by your limited concepts.

Light the fuck up already.

@oritteropo

There are analyses floating around by just about every major player. A majority seems to agree that it would be manageable for the Eurozone and better for Greece. Others, including Varoufakis, argue that Grexit would destablize the Eurozone and be a catastrophe for Greece. Too many variables, too many vested interests... who knows what would happen.

The projections on the other hand were a hoot. What a joke they were.

What was the fiscal multiplier in their initial projections? Something along the lines of 0.75, right? Reduce public spending by a Euro and the economy contracts by just 75 cents. Too bad it turned out to be at least 2.5, probably even far more during certain phases. Ricardian equivalence, my ass.

Here is the IMF outlook of 2010. Bill Mitchell made a nice table for comparison. They did a crackerjack job, didn't they.

IMF research admitted their mistake in 2012, but the policy department doesn't seem to care. Shouldn't come as a suprise to anyone, given the role the IMF played in the application of the shock doctrine all over the world in the last decades. Chicago School of Economics, all the way.

If I look at the list of countries that were ruined by the IMF through policy advisory and loans with strings attached, I wonder just how they still manage to paint Syriza as the ones lacking credibility. Is it because they lack the experience of destroying an economy?

Yet with all that in mind, the Greeks actually prefer the IMF as a partner if the alternative is German officials. How depressing for me as a German.

Remember what Christine Lagarde said about Greece in 2012? The Grauniad still has the goods. Or how she argued for expansionary austerity in 2010? Krugman, to his credit, made fun of the concept back then, but even he severly underestimated just how willing these people are to turn this stuff into policy.

But still preferrable to German officials. Ouch.

Greece and Ukraine, two manifestations of the shock doctrine.

Coming at this from the perspective of academic philosophy I think the truth of the matter is ultimately very simple (however the details can be almost infinitely complex and diverse in how we apply them).

Simply put it appears impossible to demonstrate any kind of ultimate ethical authority or perfect ethical principles objectively.

One can certainly assert them, but they would always be subject to the problem of underdetermination (no facts, only interpretations) and as such subjective.

Even strictly humanist systems of ethics like concequentialism and deontology are at their core based on some arbitrary assumption or rule e.g. minimising harm, maximising pleasure, setting a universal principle, putting the concequences before the intention etc. etc.

As such I think the only honest and objective absolute moral principle is "Nothing is true and everything is permitted" (the law of the strong). All else can only truly be supported by preference and necessity. We do not "Know" moral truth, we only appear to interpret and create it.

This being the case it is the opinion of myself and a great many post modern philosophers that ethics is essentially a specialised branch of aesthetics. An important one still, but none the less it is still a study of preference and beauty rather than one of epistemological truth.

By this logic one could certainly argue that the organic "Humanist" approach to ethics and morality as outlined in this video seems infinitely preferable to any sort of static absolute moral authority.

If morality is at its core just a measure of the degree of thought and extrapolation one applies to maximising preferable outcomes then the "humanist" seems like they would have an inherent advantage in their potential capacity to discover and refine ever more preferable principles and outcomes. A static system by its very nature seems less able to maximise it's own moral preferences when presented by ever changing circumstances.


However I'm about to kind of undermine that very point by suggesting that ultimately what we are calling "humanism" here is universal. i.e. that even the most static and dictatorial ethical system (e.g. Wahhabism or Christian fundamentalism) is still ultimately an expression of aesthetic preference and choice.

It is aesthetically preferable to a fundamentalist to assert the absolute moral authority and command of God and while arguably less developed and adaptable (and thus less preferable by most Humanist standards), it is still at it's core the exercise of a preference and as such covered by humanism in general.

i.e. if you want to be a "humanist" then you should probably be wary of placing ultimate blame for atrocities on specific doctrines, as the core of your own position is that morality is a human condition not a divine one. i.e. religion did not make people condone slavery or start wars, human behaviour did.

We can certainly argue for the empirical superiority of "humanism" vs natural authority by looking at history and the different behaviours of various groups & societies. But really what we are arguing there is simply that a more considered and tolerant approach appears to make most people seem happier and results in less unpleasant things happing.

i.e. a preference supported by consensus & unfortunately that doesn't give us any more moral authority than a fanatic or predator beyond our ability to enforce it and persuade others to conform.

"Nothing is true and everything is permitted", "right" and "wrong" can only be derived from subjective principles ergo "right" and "wrong" should probably instead be replaced with "desirable" and "undesirable" as this seems closer to what one is actually expressing with a moral preference.

I completely agree with the sentiment in the video, more freedom of thought seems to mean more capacity to extrapolate and empathise. The wider your understanding and experience of people and the world the more one appears to recognise and appreciate the shared condition of being human.

But I must never forget that this apparent superiority is ultimately based on an interpretation and preference of my own and not some absolute principle. The only absolute principle I can observe in nature seems to be that chaos & conflict tend towards increasing order and complexity, but by this standard it is only really the conflict itself which is moral or "good/right" and not the various beliefs of the combatants specifically.

@enoch

Both @A10anis sentences say roughly the same thing, just poetically phased differently as the 1st focuses on the message, whereas the 2nd on the passing of the message.
Consolidated and rephrased more directly "children should have access to this message/video".

To remove the conflicting poetry and interpret it as intended, re-read it while replacing "brainwashing" with "teaching" and "doctrine" with "message".

did you just advocate indoctrination and brainwashing of children?
trading religious doctrine for secular doctrine?
while one may be more attractive to you than the other..it is STILL:brainwashing and indoctrination!

how about we step away from those practices and instead actually teach children how to utilize information in a positive fashion.give them the techniques to analyze,criticize and formulate their own conclusions?

you know...
the ability to be a free thinker.
how about that?
can we do that?
i think thats a much better idea.

/drops mic
*christ on a stick..brainwashing kids..........cant be serious.....

This simple, but beautiful message transcends race, creed and colour, it should be shown - regularly - to every child on the planet. This form of brainwashing - unlike the religious sort - is a doctrine we should embrace.

You forgot one....
'The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church.'-Ferdinand Magellan

I would say that many of these people in your linked list were not actually 'creation scientists', most were from before the invention of the scientific method, and many others were heretics that may not have stood in public opposition to 'creation science', but didn't believe it. At the time, stating something against the church's doctrine might get you tortured to death.
That's not why we call scientific 'laws' laws. It has NOTHING to do with church or god.
Not a single hypothesis in 'young earth' "theory" (a complete misuse of the word 'theory') is testable, because they're just plain wrong and based on a single person's terribly bad math based on the bible and the length of each generation listed within it. It was NEVER scientific in any way. Sorry.
Not a single hypothesis in creation "theory" (there's that misuse of the word again, it's not a 'theory') is testable either. Not one. If it were, you would have scientific proof of god, and you simply don't. Please don't lie about science.
Macroevolution has been seen in the lab, in fruit flies and bacteria amongst others. It has been observed and repeated with empirical testing. IT is a THEORY, not an inference based on an unprovable hypothesis (like creation science and young earth both are).

Apparently there's yet another Gruber video. (There could be a Gruber Film Festival!)

("OMG!") Fox gets flack for, you know, exposing Democrats like Pelosi, but it's she who now claims that she doesn't know who Gruber is, despite invoking him many times in the campaigning for the bill's passage.

At least Gruber tells the truth about ACA just being another tax on "the people."

“So basically it's the same thing,” he said. “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

That's the truth also about, "tax the rich," or "tax corporations." Corporations will just pass on the cost to "consumers." Tax anyone always means tax "the people." But the masses of "the American voter," like voters anywhere it seems, or at least the "progressive ones," for whatever reason don't understand that. There is no "free" government service. No "free" education. No "free" housing. Someone will pay for it and more likely than not those at the bottom will pay for it.

EDIT:
There's at least 7 Gruber videos now.

"It’s one thing for Americans to suspect that their President lies to them. It’s quite another to hear a key Obama adviser boast of it." (Videosift pundits disagree, of course.)

From the Washington Post :

"Obama also insisted repeatedly that the individual mandate “is absolutely not a tax increase.” In a 2009 interview with ABC News, George Stephanopoulos pressed him on it no less than five times. He even read Obama the definition of “tax” from Webster’s dictionary. Obama was adamant: “My critics say everything is a tax increase. . . . I absolutely reject that notion.”

"Then, after Obamacare passed, his administration cynically turned around and argued before the Supreme Court that it was in fact a tax. At one point, Justice Samuel Alito asked Obama’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, “why do you keep saying tax?,” drawing peals of laughter."

"The reason he called it a tax is because — as Jonathan Gruber now admits — members of the Obama team knew all along that it was a tax. They intentionally deceived Americans about it because if they had called it a tax, Obamacare would never have become law."

* * *

All of these videos, of course, make little difference to the partisan Democrats, not unlike partisan Republicans when they get exposed. But they do make a difference with the "independents" who decide elections: the ones who can vote one way or the other. So the Democrats can expect for this to continue until the next election.

Good things to know: The "anti- commandeering doctrine."
Know the laws of the land.

Ya, sorry, never subscribe to the 'super secret club' version of Christianity. One can interpret the scriptures in a multitude of ways, and one can always cherry pick passages to reinforce an exclusivist view, one that I've chosen to interpret quite differently than the usual 'no heatens allowed' doctrines.

@billpayer
i do not think it is fair to judge so harshly based on so little.@RedSky and @gwiz665 are far from dumb,quite the opposite.they are just expressing their opinions,which you are free to disagree but to dismiss them so readily removes the opportunity to discuss WHY you may disagree.(ok,you did but the tone was a tad..harsh)

i quite enjoy sparring with both of them.they bring perspective and a sharp insight to many discussions and im glad your post brought qwiz out of retirement.

i think @RedSky made an excellent point that the argument by harris lacked the inclusion of socio-economic factors (i would add historical context as well).while your disagreement with @gwiz665 is that he made the argument that jews do not proselytize,which while true,is a highly reductionist way to condense a religion.there are soo many factors which contribute to a religion,sacred texts being only one,single factor.

the real fight is absolutist thinking,a rigid adherence to doctrine and dogma that is the true enemy of humanity.be it for a religion or nationalism,both should be questioned and criticized.

which is exactly what we are doing here yes?

and just a side note,because i think you may not be aware:i am not an atheist

@RedSky profiling is dumb. I thought that exactly as Harris mention the old granny in the wheelchair who shouldn't be searched. Guess what, if that was the case where do you think they will hide the next one ? It's so dumb. If the bad guys know you will not search children or old people, who do you think will be used for smuggling next ?.
Your other post, Radical Christians are just as happy to die and go to heaven. it's called the Military, and yes they forcibly proselytize and recruit from the poor and minorities and yes they murder people of other religions on a massive scale.

@gwiz665 No. Judaism is just as bad. Judaism also suffers from Racism. That could be argued is why it does not spread. Look up Jewish intermarriage. Their doctrine preaches the disregard and manipulation of the 'GOYA' or 'animals' because they are lesser human beings. That is why they do not inter-marry or recruit. That is why over 90% Israeli's support bombing defenseless Gazans including targeting children. That is why Israel is imprisoning or forcibly deporting Africans. That is why Israel treats Israeli Arabs like sub humans.

ALL RELIGIONS ARE EQUALLY AWFUL.

I can't believe Cenk couldn't understand Harris's point that there's a difference between a disagreement and factually misrepresenting another's viewpoint.

Cenk also then fails to understand the nuance in religious beliefs and how those differences matter. I mean, this seems really obvious. Yes it matters how many layers of improbability people layer on their belief system since it's their belief system we're concerned with.

That's why Harris treats Islamic doctrine differently, because it's so obviously different then the other major belief systems and deserves the extra attention.

Then Cenk goes on to say lay the blame of WW2 on Christianity? Yea Germany and Japan attacked their neighbors due to their Christian beliefs. Seriously? He smugly says: "oh when Muslims do something it's because of Islam but when Christians do it, it's complicated."

Cenk is so out of his depth throughout this interview that it's embarrassing.

I can't believe someone wrote that Cenk won this "debate". Get your head checked, this isn't even a debate, this is Harris trying to get Cenk to understand basic concepts.