I was 18, barely supporting myself working at dominoes pizza. I felt sure I couldn't get a lawyer to talk to me without a video and hospital record, much less do something. I didn't have serious injuries, just some scrapes and dirty clothes, and a well earned lifelong distrust of cops.
This was the 80's when people didn't get paid big bucks for civil rights violations they could prove, and all I had was my punk kid word against an entire police force. That wasn't opening any doors.
When I couldn't even make a record of the incident, I dropped it. After all, the cop did tell me he had my address so I should just walk away and not make trouble for myself, and his superior was clearly going to have his back 100%, to the point of refusing to take my complaint, aggressively. I really just wanted the cop to be reprimanded for being so threatening even after realizing it was all his mistake, I didn't see a winnable case or dollar signs.

We'll get there. I'm sure @ChaosEngine will respond again, he's a last-word kind of guy.

Hey @ChaosEngine, I agree, the video is stupid, but I wasn't commenting on the video, I was commenting on your gender-bias'ed ideas about what careers suit which sex.

Male nurses? WTF AM I RIGHT.
>> ^Unsung_Hero:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^KnivesOut:
What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?
Christ, would you please go back and read my post? I've already said I want "more capable, passionate scientists".
>> ^KnivesOut:
The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?
You I doubt you'll get "more smart people". The percentage of "smart people" will stay the same as it roughly always has. You'll just get more mediocre people doing things they're not good at.
That said, more scientific literacy can't be a bad thing. But I'm not arguing against more people in science. I'm asking why we need more of insert-demograhpic-here in science. I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is. This kind of thing just feels like quota filling.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.
I'm not. That's a pretty selfish attitude to be honest. I would rather see those people doing something they're good at, or at least something they like.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.

I don't disagree with promoting science.
So far, even if you agree with the goal and methodology, it's a complete fail. This wouldn't convince a single teenage girl that science is cool. The ones that think it's nerdy will have that confirmed to them by this desperate attempt to be cool and the ones that like science will be disgusted by this patronising bullshit.
Now if there are barriers to women in science, they should be removed.

I just wanted to be part of this extremely long quoted comment. Are we near the record yet!?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^KnivesOut:
What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?
Christ, would you please go back and read my post? I've already said I want "more capable, passionate scientists".
>> ^KnivesOut:
The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?
You I doubt you'll get "more smart people". The percentage of "smart people" will stay the same as it roughly always has. You'll just get more mediocre people doing things they're not good at.
That said, more scientific literacy can't be a bad thing. But I'm not arguing against more people in science. I'm asking why we need more of insert-demograhpic-here in science. I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is. This kind of thing just feels like quota filling.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.
I'm not. That's a pretty selfish attitude to be honest. I would rather see those people doing something they're good at, or at least something they like.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.

I don't disagree with promoting science.
So far, even if you agree with the goal and methodology, it's a complete fail. This wouldn't convince a single teenage girl that science is cool. The ones that think it's nerdy will have that confirmed to them by this desperate attempt to be cool and the ones that like science will be disgusted by this patronising bullshit.
Now if there are barriers to women in science, they should be removed.


I just wanted to be part of this extremely long quoted comment. Are we near the record yet!?

>> ^KnivesOut:

What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?

Christ, would you please go back and read my post? I've already said I want "more capable, passionate scientists".

>> ^KnivesOut:

The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?

You I doubt you'll get "more smart people". The percentage of "smart people" will stay the same as it roughly always has. You'll just get more mediocre people doing things they're not good at.

That said, more scientific literacy can't be a bad thing. But I'm not arguing against more people in science. I'm asking why we need more of insert-demograhpic-here in science. I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is. This kind of thing just feels like quota filling.

>> ^KnivesOut:

I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.

I'm not. That's a pretty selfish attitude to be honest. I would rather see those people doing something they're good at, or at least something they like.

>> ^KnivesOut:

I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.


I don't disagree with promoting science.

So far, even if you agree with the goal and methodology, it's a complete fail. This wouldn't convince a single teenage girl that science is cool. The ones that think it's nerdy will have that confirmed to them by this desperate attempt to be cool and the ones that like science will be disgusted by this patronising bullshit.

Now if there are barriers to women in science, they should be removed.

What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?

The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?

I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.

I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^KnivesOut:
So you're pre-supposing that women are not good at science, because historically there have been fewer women scientists? Were there fewer women scientists because they are "not suited" for it, or because they have historically been discouraged from doing so?
I think you might want to introspect a little, you are suffering from exactly the type of sexism that this campaign is attempting to thwart.
Wow, you have so completely missed my point, it's not even funny.
I am not pre-supposing anything about women in science. I'm all for anyone in science, as long as they're good at it. Their gender is irrelevant.
Again, what do we gain from having more women in science? What do we gain from having more men? More asians? More short people? These things are completely orthogonal to the outcome; more capable, passionate scientists.
Put it this way. When I started working as a programmer, it was just around the time of the dot com bubble. Whereas before programming was seen as something geeky and uncool, all of a sudden it was the career to have. As a consequence, there were suddenly tonnes of people working in programming who a) didn't care about it and b) were terrible at it.
The people who are good at science and care about it will naturally find their way to it. What women certainly don't need is some patronising bullshit program like this.

Gyms and diet drug manufacturers get dollar signs in their eyes when they hear that more Americans are obese or overweight. Dentists get dollar signs in their eyes when they hear that kids are eating more sugar and drinking more soft drinks. Airbag manufacturers get dollar signs in their eyes whenever there is a fatal highway accident. US grain farmers get dollar signs in their eyes when they hear there is a famine in China or Russia. Munitions manufacturers get dollar signs in their eyes every time we take a step closer to the inevitable next war with North Korea, Iran, or whoever else.

People investing in "terrible" things that make you more money when situations go from bad to worse, and companies that try to sell shares to investors based on the cynical assumption that things are going downhill fail to shock or dismay me. On the other hand, companies that spend boatloads of money lobbying to ensure that things actually do go from bad to worse deserve all the ire we can muster. So I guess that the bigger problem that I see here is the incredible extent that we've allowed lobbying, "campaign financing", etc. to corrupt and subvert our governmental system.

I see dollar signs.

>> ^ulysses1904:

Yeah his voice is obnoxious. And the editing and sound effects are the usual manipulative crap. The only thing missing is the mushroom cloud at the finale. Or was it there, I stopped watching before the end.


However, the message for the cars is completely true. I am not a wealthy person, so fluctuations in used car parts is a real pain for me...and it has been noticeable. Even moreso since many of the components I have needed of late have been engine related.
>> ^handmethekeysyou:

I almost upvoted this video after the beginning sequence.
But after the narrator's obnoxious tone, and then specifically the line, "but this government misallocation of money and resources always[emphasis mine] leads to unintended consequences," I stopped watching.
Always? Now there are a few ways of interpreting this sentences. First would be that when the government misallocates money and resources, there are unintended consequences. I won't disagree with that semantically, but if that's what he's saying, does it really need to be said? When the government screws up, it screws up. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.
A second interpretation is that government policy always misallocates money and resources & there are always, without fail, unintended consequences. Well, now I'll disagree semantically. Saying that all policy misallocates $$ & resources is ludicrous. If the video is going to talk about the fact that in all policy, there is always some money misused, that sounds interesting and is a worthwhile, constructive criticism. But something in those ominous clouds composited behind the Capitol Building tells me this isn't going to be an objective, in-depth look at government spending.
I suppose this video is 10 minutes of cherry-picked policies that the government screwed up. I'd love to watch and get worked up about it, but now I know it would just be anti-government propaganda.
...
I decided to watch some of it since maybe it was unfair to rail on it so hard after only a minute. Things that struck me:
- Use of Uncle Sam to suggest overbearing government propaganda. Video then proceeds to lay the propaganda on heavier than a North Korean campaign to get you to trim your hair. People in the streets, in photo negative! Capitol building with dollar signs coming out it, heading right for the lens, in photo negative! How about you composite some more shots over other shots to make this all seem so overwhelming? I think there was a full 5 seconds in there without a single hit or sting. I was bored and not emotionally outraged during those 5 seconds. Please reedit to fix.
- You're going to argue against "regulations" at large? All regulation is hurting me, the consumer, the citizen? [Regulating the amount of lead in my paint ultimately costs me more money, which means I can't provide as well for my children, who are currently eating paint chips.] Strange that he doesn't name a single specific regulation. Though it's actually nice. It saves me from having to think. Now I know, regulation=bad, and I don't need to worry my pretty little head about the whys and hows of it all.
- Nor does he explain the line "We have recently seen that sometimes it's the regulator that keeps bad businesses in business." Ok, sometimes that happens...like, when? Oh, I don't actually know any examples, just sometimes it happens. I can't wait to put on a smug expression of intellectual superiority after I wow the crowd at my next cocktail party when I pull this nugget out.
- During the regulation bit, he does relate that we're paying a "regulation tax" that's priced into my health insurance, shoes, clothing [shoes aren't clothing?], food, cars, homes, and pretty much anything I buy. I hate taxes! I buy at least 3 of those things! [So what?] So...I hate regulations! Which regulations do I hate again? [Not sure.] All of them! [Did I mention this is propaganda?]
I stopped after the regulations part [can you tell I didn't like that bit?]. I have no conclusive paragraph to sum everything up. This video is terrible and offensive.


There are many examples of bad companies staying in power because of using the power of law to enforce their agenda. For instance, the enjoyed legal monopoly of most telco and cable companies. Or, the higher prices Americans pay for sugar because of import tariffs on sugar. And thusly making corn sugar, its unhealthier cousin, the mainstay of American diets. Or, the corn subsidy that makes corn feeding beef more economical, even though it causes ecoli to then be produced by said cattle; this all benefits fast food industries to the defiant of us all. Or minimum wage, it necessarily raises unemployment by denying low skilled workers access to market priced labor; this protects high skilled labor from ever being found wanting for lower priced labor mainly benefiting large union positions, while relegating to perpetual unemployment/illegal employment a low skilled migrant worker.

But I admit, there needed to be more examples and less dogma in the video.

I almost upvoted this video after the beginning sequence.

But after the narrator's obnoxious tone, and then specifically the line, "but this government misallocation of money and resources always[emphasis mine] leads to unintended consequences," I stopped watching.

Always? Now there are a few ways of interpreting this sentences. First would be that when the government misallocates money and resources, there are unintended consequences. I won't disagree with that semantically, but if that's what he's saying, does it really need to be said? When the government screws up, it screws up. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.

A second interpretation is that government policy always misallocates money and resources & there are always, without fail, unintended consequences. Well, now I'll disagree semantically. Saying that all policy misallocates $$ & resources is ludicrous. If the video is going to talk about the fact that in all policy, there is always some money misused, that sounds interesting and is a worthwhile, constructive criticism. But something in those ominous clouds composited behind the Capitol Building tells me this isn't going to be an objective, in-depth look at government spending.

I suppose this video is 10 minutes of cherry-picked policies that the government screwed up. I'd love to watch and get worked up about it, but now I know it would just be anti-government propaganda.

...

I decided to watch some of it since maybe it was unfair to rail on it so hard after only a minute. Things that struck me:

- Use of Uncle Sam to suggest overbearing government propaganda. Video then proceeds to lay the propaganda on heavier than a North Korean campaign to get you to trim your hair. People in the streets, in photo negative! Capitol building with dollar signs coming out it, heading right for the lens, in photo negative! How about you composite some more shots over other shots to make this all seem so overwhelming? I think there was a full 5 seconds in there without a single hit or sting. I was bored and not emotionally outraged during those 5 seconds. Please reedit to fix.

- You're going to argue against "regulations" at large? All regulation is hurting me, the consumer, the citizen? [Regulating the amount of lead in my paint ultimately costs me more money, which means I can't provide as well for my children, who are currently eating paint chips.] Strange that he doesn't name a single specific regulation. Though it's actually nice. It saves me from having to think. Now I know, regulation=bad, and I don't need to worry my pretty little head about the whys and hows of it all.

- Nor does he explain the line "We have recently seen that sometimes it's the regulator that keeps bad businesses in business." Ok, sometimes that happens...like, when? Oh, I don't actually know any examples, just sometimes it happens. I can't wait to put on a smug expression of intellectual superiority after I wow the crowd at my next cocktail party when I pull this nugget out.

- During the regulation bit, he does relate that we're paying a "regulation tax" that's priced into my health insurance, shoes, clothing [shoes aren't clothing?], food, cars, homes, and pretty much anything I buy. I hate taxes! I buy at least 3 of those things! [So what?] So...I hate regulations! Which regulations do I hate again? [Not sure.] All of them! [Did I mention this is propaganda?]

I stopped after the regulations part [can you tell I didn't like that bit?]. I have no conclusive paragraph to sum everything up. This video is terrible and offensive.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If you believe liberal doctrine, Whites are no longer allowed--if they ever were--to be proud of their heritage. Second-class citizenship has been shifted from Blacks to Whites.

What heritage are you not allowed to be proud of? Your American heritage? Your European heritage? Your white American heritage? Are you not proud of who you are? Do you hate yourself? >> ^quantumushroom:

For every Black person who takes pride in who they are and Americanism, flawed though the latter may be, there is a sad-eyed liberal or Je$$e Jack$on-type in the wings saying, "No, you are not free, you are a victim."

So racism is an illusion, and black people are really being kept down by sad liberals and Jesse Jackson? Again, this sounds like you want to shut me and Jesse Jackson up about race. Sorry, qm, but that's not going to happen, even if you call me 'sad-eyed' or put dollar signs on my screenname. >> ^quantumushroom:

1) If black people shut up about racism the problem will go away? No one is saying "shut up" except the purveyors of 2)politically-correct speech codes. 3)Liberal doctrine might be taken more seriously if it didn't demand race be brought into every single argument.


1) You said "I prefer Morgan Freeman's take on race: stop talking about it." and Geesusfreak said, "but this constant heehawing about supposed acts of racism seems to just prolong the healing." in this very thread. Sorry to contradict you with your own words.

2) 'Political correctness' is just a scary, clinical sounding euphemism for respectful language, used because no one would listen to you if you ranted against treating people with respect. Our culture is changing, and openly racist language is becoming less acceptable. Most people consider this a good thing.

3) You chose to watch and comment on a video about the subject of racism in American. Your comment was about race, and even includes the word race. What was your point again?

I've seen you watching her
Every time she crosses the floor
So why don't you just go and talk to
The one you really adore?
I'm getting pretty used to being
The one you always ignore
When somebody wants you
I've seen it before

You're every kind of color
There ain't nothing that you won't claim
Your ambition and promise
And your addiction to fame
And everyone's got a dollar sign
After their name
When somebody wants you
You treat them just the same

So go on and pick up
You don't care what poison you choose
And what person you lose
Should've been me, yeah
Shouldn't it be?

The crushing quiet
Blows in through your window
To someone that wants you
That you'll never know
But I'll pick up around you
And clear everything out
Leave you where I found you
I figured you out
Leave you where I found you
I figured you out

Chords here: http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/tabs/e/elliott_smith/i_figured_you_out_crd.htm

>> ^Enzoblue:
Disgusts me that this guy has dollar signs in his eyes, he never once mentions how much good can come from this. I wonder how many in the third world need to die to maximize profits.


What the fuck have you done lately to significantly increase the tool kit of the third world?

>> ^Enzoblue:
Disgusts me that this guy has dollar signs in his eyes, he never once mentions how much good can come from this. I wonder how many in the third world need to die to maximize profits.


If you've got the millions lying around to produce this product, why don't you buy the patent from him? That way you can send every single innovative bag to third world countries.

And I hope your name isn't a reference to the Ferrari Enzo, because that would seem rather materialistic for someone so concerned with helping others, saving the world, and otherwise trashing the very economic concept which made such a brand possible.

"Disgusts me that this guy has dollar signs in his eyes, he never once mentions how much good can come from this. I wonder how many in the third world need to die to maximize profits."

"Unbounded morality ultimately becomes counterproductive even in terms of the same moral principles being sought. The law of diminishing returns applies to morality."
-Thomas Sowell

Disgusts me that this guy has dollar signs in his eyes, he never once mentions how much good can come from this. I wonder how many in the third world need to die to maximize profits.