Thanks for the clarification.

We seem to be circling the same point. But I can tell we won't ever agree.

Except we can agree to drop it!

I am always happiest when I can find agreement. Means we really listen to each other, on however small a point.


In reply to this comment by Yogi:
In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
I'm moving to here so we don't bore anybody.

Look, your main point seems to be that if you don't agree that Assange approached this whole wikileak business exactly the way he did, then the person who disagrees with you automatically is a shill of corporations. That is the only thing that I am arguing with.

I am very tired of the ascribing of motivations to people that happens quite a bit on the sift. This is just another example of it. Maddow had a reasoned position for her point of view, that was somewhat complex. One word was pulled out of her reasoned position -- "minor" -- and all holy hell was brought down to refute that one word, while ignoring the whole of her argument, and this somehow became proof that she is Corporate Monster.

I really am not interested in defending her argument. I thought it was reasonable. I have other issues with the way Assange has gone about doing what he purports to want to do. I understand your point of view, I have had this conversation with other people who believe passionately in what Assange is doing and think of him as fighting the good fight. I have heard the arguments, and so far I am not swayed. I have wavered -- and the bullet point list certainly gave me pause -- however I always come back to about where Maddow is. I may yet change my mind as more information becomes available to me.

So what does all this mean? It means I truly am listening, and I just don't agree with you.

That doesn't make me a shill of corporations.

Can we agree on that? That a difference of opinion doesn't make me -- or Maddow -- some corporate monster?

In reply to this comment by Yogi:
>> ^bareboards2:

Yeah, I read it. Doesn't change my opinion that she has a valid point of view.
I disagree with you. I agree with her. That doesn't make us a scourge of humanity. Nor a shill of corporations.
Just two people who have a different opinion than you.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bareboards2:
I admire Rachel. She is often the voice of reason. No exception here, in my opinion.

Did you not read all that stuff below the video? This basically exposed Maddow to all those people who thought that a "Free Thinker" got their own show on an American News network. What did you guys think that she was special or something? That the public relations industry wouldn't notice her challenging their power and just let it slide?
She's funded by corporations...she would not be in the position she is unless she knew the rules...she's a vanguard there to stifle debate. It's always going to be just like NPR THIS FAR and no further because you can't say and do certain things...such as challenging power.



Really? You think that playing the "It's just a different opinion card" works in this situation rather than refuting the evidence against your argument that has been presented?

Possibly you have an opinion on any of the bullet points at the top of this page?

I guess I didn't make it all that clear. I was pointing out that this reveals to those who think Maddow is somehow special that she's not...she'll attack Wikileaks just like any member of the American media. Now you could defend her opinion that's fair I'm not going to sit here and discuss the strategies of Wikileaks or her opinion of them.

I am going to say though that she would not have her job if she hadn't already been indoctrinated sufficiently and wasn't already a corporate shill. Maybe she's less so than other people but I'm tired of having this argument with some liberals who say that Maddow is smashing the system. She isn't she's a part of it, you don't need to dissect all of her arguments and opinions to know that. She has her own show on MSNBC...she is funded by GE and Microsoft and several other corporations, these are huge bastions of power in the US.

We're not really arguing about the same things though, so we might as well drop it.

I'm moving to here so we don't bore anybody.

Look, your main point seems to be that if you don't agree that Assange approached this whole wikileak business exactly the way he did, then the person who disagrees with you automatically is a shill of corporations. That is the only thing that I am arguing with.

I am very tired of the ascribing of motivations to people that happens quite a bit on the sift. This is just another example of it. Maddow had a reasoned position for her point of view, that was somewhat complex. One word was pulled out of her reasoned position -- "minor" -- and all holy hell was brought down to refute that one word, while ignoring the whole of her argument, and this somehow became proof that she is Corporate Monster.

I really am not interested in defending her argument. I thought it was reasonable. I have other issues with the way Assange has gone about doing what he purports to want to do. I understand your point of view, I have had this conversation with other people who believe passionately in what Assange is doing and think of him as fighting the good fight. I have heard the arguments, and so far I am not swayed. I have wavered -- and the bullet point list certainly gave me pause -- however I always come back to about where Maddow is. I may yet change my mind as more information becomes available to me.

So what does all this mean? It means I truly am listening, and I just don't agree with you.

That doesn't make me a shill of corporations.

Can we agree on that? That a difference of opinion doesn't make me -- or Maddow -- some corporate monster?

In reply to this comment by Yogi:
>> ^bareboards2:

Yeah, I read it. Doesn't change my opinion that she has a valid point of view.
I disagree with you. I agree with her. That doesn't make us a scourge of humanity. Nor a shill of corporations.
Just two people who have a different opinion than you.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bareboards2:
I admire Rachel. She is often the voice of reason. No exception here, in my opinion.

Did you not read all that stuff below the video? This basically exposed Maddow to all those people who thought that a "Free Thinker" got their own show on an American News network. What did you guys think that she was special or something? That the public relations industry wouldn't notice her challenging their power and just let it slide?
She's funded by corporations...she would not be in the position she is unless she knew the rules...she's a vanguard there to stifle debate. It's always going to be just like NPR THIS FAR and no further because you can't say and do certain things...such as challenging power.



Really? You think that playing the "It's just a different opinion card" works in this situation rather than refuting the evidence against your argument that has been presented?

Possibly you have an opinion on any of the bullet points at the top of this page?

>> ^bareboards2:

Yeah, I read it. Doesn't change my opinion that she has a valid point of view.
I disagree with you. I agree with her. That doesn't make us a scourge of humanity. Nor a shill of corporations.
Just two people who have a different opinion than you.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bareboards2:
I admire Rachel. She is often the voice of reason. No exception here, in my opinion.

Did you not read all that stuff below the video? This basically exposed Maddow to all those people who thought that a "Free Thinker" got their own show on an American News network. What did you guys think that she was special or something? That the public relations industry wouldn't notice her challenging their power and just let it slide?
She's funded by corporations...she would not be in the position she is unless she knew the rules...she's a vanguard there to stifle debate. It's always going to be just like NPR THIS FAR and no further because you can't say and do certain things...such as challenging power.



Really? You think that playing the "It's just a different opinion card" works in this situation rather than refuting the evidence against your argument that has been presented?

Possibly you have an opinion on any of the bullet points at the top of this page?

Yeah, I read it. Doesn't change my opinion that she has a valid point of view.

I disagree with you. I agree with her. That doesn't make us a scourge of humanity. Nor a shill of corporations.

Just two people who have a different opinion than you.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bareboards2:
I admire Rachel. She is often the voice of reason. No exception here, in my opinion.

Did you not read all that stuff below the video? This basically exposed Maddow to all those people who thought that a "Free Thinker" got their own show on an American News network. What did you guys think that she was special or something? That the public relations industry wouldn't notice her challenging their power and just let it slide?
She's funded by corporations...she would not be in the position she is unless she knew the rules...she's a vanguard there to stifle debate. It's always going to be just like NPR THIS FAR and no further because you can't say and do certain things...such as challenging power.

>> ^bareboards2:

I admire Rachel. She is often the voice of reason. No exception here, in my opinion.


Did you not read all that stuff below the video? This basically exposed Maddow to all those people who thought that a "Free Thinker" got their own show on an American News network. What did you guys think that she was special or something? That the public relations industry wouldn't notice her challenging their power and just let it slide?

She's funded by corporations...she would not be in the position she is unless she knew the rules...she's a vanguard there to stifle debate. It's always going to be just like NPR THIS FAR and no further because you can't say and do certain things...such as challenging power.

I see what you're saying. I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not gonna say the world is all tulips and butterflies, but as someone who used to be in a pretty dark place myself and think there was no point to anything, I guess the only thing I can offer is the hope that maybe you won't feel that way forever. In my case, I realized a lot of the assumptions I was making about other people were just plain wrong. They were based on the fact that I'd been hurt pretty bad when I was younger by people I trusted, and I kind of developed this self-defense mechanism of just assuming everyone is an asshat. If you don't ever get close to anybody, they can't ever hurt you right?

I can't say it was any one thing that changed me in the end. Over time I started to become aware of inconsistencies in my perceptions. People I thought were total assholes turned out to be all right. And other people that were actually assholes... I came to understand why they acted that way. Sometimes, knowing how they got there, I couldn't blame them. Plus, I was pretty miserable too believing the worst in people all the time. So I decided to change.

Anyways, I hope you can change your mind someday too.

In reply to this comment by NinjaInHeat:
You're right, about pretty much everything you said, but there's no better or worse here, there's a person and his willingness to make "his world" better. Will I receive less support when I need it most if I turn my back on most people in my community, of course, that is unfortunately not reason enough for me to not do so seeing as I hate my community. I can be a "better" person, I can say hi to my neighbors, I can help people out, I can do lots of shit, I just don't want to in most cases. It's not some fierce ideology, it's just me as a person reacting to how I feel about my fellow man (which is usually disgust). Don't get me wrong, I don't go out of my way to fuck people over, and I'm not an asshole generally, but I will go out of my way to remain passive, just the thought of associating myself with other people in some common goal makes me sick. Human kind is a mass of retarded flesh from which occasionally there gets spewed a decent chunk, a free thinker, someone I can respect. Ignoring everyone but those few can be considered childish, but in my eyes it's not an option, it's either that or to be constantly consumed by rage and frustration, the world of tomorrow doesn't really enter the equation...

You're right, about pretty much everything you said, but there's no better or worse here, there's a person and his willingness to make "his world" better. Will I receive less support when I need it most if I turn my back on most people in my community, of course, that is unfortunately not reason enough for me to not do so seeing as I hate my community. I can be a "better" person, I can say hi to my neighbors, I can help people out, I can do lots of shit, I just don't want to in most cases. It's not some fierce ideology, it's just me as a person reacting to how I feel about my fellow man (which is usually disgust). Don't get me wrong, I don't go out of my way to fuck people over, and I'm not an asshole generally, but I will go out of my way to remain passive, just the thought of associating myself with other people in some common goal makes me sick. Human kind is a mass of retarded flesh from which occasionally there gets spewed a decent chunk, a free thinker, someone I can respect. Ignoring everyone but those few can be considered childish, but in my eyes it's not an option, it's either that or to be constantly consumed by rage and frustration, the world of tomorrow doesn't really enter the equation...

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Your "world," like mine, is probably composed of friends and relatives. That is what I meant by "world," your personal world. And yes, the "world" (your friends and family) will come and help you when you're in a pinch if you've taken the time to carefully forge those connections (and they won't if you haven't). And in fact the greater world at large may come and help you too--but certainly not if you've been turning your back on it and free-riding the whole time.

I'm not asking you to fix society. I'm simply telling you if you want to live in a better "world" (in the personal sense), you can start making changes right where you are. You could say "hi" to your neighbors and get to know them better. You could help clean up trash in your neighborhood. Basically, you can improve your "local" world. Do something. Do anything. Get other people to do something with you (friends or family). And encourage them to get others to do something. Like I said, doesn't have to be huge or take a lot of time. The thing is, it's those collections of individual choices on a grand scale that shape our society. By improving your local "world" you in fact help improve the world at large as well.

As an aside, there's nothing wrong with being egocentric. That was the whole point of my post. If you truly are egocentric you'll realize your happiness in fact rests a great deal on the stability and happiness of the community in which you reside. It's in your best interest to make sure things don't go down the shitter. And (you'll just have to take my word for this) it actually turns out to be a lot more fun than whatever it was you were doing by yourself.

In reply to this comment by NinjaInHeat:
SDGundamX: The "world" doesn't back you up when you're in a pinch. And yes, individual actions do matter, and the world won't become a better place if people sit around and do nothing. I guess all I have to say is that
a: lucky thing the entire world isn't like myself
b: if you're willing to spend time and energy towards making this world a better place to live in (mostly for future generations as actual change takes bucketloads of time), good for you, I'm not, again, I have more egocentric things on my mind, and I lack the will to try and fix a society I feel completely alienated from.

"Despite the "penalties" for an inappropriate use of takedown notice, I don't think there has been a single case ever where this has been applied."

See the public YouTube case of VenomFangX vs. Thunderf00t.

That's just how one false DMCA claim was handled (oddly enough, very similar situation - creationist wanted to stifle free thinker's free speech). There are many more where the DMCA's misuse has seen consequences, and some big names have had to say they were wrong. The EFF would probably be a good place to look, since they're usually involved wherever the DMCA is being invoked, and often, they help with legal expenses of those falsely accused of DMCA infraction (although both Thunderf00t and DonExodus2 both found pro bono help - it seems when it comes to the DMCA and getting a sure-fire case win, you can expect lawyers to come out of the woodwork to your aid).

If you file a DMCA notice on youtube, you are expected to sue the uploaders. If you don't, that's pretty much a given that you're not using the DMCA the way you're supposed to. By law, youtube has to share the takedown letter to the uploader (and they do), so that they can prepare for a lawsuit or counter-suit as the case may be.

Don't get me wrong. The DMCA was a horrible piece of legislation that proves that lawmakers are lazy, incompetent, and just plain out of touch with how the majority of this country thinks. But there's some teeth built into the bill to keep it from being used as a way to stifle free speech. If you're caught misusing the DMCA, you expose yourself to both legal and civil damage. If you cannot pay for your false claims, you can have an injunction placed against you from filing any further DMCA claims.

Whats wrong with prejudice? Prejudice works both ways you know - its not always negative. For example, if you hear someone is an atheist and assume they are a free-thinker. Or if you hear someone is a libertarian and you assume they are very intelligent . Theres just not enough time in the world to get to know every person you meet so most information you gather must be based on assumptions. To act like you have no prejudice is just dishonest.

Prejudice is only a problem when it prevents you from making a rational judgment; i.e. you think Asians are uptight and this prevents you from ever being friends with an Asian - even one who isn't uptight.

I don't like americans, hippies, hipsters, liberals, people with obama 08 bumper stickers, christians, politicians, police officers, military personnel, tax collectors, blacks, jews, or gays

Just kidding on the last three . Point is, disliking whole groups of people isn't a problem unless its irrational. I would be friends with someone belonging to any of those groups. Of course, if you are a hippie obama t-shirt wearing christian tax collector you better have some pretty funny jokes.

>> ^Payback:
>> ^imstellar28:
Thinking Asians are uptight really isn't racism.

You're correct, that's prejudice. Which really isn't any better.

^Atheism is essentially an ideology. There's a difference between a non-believer and an atheist, although the definitions often get muddled together.

All the different words are hard to define sharply, because so many people attribute different meanings to them: non-believer, atheist, agnostic, anti-theist, humanist, secularist, naturalist, free thinker, rationalist - they are all a different facet of the same gem, so to speak.

I'm vehemently opposed to organized religion, the concept of faith, the specific god of the bible and qua'ran (sp?), evangelical believers, irrationalists, people who do not accept evidence that are contrary to their beliefs, people who believe without any shred of evidence, people who are not grown up enough to see the world as it is, mysterianists, people with undeserved power, injustice, willful ignorance, willful confusion of the masses, deception, wickedness (as defined by my own sense of morality), exclusive knowledge, secret societies, secrets, censorship, bondage and slavery.

Whatever pithy label fits that, I'd use. For now Libertarian Atheist covers it fine, I think.

You should definitely mock and deride religion whenever the topic comes up. Just try to avoid self-identifying as an atheist. Just be a person who thinks religion is stupid. You're not an "ist". Claiming an "ism" weakens your position as an independent, free thinker. Atheism comes from within, everything else is indoctrinated. That's why "they" need "isms" and people with free indpendent minds should avoid any belief framework rigid enough to be bound within an ism.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
When the hell did Minnesota become the bastion of bullshit-detecting, no-nonsense free thinkers? (Not knocking Minnesota mind you...)
If I ever hear of a Ventura/Franken ticket, I think I would nut right then and there.


The movie Fargo was simply a decoy film; we WANTED you to think we were all idiots. The best part? Fargo is in North Dakota. Ha! Eh

When the hell did Minnesota become the bastion of bullshit-detecting, no-nonsense free thinkers? (Not knocking Minnesota mind you...)

If I ever hear of a Ventura/Franken ticket, I think I would nut right then and there.

If you don't care about the possible existence of a god, then you are an atheist. It's a very broad category.

Theist - A person who operates under the assumption that a specific God exists.

Atheist - Everybody else:
* People who admit that they don't believe in a specific God.
* People who are afraid to admit they don't believe in God, and pretend to believe.
* People who don't care whether there is a God or not.
* People who say "I don't know one way or the other", but in practical terms operate under the assumption that a judgmental God is highly unlikely to exist.
* People who say "How can you believe in something that cannot be defined?"
* People who have a concrete belief that there is no such thing as God. (Contrary to what crazy theists claim, this is a very small category.)

Gnostic - People who claim it is possible to have first hand knowledge of God, revealed by the divine being himself.

Agnostic - People who don't think revealed knowledge is reliable as evidence.

As you might notice by the above definitions, all agnostics are atheists, since all religions are based on revealed knowledge.

Deists are a very strange category. These are people who really like the idea of an all powerful conscious being, but don't like any of the definitions given by religions. Still, the entire concept is derived from religions, so I tend to lump deists into the theist category. They are, however, just a breath away from admitting they have no idea what their definition of God really is, and falling into the atheist category.

But as joedirt insists on reminding us, the common usage of the terms is that agnostics "don't know if there's a God" and atheists "know there is no God". The problem here is that using the terms in this way is divisive. The current political climate of the United States is such that everybody who does not practice a particular faith would be better served if we could all come together under the correct label so that we might be counted correctly in surveys. The larger our group appears, the easier it will be for more people to admit to themselves and others that they don't believe, and that they will start thinking for themselves rather than simply do as they are told.

Perhaps instead of arguing about agnostic vs. atheist, we can simply call ourselves Free Thinkers.

^ Those surveys are of people who are fully covered! Great for them! What about everybody else?

You don’t get those numbers if the population isn’t right along with it. But – for your edification…

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-10-15-health-poll1.htm

There you go. Poll conducted by Keiser, USA Today, and ABC (no conservatives here) which says that 70% of the UNINSURED are satisfied with their health care. Total population is 88% satisfied. That's as high or higher than the satisfaction rates of people participating in public systems...

You, Winstonfiled_Pennypacker(P), make me sick… closed minded, short sighted, cold hearted piece of human filth, selfish prick, no compassion for anybody but yourself, fear change, fool, selfish bastard...

Its tolerant, patient, open-minded perspectives such as yours that make the neolib movement what it is today. Its always nice to meet folks so accepting of other ideas and points of view. Shine on you crazy diamond.

I would be happy to pay… I would be happy to pay… I would be happy to pay…

Then do so. No one is stopping you. Volunteer at your community clinic. Donate money to your local health care providers. Or if you find that unacceptable, there are forms you can fill out to donate as much as you want to the Federal government so they can spend your money for you. That's the great thing about the conservative approach. You are free to do whatever you want with your time, money, and talent.

The neolib problem is that when they say “I would be happy to pay” they don’t really mean it. They really mean that they want government to pay so they don't have to volunteer time or money. They also mean that they want government to make everyone else do the same thing. But just because there are people that need help does NOT mean that there needs to be a federal program in place to help them. Federal solutions are slow, inefficient, ineffective, indirect, and far more expensive than private alternatives.

But if we look at all the empirical evidence from around the world, we could have universal coverage that would actually cost less, and you STILL would oppose it.

1. No one has supplied any evidence that public health care would be cheaper – in fact the Democrat CBO proved that it won’t save a penny. 2. I oppose it not from fear, but from principle. Government intrusion into private freedom is unnecessary for the reasons I listed above – but more importantly they represent a reduction in human freedom. I will oppose that every time I can because freedom is far more precious and rare than health care.

Why is it that the US is the only industrialized country without universal healthcare?

What a crock. Almost everyone in the USA is a Christian. Does that mean you should be one too? This 'we should do it because they're doing it' mentality is total baloney, and it really is hard to believe it's coming out of the mouth of a self-avowed atheist 'free thinker'. Let's just say I reject this argument for the logical fallacy it is and leave it at that. I will never accept the premise that America should use socialism & fascist methodologies just because other countries do. What a stupid suggestion.