Bob thinks Biden not referring to himself in 3rd person like Trump does all the time means Biden's not talking about the economy, LOL. Mindless cultist only wants to be lead, not to have independent thought, and they're like Sleepy Don, they're too lazy to verify lies and rather make up facts, statistic be damn!

I'm a Canadian, and damn I wish we here across the border is doing as well as the USA. The exchange rate (for us) against the USD is down the toilet, inflation is several times higher than the USA and far from being in check. The labor market is weak as shit. I mean, just look outside of your border and be thankful the USA got through the pandemic years to freak good.

I know those who listen to people like this have lost all sense of logic and capacity for independent thought, but if you listen closely he TELLS you he's bullshitting.

"They WILL carry out targeted killings of Republicans. IF that happens....."

On the one hand, he's saying he knows for absolute certain something WILL happen, but in the next breath he says "IF" not "When".

That's a great point. My experience of education in the US was that K-12 were incredibly cautious to the point of stifling any independent thought or difficult discussions. Then in college you were instantly presented with teachers who want to challenge your ideas about the world, and want to draw out and discuss the topics that were always off limits before.

I'm torn.
On the one hand, more Blade Runner would be awesome.
On the other hand, these god damn member berries keep getting their disgusting sticky juice all over my childhood memories.
I'll reserve judgement on this particular nostalgic 'redux', but I really fear that's all it will be. Hollywood is completely devoid of independent thought or original storytelling these days. Part of me hopes this movie loses $200000000 so they'll quit rehashing classics.
I totally expect another Treasure of the Sierra Madre to come out in the next few years with way more explosions, more grisly deaths and action, and everything that made the original great missing.

@bobknight33, please take a course on critical thinking and independent thought. Your penchant for criticism and skepticism is very needed in any society, but your lack of education and prejudice completely invalidates anything you have to say.

That said, I agree with his initial statement for once. Yes, all TV is fake, and whoever made this stupid video is in desperate need for a reality check.

What's that? A "reality" show on TV is fake? Please die now.

All information (filtered and processed through one's perceptive apparatus) is either true, false, or meaningless. Handy phraseology say for instance like, "fear mongering" works to solidify rather than "liquefy" brain tissue and serves further to entrench models, modes, ideals, etc. which are largely programmed constructs designed to control and inhibit evolution of independent thought and personal and collective spirituality.

We should all be "fearful" of such satanic, Babylonian horseshit the world system hands us. The current world systems are toxic and may inevitably destroy all species.

The precipice of a new "dark" age (best and worst of times) seems where the world teeters, peeps......best to pack a fucking toothbrush.

My first thought, purely objectively (really), is that this could very, very easily be just as intentionally mistranslated as this video:
http://videosift.com/video/North-Korean-Traffic-Cop-60-minutes
.. but for obviously different reasons. Universal skepticism is everyone's friend.
My second thought is, yes, obviously anyone who actually believes this should immediately escorted to a retirement center and not allowed any influence on society. (Though that would just be doing to them, albeit allegedly less violently, what they're already doing to their own culture, wouldn't it?)

Universally, religion is the most effective means of communicating a way of order (i.e. morals), while simultaneously blinding everyone to any alternative point of view.

What we, collectively, -humankind- need to do, is marry rational-judgement with the moral code of the golden-rule in a way that has the viral infectiousness of religion without dismissing independent thought.

I can't post the rest of my ideas because the NSA will kill me.

I can agree with the few first minutes, and that that the video portrays what definitely is the overall intent toward our education, but so much of this video is flawed it’s clearly made for those who are already inept at critical, independent thought.
As much as such a wake-up call is necessary for the populace of the world, I can't celebrate anything that just tries to manipulate the manipulable to their side.

This is by design. It is much easier to teach passive memorizing students than have them challenging ideas constantly, and being creative. Teachers who invigorate children's minds, challenging them and requiring of them creative independent thought are extremely important. They deserve to be paid very well, they deserve to be treated well.

I can remember the teachers who required me to think critically, I am who I am because of them.

video game hipsters... nothing to see here

i consume X, which other people don't predominantly consume, thus setting myself apart



how original

have never heard this exact same spiel in regards to things like:
movies (u mentioned it too)
music
literature
etc etc

consumption != creation

the brand of X you buy != character or independent thought

you can like mainstream things and still not follow the crowd

this self-importance reeks of diahrea

he should re-read.... or perhaps read for the first time... what the Constitution says about freedom of religion... and how religion relates to self-government

though there is a tendency on the right (which is predominantly FAR right) to skip over things like facts, act like the more you say something (no matter how false) the more true it becomes, and to resort to propaganda/brainwashing

its sad the pandering to the crazies is actually alienating conservatives and religious people who are actually capable of independent thought... and not one of these dark age politicians can see it

its time to grow up, and realize just because one side doesn't NECESSITATE the inclusion of invisible spaghetti monsters in the sky in their conversation about social issues... that the conversation doesn't exist

its quite similar to how the Republican party has stalled so many efforts in congress, and then says its a failure of the other side... its the other sides fault, because they didn't get concrete results, not because we said NO to each and every attempt, alot of times even before hearing what they had to say

children are smart enough to see through this tactic

the well being of people world wide would benefit from people like R. Santorum being swept up in a rapture... I'm not religious, but if I had to pray... it'd be for that

People in the press liked McCain, and had this preconceived notion of him being some sort of independent "maverick". Since Republicans don't really tolerate independent thought, he had to work really hard to convince them that he was done being independent and would be a hardline conservative, and in the process turned himself into a laughingstock.

Mitt Romney seems to have been hated by basically everyone, seems to have zero personal charisma, is completely out of touch with how normal people live their lives, and it's virtually impossible to find an issue on which Romney hasn't been on both sides of during his political career. It's not really a surprise that he's a joke right out of the gate.

If Romney wins, it'll be a signal to the rest of the world that America is either no longer a democracy, or is now so completely overrun with people who have no grasp on reality that it probably shouldn't exist anymore.

And I honestly think there's a 40% chance Romney will win, because there's an awful lot of people with no grasp on reality here...

>> ^raverman:

Is it just me or is Mitt Romney a laughing stock before he even starts campaigning in earnest?
I don't remember people making fun of McCain like this (or much at all until the Palin twist)

>> ^tymebendit:

i hope they didn't use taser on her.
tasers shouldn't be used just to force compliance...

Independent Thought Alarm triggered: TASE! TASE! TASE!

Anti-realism is not a term that is conventionally applied to language. You were employing a metaphor. That's fine; that's how all language works. There would be no words, and no dictionary to look them up in, if we didn't use metaphor.

This belief that a word can have only one narrow and arbitrary meaning, which its enforcers have memorised and to which they will allow no opposition, is dangerous and stifling to discourse. It's particularly bizarre in the context of this discussion since I'm sure, if we could be bothered to check, we would find many examples in dictionaries and other scholarly instruments of the term 'fascist' applied much more loosely than I've proposed here. It's often used, legitimately, as a simple synonym for 'bully'.

You'll notice that far from insisting on my own, I allow your meaning, and Webster's and mine all together. I only say that mine is better, being a pruned and perfected incarnation of its relatives. If we didn't prefer our own ideas to those of others there would be no point to independent thought at all.

I think you ought to read my posts more carefully and assume, for the sake of scientific inquiry, that I might be as smart as you are.>> ^Kofi:

Yes, I am calling you a linguistic anti-realist. This fails for although all language is an artificial creation it none the less is functional insofar as it appeals to a common ontology within the cultural paradigm of any given language. In other words, despite the notion that language only represents a idea of an impression and can never actually directly communicate that impression itself, it is reasonable and viable to believe that language, specifically the English language, is adequate to convey a moderately complicated term such as 'fascism'.
I am also implying that you are unable to grasp the necessary condition of assuming a commonality of language appropriate for meaningful communication. It appears that you are aware of it but have failed to admit that you made a mistake for fear of looking silly.
Instead you are insisting on a revisionist interpretation of a political terminologies that failed to fulfil any semblance of general mutual agreement, a necessary condition for cohesive discourse, in a deliberate effort to harness its rhetorical impact.

while i do believe the lack of media coverage of this protest shines a poor light on American media...

I also have to say this video (beyond the description above, which equates to someone's sayso) gives no context

is this an isolated incident at the riots, and if so... why? and if not, we need more footage to see that this reaction by the police is unprovoked

as far as we know, some action prior to this, by the women involved (for example... why were they only surrounding women protesters? to say they purposefully separated only the women, from the men is a stretch for me to believe) led to this... since there's no context I'm forced to believe these women were protesting either something in particular or at a location in particular that has something to do with why there was only women there being herded/pepper sprayed... and if that's the case it makes me wonder if this somehow ties into the police reaction...

lack of context is a weakness in the stance you are taking here

yeah, i feel sorry for them getting sprayed with pepper spray... as i guy, it tugs at me seeing women being treated harshly and crying/wailing in agony

however, as a person who believes in independent thought/critical thinking; before siding with the poster of this video (whom i believe is probably sympathetic to the protesters... as am I inregards to what is being protested) I have to question things like context and the motivations of messages being presented to me

i'm not belittling what is being protested here... i'm being critical on how the message is being presented

since the media isn't covering this, you need to be presenting things as journalistic as possible... ie unbiased and within context, with multiple sources who can corroberate the information being presented

because, no matter how sympathetic i may be to the message being presented here, I have to be critical of its presentation and file it away as propoganda because of the lack of context

why should you care? because I'm sure some of the media that does cover this riot (especially those that do it to discredit you and belittle your goals) will use that to the disadvantage of your goals