*ban

urvivethismusic
Survive This! - "Desperately Hopeless"

there many forms of enslavement,to wit most people are wholly unaware,either unwittingly or unwillingly.

"none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free" van goethe.

consider this my friends:
if you accept currency for your labors,where you toil for anothers financial gain.you are literally renting yourself.trading your time,creativity and labors for coin.you are a wage slave and a hundred years ago our ancestors were very aware of this and found it detestable.they literally saw it as a form of slavery.

now as @Lawdeedaw pointed out,there are some protections put forth by our government,along with other governments,but those were not just handed out.they had to be fought for,and many died for those protections.by whom? wage slaves,but in those days they KNEW thats what they were,and proceeded from that premise.

the philosophy of the matrix even addressed this very idea of slavery (yep,i went there).that the majority of the people had become so entrenched and immersed in the system,that to even question the system would illicit a violent and defensive response.they would fight to remain in the system.

just look at our friend @Barbar 's reaction.
even the term "slave" was enough for a visceral reaction.

i am reminded of a doug stanhope routine in where he states " at least i KNOW i am a slave,YOU,however..remain clueless".

so let us take the term "slave" off the table and instead use the dynamic of "power vs powerlessness".

the current systems of power have the majority of people running on hamster wheel of desperation.may it be "pay check to paycheck" or "mortgage and credit cards" or the subtle doctrine of "conform and obey".this could also be "all of the above".

the real question is this:
do you consider yourself free?
because a comfortable slave.....is still a slave.
the term may be dramatic,but it is accurate.

A big part of it is the thin blue line bullcrap where cops will stand around watching this shit going down and not report it. Yes, it's probably a minority of bad apples, but then there are the silent witnesses who don't speak out, or the bastards that take revenge on the whistleblowers.

If the law, and the people that enforce it, is to have any meaning, it must be even handed. That is such a joke these days that anyone seriously believing it would be ridiculed as hopelessly naive. If the status quo = everyone understands that there are two sets of rules and the people that should be held to a higher level of responsibility are often given a pass, then the system is broken, and even the good cops are holding up a corrupt institution.

What I can't figure is how the good cops keep going to work, trying to serve the public etc when they see this shit. Talk about morale destroying.

In a perfect world, perhaps. This world is not perfect, and many people don't have the ability to 'plan', either financially or sexually. Your plan leaves anyone who does not plan perfectly for an unknown future on the streets and destitute. That's not the country we have decided we want to live in. If you do, there's always Somalia.
Your plan leaves us with millions of destitute elderly on the streets. Bad plan, that would NEVER work. Again, you expect people to plan for their future perfectly, and if they don't, fuck em. That's terrible, uncaring, non-thinking planning. They don't just disappear if they planned badly and are homeless, foodless, and hopeless, they show up on your driveway with a knife.
How about we just remove all corporate welfare, cut our military by 5%, and actually extend benefits for PEOPLE? The reduced costs in your plan would not even be noticed in the federal budget, not a single percent change, mine would be noticed. I think you believe that 'welfare' (social programs) is a major cost to the fed, it's simply NOT. On the other hand, it does save us billions by not having to deal with sick desperate homeless people by the millions. It's proven time and time again that taking care of them humanely costs far less than ignoring them until you can no longer ignore them.

Yes, it may raise awareness... but their campaign is trying to effect some kind of societal change regarding the clothes we buy and they're showing us the dark side of ALL the clothes we buy.

Yet, we still need to wear clothes; So what is the expected change in behavior here? Buy clothes that are made locally to avoid any interaction with poor countries? Pay more for expensive clothes in the hopes that the extra spending is passed down to the factory workers (it surely isn't)? I just dont get it, their message is dark and hopeless and a bit obvious.

I actually got almost all of it (missed 2-3 words to a combination of crowd noise and the accent) without subtitles. But I've got several UK friends and coworkers, English and Irish, plus having English friends of the family that visited often when I was growing up.

A lot of the folks in my small hometown in Kansas are the type that have never been out of the state, and who need the TV subtitles even for accents that seem really easy to me like BBC English, New Zealand, Sydney (not broad Australian), etc. Just hopeless with accents.


But actually, the best thing about the video was her story -- which was actually quite funny assuming I got the "IRA" implication correct.

The most poignant comment is asking why everything in america is so sweet.

It's because they put chemically altered sugar in *everything* and most people are completely and hopelessly addicted to it.

The funny thing is, with those increases sugars we've lost a lot of the taste of food. But then again you don't go out to a nation-wide food chain for 'flavor' do you?

Your "obvious" solution has been progressing for years... Indeed Sarkeesian cherry picks games that offend her, but ignores that there are quite a few more games where women are protagonists, and /shock horror even dressed appropriately...

It's obviously not good enough for her, or apparently you...

As for your daughter and Mario, no, there's not something wrong with that. There are quite a few games (and more are coming) with female protagonists. Perhaps you should introduce her to Child of Light? Or let her play through the Longest Journey series? Guess what, not every game is going to give you the choice of a male/female protagonist, and I'm not sure why it's required. Honestly, I'd love it if reality TV shows about dumb socialites would disappear from the entertainment spectrum, but sadly I don't get to dictate to the media (or indeed the viewing public) what they should be doing.

In response to your points about the fight, you're right, and it should keep going and we should all try to support it. But Sarkeesian undermines that fight. Not because she dares to speak out, but how she does it. In her attacks, and they are attacks, she tars all male gamers as either deliberately misogynistic or hopelessly naive. That's great, really, you convince people to support you by insulting them continuously?

As for this snide little bit of crap...

"Look, I'm sorry people pointing out to you how fucked up it is how women are sometimes portrayed in games is somehow ruining your ability to enjoy games. But there are serious problems here. Maybe not problems for you, but problems for people like my daughter. "

This is a problem you and Anita share... Presumption. That just because I think she's a hack, that somehow she's ruining my fun (she isn't), that I support a male character domination of the industry (I don't), that there shouldn't be more strong female characters represented (there should) and so on and so forth. You have concocted a scenario in your head and jumped straight to the insults without ever bothering to find out what my opinion on the games (as opposed to the person blasting them) is...

Would it be sexist/misogynist to think that the woman in the article is batshit insane?

http://thelibertydoll.com/2014/08/22/meet-woman-reduce-male-population-90-for-peace/

Not because she's a woman, but because of what she's saying, and how she's saying it. This is why I object to Sarkeesian and think she's a shameful opportunist who's willing to set back feminism in her quest for fame or perhaps relevance..

"You can still have your Damsel/Dude in Distress trope, by the way. I have no doubt lazy developers will continue to use it as a substitute for meaningful story. Just don't expect people not to call out the utter absurdity of it, is all I'm saying."

Oh, it's my trope now... /eyeroll

I can't point out how ridiculous it is to try and kill off a trope that pervades every aspect of human story telling since the dawn of time without it becoming my personal favourite? Pro tip, if you're trying to convince someone of a viewpoint, it usually helps not to be a patronising git... X D

@Barbar
what you are speaking of in regards to the 2 religions (judaism/christianity) are the reformations they both experienced.

now there are a myriad of reasons why these reformations occurred:age of enlightenment, renaissance and a new way of thinking=secular philosophy.i could go on but those are the big three.

islam has yet to experience a reformation and reza aslan's book "no god but god" makes the case that islam is in desperate NEED of a reformation,to which harris dishonestly suggests that islam needs while in the same sentence accuses reza of ignoring.the man wrote an entire nook making the case for islamic reformation!

when you are going to criticize belief you have to also ask the "WHY" of that belief.if you strictly confine your arguments to a book then you are ignoring the multitude of factors to the origin of that belief and are actually formulating an argument with the very same absolutist and fundamentalist thinking that you are criticizing.

you are quite literally using fundamentalism to criticize fundamentalism.

example:
harris makes the point that suicide bombers blow themselves up because the quran glorifies martyrdom,with little thought to WHY those young men strapped bombs to their chest in the first place.

when the WHY is the most important question!

and the answer is NOT because the quran demands it of them but rather out of hopelessness brought on by oppression,murder,torture of their friends and family.

the quran offers a rationalization for the suicide bomber.a desperate person will grasp desperately at any thin straw to give their life meaning,but it most certainly not the cause.

this fundamental lack of understanding is why i find harris to be a mediocre atheist thinker.

literalism in regards to scriptural interpretation is a fairly new phenom,(past 100 years),and that includes muslims.

@billpayer The distinction is how direct of a line you can draw between belief and behavior. All religions are certainly not equally guilty.

Judaism is not an aggressively spreading religion, in that while the old testament is fairly horrible, the main purpose is to sit around and wait for the messiah to return to smite all of us. The action this leads to is sitting around and waiting.

Islam, on the other hand, is to be spread by the sword, so the action lead from that is to aggressively spread it.

The whole problem of Martyrdom changes the rules for everyone as well. If you want to die and genuinely believe that you will go to heaven if you kill yourself if you take infidels with you, then we have to stop you. This glorification of death is disturbing.

Rewatching it I still get the exact same feeling. Cenk is flaundering and Sam is trying hopelessly to explain his points to him.

*quality *kids *doublepromote As a native of the Pacific NorthWET and a hopeless romantic, I found this to be infinitely delightful! Thank you for the feels @rbar

Up until I saw my fellow countrymen (including many I respected) fawning like chimps at a tea party during that whole "jubilee" thing I might have agreed. There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance for most people when it comes to the royals.

On the one hand most don't really take it very seriously, on the other many (maybe even most) appear to have a sub-conscious desire/need to submit to their natural betters. Our whole national identity is built on the myths of Kings and failed rebellions and I fear for many the Monarchy represents a kind of bizarre political security blanket. We claim to not really care but deep down I think many of us secretly fear loosing our mythical matriarch.

One might liken it to celebrity worship backed by 100's & 1000's of years of religious mythology. The Royal's aren't really human to us, they are more like some closely related parent species born to a life we could only dream of. I realise that when asked directly most people would consciously acknowledge that was silly, but most would also respond the same to say Christian sexual repression. They know sex and nakedness when considered rationally are nothing to be ashamed of, but they still continue to treat their own urges as somehow sinful when they do not fall within rigidly defined social parameters.

We still haven't gotten over such Judeo-Christian self policing because the social structures built up around it are still with us (even if we fool ourselves into thinking we are beyond the reach of such sub-conscious influences). I don't think we will ever get over our master-slave culture while class and unearned privilege are still built into the fabric of our society. Having a Royal family, no matter how symbolic, is the very living embodiment of this kind of backwards ideology.

It's like trying to quit heroin while locked in a room with a big bag of the stuff.

It's true to say most don't take the whole thing very seriously but that to me is almost as concerning. Most people when asked don't believe advertising has a significant effect on their psyche but Coke-a-cola still feels like spending about 3 billion a year on it is worthwhile. One of them is clearly mistaken!

Our royal family here, is to me working in the same way as coke's advertising. It's a focal point for a lot of sub-conscious concepts we are bombarded with our whole lives. Naturally there are many sides to this and it wouldn't work without heavy media manipulation, state indoctrination etc. but it's an intrinsic part of the coercive myth none the less. Monarch's, Emperors and wealthy Dynasties are all poisons to me. No matter the pragmatic details, the sub-conscious effect seems significant and cumulative.

"Dead" symbolisms IMHO can often be the most dangerous. At least one is consciously aware of the devils we see. No one is watching the one's we have forgotten.....

The above is reason enough for me but I have bog all better to do this aft so I'll dive into the rabbithole a bit.....

(We do very quickly start getting into conspiracy theory territory hare so I'll try to keep it as uncontroversial as I can.)

A. The UK is truly ruled by financial elites not political ones IMHO. "The city" says jump, Whitehall says how high. The Royal family being among the wealthiest landowners and investors in the world (let alone UK) presumably can exert the same kind of influence. Naturally this occurs behind closed doors, but when the ownership class puts it's foot down the government ignores them to their extreme detriment. (It's hard to argue with people who own your economy de-facto and can make or break your career)

B. The queen herself sits on the council on foreign relations & Bilderberg group and she was actually the chairwoman of the "committee of 300" for several years. (and that's not even starting on club of Rome, shares in Goldman Sachs etc.)

C. SIS the uk's intelligence services (MI5/6 etc.), which have been proven to on occasion operate without civilian oversight in the past, are sworn to the crown. This is always going to be a most contentious point as it's incredibly difficult to prove wrongdoings, but I have very strong suspicions based on various incidents (David Kelly, James Andanson, Jill Dando etc.), that if they wanted/needed you dead/threatened that would not be especially difficult to arrange.

D. Jimmy Saville. This one really is tin foil hat territory, but it's no secret he was close to the Royal family. I am of the opinion this is because he was a top level procurer of "things", for which I feel there is a great deal of evidence, but I can't expect people to just go along with that idea. However given the latest "paedogeddon" scandal involving a extremely high level abuse ring (cabinet members, mi5/6, bankers etc.) it certainly would come as little surprise to find royal family members involved.

Points A&B I would stand behind firmly. C&D are drifting into conjecture but still potentially relevant I feel.

But even if we ignore all of them, our culture is built from the ground up upon the idea of privilege of birth. That there are some people born better or more deserving than the rest of us. When I refer to symbolism this is what I mean. Obviously the buck does not stop with the monarchy, England is hopelessly stratified by class all the way through, but the royal family exemplify this to absurd extremes.

At best I feel this hopelessly distorts and corrupts our collective sense of identity on a sub-conscious level. At worst....Well you must have some idea now how paranoid I'm capable of being about the way the world is run. (Not that I necessarily believe it all wholeheartedly, but I'm open to the possibility and inclined to suggest it more likely than the mainstream narrative)


On a pragmatic note: Tourism would be fine without them I think, we still have the history and the castles and the soldiers with silly hats etc. And I think the palaces would make great hotels and museums. They make great zoo exhibits I agree, just maybe not let them continue to own half the zoo and bribe the zoo keepers?


Anyway much love as always. You responded with considered points which is always worthy of respect, regardless of whether I agree with it all.

I doubt it was intentional either but that's not really the point. The things we unconsciously say can often be just as important as the things we consciously, intentionally say. When we're talking about whether or not specific groups of people are acceptable to a broader culture, so much of how people interpret such a discussion is through the lens of their own inculturation and unconscious assumptions.

Take a look at the black community's response to the Ferguson situation on social media. One of the memes that cropped up was a comparison of headlines between stories where a white person commits murder versus when a black person is a murder victim. In the former, the headlines express a sense of disbelief such as "Theatre shooting perpetrator was 'brilliant scientist', says graduate advisor". In the latter case, the headlines tend to imply the victim got what was coming to him or her, i.e. "Shooting victim had history of drug addiction, multiple arrests." Does that mean the news media hates black people and is hopelessly racist? No, of course not. I bet none of the editors who ran those headlines thought for a moment that they were imposing racial biases upon their stories. But, the biases are definitely there -- it's a shock that a white person would kill, but it's expected and probably just that a black person was killed -- and that shapes how other people perceive the affected groups without it even entering their conscious consideration.

In the case of this video, I doubt the comedians in question considered what I've brought up, but again the note on which it ends is definitely one of "if gay people just acted normal then they wouldn't have any problems in society." I find that problematic, whether it was intentional or not.

I assume you mean 'professional' jobs, because staff labor usually has a set income that doesn't change much from day 1, and everyone starts at the set pay.

In professional positions, every employee negotiates their own salary.
Men aggressively job hop to build up a resume and then capitalize on it.
Men are more aggressive about asking for large incomes, being 'ok' with being turned down multiple times in order to land a sweet deal.
The majority of men I know that are in professional positions deliberately behaved like this to build up their income as early as possible.

I don't know a single woman that job hopped. All of them got a job, and sat on their hands. When job hunting, they kept looking for large 'stable' employers, where they can chill for a while.

Truth is, once an employer has you for $X amount, they have no reason to give you more. Other than a pittance raise to track inflation and make you feel happy at the end of the year (so they can keep you). Which is a joke, since changing jobs can bump your income 30% per flip (30% is me amortizing. My first flip was on the order of 100%. But subsequent flips raise the bar less and less, up to the industry maximum. So I just picked a 30% ball park figure.).

Basically, the income argument bugs me, because I (and others like me) go through the [disruptive to one's life] effort of building up a resume to leverage for negotiating a good income, and other people expect the same income to just fall into their lap.

In any case, what Thumper said is true. Women have the ability to capitalize on their looks, because men provide a demand.
Women provide a weak demand for men's looks, so men can't capitalize to the same extent.
If you're a good looking girl, and you wind up broke and hopeless, you can always become a stripper, pay the bills, and turn your life around.
If you're a man, regardless of how you look (or a low-digit woman), and you wind up broke and hopeless, you simply don't have that kind of reliable way out.

-scheherazade

"The other day I saw a film called The Edge, which I regarded as the best thing to come out of Hollywood since The Silence of the Lambs. Perhaps not coincidentally, this flick also starred Anthony Hopkins. In one scene, Hopkins and his co-star, Alec Baldwin, seem in an absolutely hopeless situation, lost in the Arctic, stalked by a hungry bear, without weapons, seemingly doomed. Baldwin collapses, and Hopkins has a magnificent monologue, talking Baldwin out of his despair. The speech runs, roughly, like this: "Did you know you can make fire out of ice? You can, you know. Fire out of ice. Think about it. Fire out of ice. Think. Think."

This riddle has both a pragmatic and symbolic (alchemical) answer. The pragmatic answer you can find in the film, explicitly; and it might prove useful if you ever get lost in the north woods; and the alchemical, or Zen Buddhist, answer is also in the film, implicitly, and only perceptible to those who understand the dense character Hopkins plays in the story. It might prove useful whenever despair seems to overwhelm you. So, to those who at the end of this book still can't understand or sympathize with my Nietzschean yea-saying, I quote again: "Fire out of ice. Think. Think."

Who was that Prometheus guy and why did he give us fire in the first place?"

~Robert Anton Wilson