What I understood him to be claiming was a large portion of 'anti Trump' people are stuck on the accusations about Russia, but there are so many other issues they are ignoring because of that focus, and I wholeheartedly disagree, with the constant non-Russia protests as my evidence. I just do not see the myopia he decries.
I also disagree the world is laughing at our claims about foreign interference in our election, they are laughing at the hypocrisy of America complaining about our M.O., but they think Russian interference is both real and serious for us and themselves.

I'm talking recent history, last 3 years. No point in rehashing the 20th century. Had NATO really been a thought, he would not have invaded Crimea nor annexed the East Ukraine. I see NATO troops as sacrificial lambs, put in harm's way to force member nations to act if they are over run by a hostile nation....and even then there's no guarantee any action will come, but it's easier to sell military action if some of 'our boys' are killed or captured.

Russia, Russia, Russia is about the implications of world, or at least super power war. If they did collude (like we often do in other countries) to subvert our election, that's an act of war that could lead to military action if not handled carefully and thoughtfully....something Trump is incapable of.

Is there evidence...apparently, according to the FBI and several prosecutors at least. Has the public seen enough of it to evaluate it for themselves...no. That means one should keep an open, engaged mind on the important subject....not act like he's already convicted, and not pretend there's nothing there but whining. Certainly not forget it and move on to the next scandal....I think we are capable of being outraged about numerous things at once....and again I point to constant protests as proof (not that they accomplish much).

@transmorpher
so when i point out the historical implications,i am somehow automatically disregarding the inherent problems within islam itself?

and your counter is to not only NOT counter,but refuse to acknowledge the historical ramifications,because that is some political,agenda driven-drivel.

that the ONLY acceptable argument is to focus on the religion itself,and ignore all other considerations,because,again..just tools to be used and abused by the left to fuel the far right.

am i getting this right so far?

that to include history is actually the path that stops that path to move forward?

and here i was still hanging on to that tired old adage "those who refuse to recognize history,are doomed to repeat it".

i am glad that you found those authors so respectful and admired their analysis and dedication to research,but you didn't even bother to use one of THEIR arguments.you simply made claims and then told us you read some books.

dude..now i am just kinda...sad for you.

i am sorry that you are oblivious to your own myopia,and that you are coming across as condescending.yet really haven't posted anything of value that you have to contribute.

you are just pointing the finger and accusing people of their arguments being dishonest,when it appears to me that everyone here has taken the time to try to talk to you,and your replies have been fairly static.

hitchens tried to make the case,and failed in my opinion(i am not the only one),but a case i suspect you are referencing.that even if we took the history of neoliberalism,colonialism and empire building OFF the table.islam would STILL be a gaggle of extremist radicals seeking a one world caliphate.

which is why i referenced dearborn michigan.
it is why i mentioned kabul afghanistan.

we are talking about the radicalization of muslims.
why are they growing?
where do they come from?
why do they seem to be getting more and more extreme?

which many here have attempted to answer,including myself.

but YOU are addressing and entirely different question:
'what is wrong with islam as a religion"

well,a LOT in fact and i already mentioned islams dire need for a reformation,but it goes further than that.you see the epistemology of both judiaism and christianity have been thoroughly argued over and over....and over..that what you find today is a pretty succinct refinement of their respective theologies.

agree/disagree..maybe you are atheist or agnostic,that is not the point.the point is that the so-called "finished' product has pretty clear philosophies,that adherents can easily follow.

for judaism this is in large part to the talmud,which is a living document,where even to this day rabbis debate and argue the finer details.not to be confused with holy scripture the torah.

christianity was forced to acknowledge its failings and flaws,because the theology was weak,and was becoming more and more an amalgamation of other religious beliefs,but most of all,and i think most importantly,the in-fighting with the vatican and the church of england had exposed this weakness,and christianity was on the brink of collapse due to its own hubris and arrogance.

they had no central authority.no leadership that the people could come to in order to clarify scripture.

so thanks to the bravery of martin luther,who risked being labeled a heretic,challenged the political power,which in those days was religious,and so began the process of reformation.

and also ended the dark ages,and western civilization stepped into the "age of enlightenment".

islam has had no such reformation,though is in desperate need of one.they had no council of nicea to decide what was holy canon and what was not,which is why you have more gospels of jesus in the quran than you do in the actual bible.

the king james bible has over 38,000 mis-translations in the old testament alone,whereas the quran has....well...we don't know,because nobody challenges the veracity of the quran.

am i winning you over to my side yet?
still think i am leftist "stooge' and "useful idiot"?

look man,
words are inert.
they are simply symbols.
they are meaningless until we lay eyes on them and GIVE them meaning.

so if you are a violent,war-loving person-------your religion will be violent,and warmongering.

if you are a peaceful and loving person----then your religion will be peaceful and loving.

the problem is NOT religion itself,and i know my atheists really don't want to hear that,but it's true.religion is going nowhere.

the problem is fundamentalist thinking.
the problem is viewing holy scripture as the unerring word of god.
which is why you see creationists attempt,in vain,to convince the rest of us that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old,and their only proof or evidence is a book.

so we all point and laugh.....how silly..6,000yrs old.crazy talk.

but WHY is the creationist so adamant in his attempts to defend his holy text?
because to accept the reality that the earth is not 6,000 yrs old but 14 billion yrs old,is to go against the word of god,and god is unerring,and if the bible is the word of god....and god is unerring.........

now lets go back to dearborn michigan.
if hitchens and harris are RIGHT,then that relatively stable community of muslims are really just extremists waiting for the angels to blow their horn and announce the time for JIHAD!!!

and,to be fair,that is a possibility,but a small one.

why?
because of something the majority of christians experience here in the states,canada,europe,australia...they experience pushback.

does this mean that america does not have radical christians in our midst?

oh lawdy do we ever.

ok ok..i am doing it again.
me and my pedantic self.

suffice to say:
islam IS a problem,even taken as a singular dynamic,that religion has serious issues.
but they are not the ONLY problem,which is what many of here have been trying to talk about.

ALL religions have a problem,and that problem is fundamentalism.which for christianity is a fairly new phenom (less than 100 yrs old) whereas islam has suffered from this mental malady pretty much since its inception.

ok..thats it..im done.pooped,whipped and in need of sleep.

hope i clarified some things with ya mate,but i swear to god if you respond with a reiteration of all your comments.i am going to hunt you down,and BEAT you with a bible,and not that wimpy king james either!
the hefty scofield study bible!

@mintbbb
hey hey stranger!
i dont know why you second guess yourself in regards to how you are perceived based on peoples subjective and highly irrational understandings.

humans...a curious lot.

you are a total sweetie.you are just super sensitive and some people never really understood that about you.
your husband is an idealist.
thats not a bad thing,in fact that can be a very good thing.

we NEED people to be dreamers and your husband is a dreamer and sometimes that can be frustrating if you are in an argument with him (which i have been).

i didnt always agree with him but i always liked him.

some here on the sift have questioned my friendship with @chingalera.
they didnt understand.
i seemed to be so much more approachable and less acidic in my commentary.
so how could i align myself with such a trollish sifter?

the answer is simply because i get him.
we BOTH are idealists.
just like your husband.
the difference lies in that both ching and i battle,on a daily basis,the rising tide of cynicism.

a cynicism that was born out of being beaten,imprisoned,lied to,betrayed and many times by the very people and/or institutions that we once were idealistic about.

disillusion is a real motherfucker.

yet we still retain that idealism.
we both are humanists.
we care about people.

so everything we do or say is with that at its heart.
so when ching is berating somebody,they may perceive that as an attack.
and it is but it is NOT an attack on them,personally,but rather an attack on their media-induced mythology.
or maybe a person is suffering a severe case of myopia and needs to be shaken out of their apathetic dystopia.

but its always,and i mean ALWAYS to get someone to look at a situation with a different perspective or challenge a belief.
to get people to actually think.
to not just give in to authority but to realize ALL authority is illegitimate until proven otherwise.

i tend to use less shocking and confrontational vernacular than ching does.so that may explain peoples confusion why i consider him a friend.

but if you understood his intent,the words he uses would have less of an emotional impact.

note* by my commentary i am not excusing,condoning nor dismissing chings very real outbursts that actually did hurt some feelings.
but i also know that when people get their feelings hurt they sometimes lash out (and i also suspect that those outbursts were in conjunction with copious amounts of booze).

passionate people are just as sensitive as the next and can/will retaliate in kind when hurt.i know i have.

which brings me to the actual point at hand (sorry..i tend to rant).

why would we remove/negate anything from the archives?
the organic growth and procession of a community should be held intact.
warts and all.
to remove,edit or scrub clean serves nothing,except to maybe repeat past indiscretions.

we never use the ignore button.
nor the sarcasm or jokingly.
so why would we erase the communities past dealings?
be they enlightening or incredibly droll?
its who we were and gives us all a marker where we may be going.

just a thought.

She seems to be scapegoating rappers and black women, and using the wealth signifiers of rap music (washing rims in the kitchen decorated with bottles of champagne) to gesture at self-important “anti-consumerism” (as if an Armani tie on a hedge fund analyst wasn't just as bad). She's exhibiting the same kind of bad taste and myopia (not to mention latent racism) as other [white] singers, Lorde and Macklemore.

While she seems to be trying to make some kind of feminist statement here (“Don’t need to shake my ass for you/‘Cause I’ve got a brain.”), it doesn't seem to be all that feminist of her to be mocking the other dancers in the video for having talents she doesn't have. It also doesn't seem all that feminist of her to remain blissfully colorblind in a world that functions along race

i agree with you DST and i stated as much.
i am not defending his words nor his actions.i disagreed with his tactics and have told him so on more than one occasion.belittling or berating someone whose view is different from your is not conducive for a productive discussion.
what i did speak about was his intent,which was never to be as destructive as it was received.
now this may be due to the fact that choggie and i never had words.
we had disagreements and i would call him on blatant ruses and shenanigans.he never tore in to me..i usually got a chuckle out of him.
even if he did tear into me..who cares?
that is what an ignore function is for.i would never use that function because that just ruins the fun..but that is me..others may be more sensitive to disparaging remarks and maybe they should utilize the ignore function more often.i cannot speak for others.
the other item i addressed was the collective myopia.it does not sit right with me to put blame on a person where it should not lay.the very things some people are complaining about..after the fact mind you...are reactions to choggies hyperbolic commentaries.
ok..i think it is apparent that choggie deserves that for his personalized attacks,but what about those who do the very same thing but in a different form and fashion?
it is hypocritical to point the finger at a man and say "you made me feel like such and such by saying this or that" while at the very same time making others feel just as marginalized and outcast.
does it really matter if the vehicle was polite and cordial if the results are the same?
i can hit you with a tempered steel hammer or a cloth covered baseball bat..either way i am breaking your skull.
see what i am saying?
choggie is responsible for choggie.
he made a deal and broke the terms and people complained forcing dag to end the agreement.
that is the reality.
i am just gonna miss his voice.
i dont have to agree with everything he says to do that..do i?

@ qwiz and rottenseed.
i think maybe my point got lost in my rant.
so let me clarify:
i never agreed with choggies tactics,i found them to be abrasive and confrontational,but i did agree wholeheartedly on his intent.
which was to promote discussion by way of stirring the wasps nest.
i had told him that may be a counterproductive tactic but that was him..meh../shrugs.
so please do not take my rant as a "choggie is my savior".
it is not.
i just liked him and his quirky ways.
i am also not diminishing nor marginalizing those who have had bad experiences with choggie.the private messages and enflammatory comments directed at a particular person.that was their experience and they feel the way they do based on those experiences..who am i too judge the validity of their emotions?
what i WAS addressing however was how i was watching,and not for the first time,people putting blame on the chogster for certain trends and tendencies of this site.
that is a falsehood.
many good people.interesting and unique people left not due to choggies antics but rather the ever-increasing group-think that has permeated this site more and more.
you may disagree and that is your right but it also another discussion and one i welcome gladly.i think i could make a pretty strong case.
i totally agree with you qwiz on the points of popularity and the ebb and flow of users.
you will get no argument from me but that wasn't my point.
while the sift still retains a colorful dynamic that dynamic is nowhere near as diverse as it used to be.
because the group-mind sees any deviation from what they perceive as true and righteous as an affront to their sensibilities.
so anybody with a different voice,opinion or view is quickly pounced on and berated.
that me be done politely,even cordially but it is still done and it is usually done enmasse.
what i find so sad is that many here dont even realize this.
they dont see it.
i am not pointing this out not to be confrontational.
i am just stating an observation..not a judgment.
THIS is what choggie was fighting against.
detest his methods but understand his motivation.
i engage in a different way...
i vote up a video that i know the groupmind will ignore totally.i may not,and many times do not,agree with the content but if it offers a different voice..a different perspective then i will vote it up..even promote it if i have the PP's.
choggie fought against a collective myopia.
others..and we are few..(you know who you are)do the same but use different tactics.
so what if he sounded like don rickles on a crystal meth bender,at least he was entertaining and original.
but a deal is a deal and choggie broke that deal.
ok...those be the rules.
and rottenseed is spot on.
choggie has to be choggie and some here are far too sensitive to look past his abrasive nature (hurtful PM's aside)because they have no understanding the reasons for his words and actions.
this is why i stated "look to yourself before you place blame on another".
because just like you felt attacked by choggie on your posts or on your page many and i mean MANY felt the same way when they tried to share their religion,or their politics or philosophy.
all it takes is that first person to start in and the rest chime in like parrots,sqawking the same line.
just because you may not have been as vitriolic as choggie or abrasive and confrontational does not mean the very SAME results occured to them as choggie made YOU feel.
and there lies the hypocrisy.

as i stated in my previous comment.
i love this place and that still remains true.
i came to this site for three years everyday until i finally decided to share and archive.
i do not regret that decision.
there are some great people here.interesting and unique.even the members who,in my opinion,are part of the collective i like..i may disagree with them and the mental coma i perceive them to be in..but i still like them as people.
choggie was nemesis.
i wonder how many here who villified him will find that dynamic something they will miss?
real easy to think you are right when nobody is punching holes in your premise..
choggie drove a truck through.
i will miss my friends voice here on the sift.

way to miss the point winston.
conflation,deflection and congruence.
which all equal your myopia.
i am not going to waste another post on your inability to get the point.(ok..i'm lying)
my conflation of the man working the concentration camp showers was his decision to participate in the elimination of thousands while he,himself,may be a great guy.this is a moral argument not one of semantics.
i already stated my stance on "evil corporations" but you seem content with putting words in my mouth to make your point.
a point,by the way,i actually agree with but it has nothing to do with what i was trying to convey.
now you wish to direct the discussion on health care yada yada yada....
thats an entirely different discussion.
this discussion has begun to bore me.if you are unwilling or unable to see the moral courage this woman has by standing up and doing what she felt was righteous,then i dont know what to tell you winston.
have fun with the pink elephant in the room.

good for you winston.
what you looking for? a cookie?
your thinking reveals a myopic view,longde is correct.
it is not a slant,at least not to me anyways.it is who you are and i would not have you any other way.
you think in two dimensions and there can be great strength in that but the downside to that paradigm is abstract thinking,grey areas,fuzzy logic.

the discussion was pertaining to the morality of this young woman.recognizing she was stepping on her neighbors face to collect a paycheck,so she broke the rules and got fired for it.she didnt appear too bitter to me and i applaud her for her courage.i have made similar choices.does this make me better than others? of course not,but i have to wake up in the morning and look myself in the mirror.a clear conscience is a thing of beauty.

"the man who flipped the switch at aushwitz may have been a great guy and wonderful family man but he still participated in the elimination of thousands"-noam chomsky.

THIS is the integral point i am trying to make and since you are the "smartest man in the room" i would have thought i would not have to write an essay to get you to understand this very salient and important point on the matter of this young lady.

i give historical context you call it "opinion".
i attempt to convey my mistrust of bankers and show historically why and you cherry pick lines from my comment and ignore the over -all context.
we,as a group praise this young lady and you call her a whiner (which is your right) and spout rhetoric on the awesomeness that is you.
what i have gathered from your comments here is that:
a.bankers are a good and noble breed and those who may have had the misfortune of life turning wrong are just stupid and deserve neither comfort nor release but contemptful scorn.
this is the very same logic of "well,she wouldnt have been raped if she hadnt worn that miniskirt" and you get IRKED when longde calls you out on your myopia?...please son....please...
b.it is the full responsibility and fault of the politicians who ALLOW themselves to be bought and paid for.banks and other institutions hold no such responsibility.
yeah...ok..so the manipulation of markets by institutions to swindle entire governments and it's people of it's wealth is noble?the engineering of wars by those who would profit most is a good and honorable thing for society?

listen my friend,governments are thing not to be trusted,BIG government is a thing to avoid at all costs and when that government starts to work with financial institutions the death knell has begun to ring for the common citizen.
this is not new,it did not began yesterday and while you noted 30 years ago (correct 1972,gold standard=gone) but it goes even further.1966,1942,1933,1929,1917,1923,1880,1781 in america alone.since you are the smartest man in the room i guess you already knew that though./snark

maybe the difference is between you and us lib/leftie/whiner/cry-babies is that we wont FUCK YOU over for a dollar.WE dont agree with the fact that the very same people who created this financial mess cried like little fucking bitches and had to have average joe taxpayer working two jobs bailing those elitist pricks out.at NO risk to them but all the risk on us while they engage in practices that are at best, bottom feeding tendencies.
so YEAH winston,we LIKE when we see a person stand up for what they believe even if that may mean hardship for themselves.not like those PUSSIES on wall street.


so feel free to cherry pick whichever lines you wish to conflate into your myopic paradigm.
hey..you are the smartest man in the room.guess what my response will be.

You have a downright ornery case of myopia.

I would say that you have downright case of not understanding a simple premise. No bank or any other financial institution can affect my life in any way because I'm not a stupid moron with 3 mortgages, $50K in student loans, and $10,000 in credit card debt. You guys are desperately trying to find SOME way to get me to admit that companys 'control my life' or 'have power over me' - but your position is specious and without merit because it is just flat out WRONG.

Great example... On Friday I got a bill from a hospital I had to go to when I was out of state on vacation. I wasn't expecting it. $125 bucks. They claim the original bill was sent in October and that I'm 20 days from being overdue with late fees, collection agencies, and the whole magilla. This is the first time I've ever seen the charge.

Now - if I was a whiney, incompetent twit (like you guys wish) then I would sit and complain and winge about how 'unfair' this is. "Boo hoo-hoo. Woe is me! This is bogus! It isn't my fault. The company has power over my life and is making me miserable wah wah wah!" I'd also have no way to pay the bill, and start racking up late fees and stuff because I was unprepared.

But - of course - that's a dumb@$$ approach and I refuse to do that sort of crap. I have a FSA with plenty of cash in it because I'm not an incompetent fool that can't plan past the end of my nose. On Monday I'll bill the FSA - get the cash in my account - and pay the bill. Boom. Problem solved. Gee - I guess that hospital has no power over me after all!

Story of my life. I don't take out 2nd mortgages to buy crap I don't need. I don't buy garbage with credit cards. I save money for a rainy day. I sock money into 401Ks, FSA, CDs, and savings accounts. I have 6 months of food stored up, and a week of water. I have emergency supplies and fuel in case of disasters. I have a disaster plan for the family as well. I'm not a genius, or some guy living on a compound. I'm just a normal guy with a regular job who plans ahead. If I can do it - ANYONE can do it.

Also, let me ask you WP, and everyone in general, don't you have at least one friend or relative, that has been royally screwed over by a company?

Define 'royally screwed over'. I myself was 'downsized' 3 years ago. There was no reason. The company just decided they were letting 500 people go to show the 'street' they were trying to control costs. Now - quite honestly - the company was long overdue for this because they had a lot of redundant staff. I didn't like it, but I could understand it. Now - YOU might say I was 'royally screwed over'. I simply accept that a company's job is NOT to be my sugar daddy. If they decide to fire me, so be it. I can find another job - and I did so. That happens. I know of NOONE in my life that has been arbitrarily or maliciously mistreated by a company. I know MANY people who are not happy with the decisions a company may have made - but I cannot say in good conscience that they were 'royally screwed over'. And I think if you guys were really honest, you'd probably reclassify a lot of what your bias CALLS 'royally screwed' victims as just regular folks dealing with regular problems - not victims of some massive corporate conspiracy. These visions you guys have of every company being the equivalent of the "Pelican Brief" and every displeased customer being Erin Brockovich are nothing but romantic delusions. Welcome to real life.

Quite frankly - 9 times out of 10 what you guys call a company 'royally screwing' someone is in actuality no more than people having to pay the piper after a long string of foolish choices. The bank or company who is 'evil' is really no more sinister than being the meanie who is not just letting it slide.

You have a downright ornery case of myopia.

Re: point 2, has it never occurred to you that companies can "force misery" on your and your loved ones by producing defective and unsafe goods and services? I guess this has never happened in the history of capitalism. Asbestos, defective tires, tainted formula, bad pharms, etc, etc, etc. Fraudulent mortgages, incompetent surgery, fraudulent auto repairs, etc, etc, etc.

Anyway, what about the rest of the points?

======
"I'm referring to banks legitimately denying loans to people who did not qualify and then getting accused of being racists, economic prejudice, age prejudice, and so on."

How do you know the difference? Do you investigate every case?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'lasik, eye, eww, myopia, nearsightedness' to 'lasik, eye, eww, myopia, nearsightedness, medicine, refractive, surgery, ophthalmology' - edited by mauz15

Oh, Winstonfield. Always the myopia with you, always the myopia.

I don't understand how you can think that excluding gay people from being able to marry is not hate-based, I can't see. Please, try and explain that one. I think we can pretty much be certain that people lobbying for the rights of women to vote were good, and those lobbying against them were bad. The same with rights for black people. And now it's the same with rights for gay people. How can you even think that it is fair and inclusive to not allow gay people to marry? It is not. If someone spouts women-hate or racist bullshit they deserve to be kicked out of whatever organizations they are creating their problem in, just like the law allows. The same is true for gay-haters (ghaters? (; ) it's just that it is not yet officially recognized that anti-gay marriage is also a form of hate.

It is just another step in the correct path of tolerance and compassion for all people regardless of their creed. We are all human first. I'm sorry, Winstonfield, that you believe some people deserve your intolerance because you've somehow come to the conclusion they are not worthy. I'm sorry, Winstonfield, you are arguing for the side that has always lost as civilization advances forward. You can continue scrabbling with your laughable 'neo-lib' stance, but you must realize that 90% of the people who see such phrases immediately laugh at them.

Most of all, Winstonfield, I'm compassionaly sorry for you.