Golly sir, I sure am glad you’re here to explain it to me, but just for shits and giggles, let me take a stab at it.

Elon Musk wants to make humanity a multi-planet species, otherwise we are at risk of some kind of planet wide extinction level event. Having looked at the problem, he thinks the fundamental issue is one of economics. If he can get the price per person for a trip to Mars down to $500k, he figures he’ll get enough mad, bad and rich AF people to give forming a colony a go.

But that first step from earth to orbit is motherfucking expensive and aside from crazy unproven tech like a space elevator, thanks to the Tyranny of the Rocket Equation there really isn’t a cheap way to do this in terms of energy expenditure.

Ok, thinks Elon, what’s the other major cost in this whole shooting things into space gig? Hmm, the big fucking rocket costs a lot... be nice if we could reuse that instead of building a new one each time.

So he works on building a reusable rocket, and after many hilarious videos of “rapid unscheduled disassembly”, fuck me if the damn thing doesn’t start to stick the landing!

So now we need to do the same, but with a bigger rocket and a heavier payload. Can’t really risk an actual payload (see previous video of RUD) so what to do?

Well, the sensible, cost effective thing would be just a big heavy weight. But that’s got fuck all viral marketing appeal, so if you’re gonna shoot something into space as part of a multi billion dollar rocket program, what’s a measly couple of hundred k compared to the millions in free advertising for both Tesla and SpaceX this will generate!

Well, look at that. Turns out I do understand this!

But if think sending an expensive sports car into space WASN’T a frivolous waste of money, I invite you to spend time with someone sleeping rough or a family who doesn’t know where their next meal is coming from.

As I said, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but don’t pretend this was anything other than a billionaire doing something insanely cool and expensive because he thought it was cool.

I completely disagree with you about being inspired by her is like being inspired by Hitler. Hitler's philosophy was a complete sham on every level, and contradicts itself numerous times. Objectivism's foundation works well on many levels. Personal aspiration, bettering yourself, valuing logic and knowledge over emotions, those types of things are valuable to an extent.

Objectivism is ultra-logical in the end, very much the same as Social Darwinism. Fundamentally, those ideas have value in some situations and settings. A business for example, in the end, if an employee is not doing his or her job, it's not necessarily the business's job to figure out why unless it's within their self-interest to do so, and they shouldn't have to think that stuff through in every single instance. They should have the flexibility to fire someone in that instance without a second thought about the social ramifications.

It ultimately is a societal problem though that this employee be taken care of as a member of society, which is where Objectivism falls on its face, among other areas. Another one is Objectivism really has terrible implications in many aspects of parenting, to put it mildly.

I was personally inspired by Ayn Rand in high school quite honestly. She made me care about philosophy, about achieving the most I could achieve via hard work and self-determination, to learn how to critically think and use reason, to be OK to not conform necessarily to group think, etc. Just like every ideology, it's not perfect, and following it to a T just doesn't work, just like any other ideology and philosophy we may encounter and blend into our own as we age and grow. But it made me want to learn more, achieve more, and think more.

You can do a lot worse than that, IMO, you know, like Fascism. :-)

I see the fundamental difference really comes to the target of the "whatabout".

If you are talking about group A and they say "What about group B", then that is just trying to distract/deflect. For example, Trump's comments about the alt-left and alt-right.

If you are talking about Person A and B, and claiming that person B is better, "What about person B's war crimes" is not unrelated. The example of praising Bush over Trump, and Bush's history.

I am not fully convinced that people are confused by the difference, at least the folks that I deal with.

I don't really have a problem with owning guns and it's certainly not "all or nothing".

My issue with the gun arguments in the states is that they're asking the wrong questions. The problem isn't the guns, it's why you seem to think you need them.

No other developed nation has this issue. The rest of the world all have guns, we're just responsible with them. We're ok with reasonable legislation and we don't have a lunatic fringe screaming about tyranny if we can't own assault rifles.

Most importantly, no civilised country thinks you need a gun for self-defence. A) we have police for that and b) most of us just aren't afraid that someone is coming to kill us... because they aren't.

I don't think there's an easy fix to America's gun problems. Fundamentally I think the issue is cultural rather than regulatory, but honestly, at this stage, you're like a bunch of kids, who need their toys taken off them until they can prove they're mature enough to use them properly.

If someone is an alcoholic, the most important thing isn't taking the booze away, it's getting them to admit there's a problem. But sometimes, you need to take the booze away long enough for them to sober up and admit there's a problem.

I'd be down with a Space 1999 reboot, but the fundamental premise of a nuclear explosion pushing the moon out of orbit and then somehow to another star system for a new episode each week is so ridiculous l it would have to be replaced, but by that point it's hardly a Space 1999 reboot. I guess you could have the same basic setup with a moon base but use wormholes or string magic or quantum whatever and that might be okay. A show taking place on a moon base that keeps jumping randomly through alternate dimensions could be kind of interesting for a while maybe. Like Sliders, except they take the moon base with them and have Eagles to fly around in.

This is the fundamental problem with idiots.... other idiots sound more convincing to them than smart people.

Don't play chess with pigeons.

It's the "consent as a cup of tea" model.

If you ask someone if they want tea, and they do, give them tea.

If they change their mind after you've made the tea, they don't have to drink it.

If they start drinking the tea and decide they don't like this tea, don't force them to finish the cup.

Hell, if they are actually on their last sip and they don't want to swallow... they can spit it out. I mean, it's not very polite, and I'm not really sure why you'd suddenly decide you don't want tea at that point, but fundamentally it's still up to the tea drinker.

Sure, but why does he then spend the rest of the argument talking about how one isn't as bad as the other?

It just feels like making excuses.

Yeah, we get it. Rape > groping > other dumb shit.

Mike Pence is not as bad as ISIS. There, I said it. Congratulations on passing the lowest bar possible. I still don't want him as president.

Even if Minnie Driver makes a stupid comment, she's not a spokesperson for everyone who supports #metoo.

The fundamental point to me is that senator's quote.
"I think when we start having to talk about the differences between sexual assault and sexual harassment and unwanted groping you are having the wrong conversation.... You need to draw a line in the sand and say none of it is O.K. None of it is acceptable"

So Bill wants to have "an additional conversation". Ok, WHY? What is driving this additional conversation? Why do we need to have it and is it distracting from the more important conversation we should be having?

I'm not worried about the distinction between the varying levels of assault, except as a means for deciding how to deal with the perpetrator.

But that's not the conversation that's happening at the moment. If Aziz Ansari ends up sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein, I will 100% stand up and say "hang the fuck on, those two are NOT equivalent". But in terms of saying "stop being a dick", yeah, I'm happy to say that to both of them.

I know that you and @newtboy and @Payback understand that groping and harassment (even if they are not as heinous as rape) are things you shouldn't do. That's 'cos you're decent human beings.

But you guys are not the people we need to talk to.

@Buck, I did upvote it.

I’m just not sure that videos like these do anything other than reinforce people’s beliefs (regardless of what position they hold).

Religion is only a symptom of the fundamental problem with modern society: unwillingness to accept facts that contradict your beliefs.

While those on the right (especially the religious right) tend to suffer more from it, liberals are not immune either (anti-vaxxers, ridiculous fad diets).

The Oatmeal made a fantastic comic about this. I genuinely believe that if we could get more people to read that, it would do more good than one million atheist videos.

I'm upvoting this because it's an insanely important topic, but I disagree with almost everything said in it.

First up, "we have better things to worry about". Granted, climate change is a more fundamental and immediate threat, but this is still way up there on the list of things we need to worry about.

"We've been wrong about automation taking jobs in the past"

So what? Until Obama got elected, there was never a black US president. There has never been a woman US president and there won't be.... until there is.

"New technology creates new jobs"
Yeah, and before, we needed humans to fill those jobs. Previously, we created new jobs that automation COULDN'T do. That is no longer the case. Create a new industry? Fine, but it will be staffed by AIs and robots.

They also miss the point with productivity growth. Automation doesn't need to be more productive than human workers. In fact, it can be staggeringly WORSE than human workers, but if your productivity is 10% and your cost is 1%, that's still a win.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Humans-Need-Not-Apply

I'm not saying he shouldn't be prosecuted. And he most certainly deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life for all the financial crimes he appears to have perpetrated prior to his presidential run (his crimes against the English language alone should qualify). Added on, the crimes surrounding the race and his presidency would see him well into the next century in jail time if prosecuted fully.

It simply won't resolve anything for the United States. What's needed is a fundamental political shift or a major change to the political system. Neither of those can happen in the next few years, and they're unlikely even down the road.

You could argue that the issues that hold men down are generally caused by the same issues feminists are fighting for.

One of the biggest issues affecting men is suicide, especially in younger males. And one of the primary drivers of this is "macho" culture; the idea that it's not "manly" to ask for emotional help.

The other issue I hear about is fathers rights (a court will almost always side with a mother in a custody dispute). Again, this is caused by the idea that the woman should be looking after the children.

The irony is that the fundamental difference between men's issues and women's issues is actually the fundamental similarity: both are caused by societal structures that dictate the role of men and women.

The difference is that historically (and let's be honest, even today), men hold the power and make the rules.

WTF does Hillary have to do with any of this?

Let's be very clear here. No-one is talking about banning guns (and if anyone is, they can fuck right off). Guns are useful tools. I've been target shooting a few times, I have friends who hunt. I wouldn't see their guns taken from them because they are sensible people who use guns in a reasonable way.

What we are talking about is a reasonable level of control, like background checks, restrictions on certain types of weapons, etc.

BTW, you might want to actually read the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

None of these people are in a well-regulated militia, and in 2017 "a well regulated militia" is not necessary to the security of the state, that's what a standing army and a police force are for.

Your seatbelt analogy also makes no sense at all. If I drive around without a seatbelt and crash, the only one hurt is me (I'm still a fucking inconsiderate asshole if I do that, but that's another story). Guns are all about hurting other people, so it makes sense to regulate them.


Fundamentally, the USA needs to grow the fuck up and stop believing "Die Hard" is a documentary.

You are not Roy Rogers.
You do not need a gun for "home defence".
You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't.
And the most powerful weapon you have against a fascist dictatorship is not firearms, but the ballot box.

The irony is that while your democracy is increasingly slipping away from you (gerrymandering, super PACs, voter suppression), you have a corporate-funded lobby group protecting your firearms.

The fundamental point is that when the light turns yellow, the yellow car IS blocking his view, but he speeds up anyway, essentially committing to making the intersection.

At 0:02 the light is yellow and his speed is 54km/h. Less than a second later, his speed is over 60km/h. I'd argue that you can actually see a turn signal from the blue car at 0:05, but the video is blurry.

Either way, it's entirely predictable that the oncoming traffic in the middle lane might be turning left, so the sensible course of action is to proceed with caution.

I'm not saying the biker is an asshole. He just made a mistake and I'm glad he's ok. He certainly doesn't deserve to be injured.

Our legal system up here already has codified that 'idiocy', and it's been in place quite awhile.

The women's only clothing optional spa that tried to say 'no penises allowed' is legally at odds with the provincial human rights code:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/male-genitalia-policy-spurs-backlash-at-toronto-women-s-spa-1.3456844

The Canadian charter of human rights also lists freedom from discrimination as being no different for choice/behaviour things like religion, alongside birth traits like race or gender. So legally our system doesn't think rejecting a clergy application for being atheist as any different to rejecting it because of race.

And I kind of hate using a 'trivial' and much trumpeted example from America but a bakery not wanting to make a cake based on people's sexual preferences was declared illegal:
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'll try to summarise my last paragraph better.

The Democratic party needs to reach out to people that didn't vote Hillary. They are instead choosing to condemn those that didn't vote Hillary as racists or friends of racists. They need to be doing the exact opposite. They need to find things to compromise on and reach out to the people that didn't vote Hillary. That doesn't have to necessarily be on any of the ideas I've tossed out above, but they've gotta do something.

A last point, the moral relativism or correctness of the cause here isn't the only thing that matters. If you can't convince a majority of the population that you are on the side of their self interest and liberties and freedoms, then you are going to lose. The things I've listed are examples of the left taking away freedoms that many on the right consider important or even fundamental to them. If no compromises can be made, the Democrats haven't got much reason for optimism about the next election looking any better.