<nitpick>Shouldn't it be either
- deep, philosophical video or
- deeply philosophical video
?</nitpick>

I expected more from Dunkey ;-)

I have the "gall" to admit it that she inspired me in high school. I know numerous people who were as well. None of them are antisocial assholes. I'm perhaps a bit anti-social in the respect that I'm very much an introvert, but people who know me generally don't describe me as an asshole.

It wasn't accidental. Advocating for reason, science, individual rights, critical thinking, trying to be good at what you do, being unafraid to think differently than others, none of that makes you automatically an asshole.

I don't think she was evil. I think her case is complicated as many philosophers were. There's good and bad to it. That's like saying Che Guevara is ipso facto being a fan or somehow on some plane similar or equivalent of being a fan of Stalin, and therefore it's offensive.

Just... no... that's just factually and logically not true.

She was passionately in favor of her own ideas about capitalism, reason, science, and her own individual rights as opposed to a functioning society, philosophical debate, actual science and other peoples rights.

It is strange how people mention her as inspiration offhandedly, basically that is like saying "you know there is this rather clever idea in Mein Kampf" because her whole work is pointed in the direction of "being an asshole is good for you" (which is really pretty obvious, is it not?). A functional society should be able to contain or expel assholes. Ayn being taken seriously is a warning sign.

Well, things are not as rosy as folks like Steven Pinker would like us to believe. As much as I dislike resorting to Hollywood for philosophical insights, True Detective was absolutely on point in this quote:

„Transference of fear and self-loathing to an authoritarian vessel. It's catharsis. He absorbs their dread with his narrative. Because of this, he's effective in proportion to the amount of certainty he can project.“

Now, they were talking about a preacher. But I'd argue this applies to scapegoats as well. And if your arguments undermine the scapegoat, it starts losing its efficiency as a focal point of people's discontent.

Most of us have so much day-to-day shit to deal with that outsourcing the macro-shit to a boogeyman, any boogeyman, helps us get through the day without wanting to bash our head against the wall. Or bash someone else's head in, for that matter.

This doesn't excuse this level of self-delusion, but maybe it explains it to some degree. I'd say keep doing what I know you've been doing for many years: present your case in a respectful manner.

Like any extremist philosophy Rand's writings contain elements of truth. The problem is that they offer a philosophical fig leaf for the rich and powerful to fully exploit their situation in business and politics without regard to the negative effects they may have on the rest of society.

A successful civilisation needs to understand the limitations of both sides of the argument and take the best of both worlds.

Philosophically I am conflicted, but gotta admit, I am very curious to know what I'd actually do.

but I don't think I'd get past the screening. It would be interesting to see if the people that may have a predisposition to some sort of trauma would react differently in the moment. I mean, obviously completely unethical to find out, but still interesting.

Also, did any of participants have knowledge of the trolley problem before? Were they able to recognize the scenario without the deception being revealed? Would having thought about how they'd react previously prompt them to make a decision faster in the heat of the moment, or would perhaps doubts about the realness of the scenario cause them to be passive?. questions. so many questions

"sensitivity is more important than truth,
feelings are more important than facts"

Bill, the fact that you think those are "feminine" values illustrates exactly why feminism is still important.

Bill Burr continues to be an unfunnny throwback to the 80s and frankly, I wish he'd just fuck off.

Louis CK, OTOH, is still a comedic genius.

But here's the thing people. Comedians are great at comedy, but they're comedians, not philosophers or sociologists.

Comedy just doesn't really work with nuanced issues. There are tonnes of jokes about Trump because he's such an obvious combination of dickhead and idiot; there really isn't anything complex about him.

But you don't see much comedy about free trade vs. anti-globalisation because it's a fucking complicated issue that has pros and cons on both sides. Comedy is about hyperbole and exaggeration.

Who is this guy!? He's a tough guy, nerd, kidult, philosopher, and philanthropist all rolled into one! Pretty awesome!

By risk aversion I meant intellectually, not financially. It would be a rarity for Hollywood to give us anything with a deep plot/philosophical in a blockbuster. Heck even a sensical plot to not easy to come by these days.

I don't expect too much in a blockbuster, it's meant to be loud, and fun first & foremost, meant to stimulate the senses more than the brain. A really good plot is an appreciated good bonus, not expectation.

I am glad GitS is doing well. Much more deserving than TF:TLK at least IMO.

@harlequinn

Why should you re-read the bible? Because, like most Christians, you clearly demonstrated that you don't know what it actually says (which is the point of the video), and yet here you are telling @newtboy that he doesn't know anything about it except for hearsay. So... hypocrisy much?

But then you double-down and are now trying to argue with me that the Christian god is not actually considered omnipotent--despite me pointing out three places in the bible where it explicitly states "he" is. Although I'm not at all surprised that a religious person is arguing against facts, I actually agree with the sentiment. If a Christian god truly existed, one look at the state of the world would tell you that "incompetent" is a better descriptive adjective than "omnipotent."

Look man, I get it. You're invested in your religion. I was once too, and just like you argued with atheists about these kinds of arcane points (i.e. is the Christian god omnipotent?) before slowly realizing it is all bullshit and that humanity at this stage of development would be much better off without religion (and by religion I mean any philosophical way of life that uses "faith" as it's primary source for finding truth instead of rational thinking). I don't deny it served a purpose once as a unifying social force, but its day is done. One day you'll either come to the same conclusion or you'll ignore the mountains of problems it causes in the world because you feel it brings you some measure of peace or clarity or whatever. I hope it's the former for you.

Unfortunately, knowing a lot of religious people, I expect it will be the latter. In which case, I can only hope your religion brings you only happiness and you keep it from damaging others' lives as much as possible.

@bobknight33
you literally just repeated things that i,and pretty much everyone on the sift already know.

and has NOTHING to do with what i was asking.

i stated,quite clearly,that on a philosophical and political level,you would disagree with the justice democrats.there is no confusion here,and no reason for you to have gone down the line the things you disagree with.

the question i asked is how is the justice democrats breaking away from the dominant corporate democrats any different from the tea party breaking away from the mainstream republicans?

hint:there is no difference.

i may disagree with the tea party on many political issues,but i admired and respected their integrity to challenge the monolithic political domination of the republican party.even though i may disagree with them politically.to start their own branch WITHIN the republican party.

which is exactly what the justice democrats are doing.

the main reason why i asked is because you down-voted THIS video promoting the justice democrats,and yet had posted a video by kyle,from secular talk and who is a founding member of the justice democrats.criticizing the corporate democrats for their addiction to big campaign donors.

so i appreciate that you took the time to check out their platform,but are we really surprised that you disagree with the majority of what they are trying to accomplish?

of course not,which is why my question was not "do you agree with the justice democrats?"

because you down-voting this video,promoting justice democrats,and then posting a video FROM the justice democrats is a tad confusing.

i was really just asking you to clarify.

do you respect and admire a grass roots movement within the democratic party that seeks to challenge the status quo? even though you may disagree politically?

or are you SO partisan that anything that has "democrat" in the label is automatically to be admonished,criticized and ultimately ridiculed?

bonus question:were you aware the video you posted was from a founding member of justice democrats?

i guess i am just trying to understand,because the downvote along with you posting a video from the very people you just downvoted is philosophically inconsistent.

I can never read the name René Descartes without Monty Python's Philosophers Song starting up in my head.

i really do not understand you bob.
i get that you are republican,and lean towards the philosophy of the tea party.

i have absolutely no issue with that,but didn't you admonish my post which was promoting the "justice democrats" as not being a grass roots anti-corporate establishment democrats,but rather a tool for outlets like the young turks? whose FIRST order to address.the FIRST thing they are going after is:money in politics.which is exactly what kyle is talking about.

kyle is also talking about giving the boot to not only all the corporate donors,but the very politicians that have LOST,consistently,because they are more interested in dialing for donors than doing their job.pelosi did not retain her position due to her political acumen and ability to pass progressive legislature,but because that woman is a money funding machine.

kyle even mentions the justice democrats!!!!
as a viable option to combat the corruption in the democratic party due to the corrosive influence of corporate money in politics.

you literally just posted a video by secular talk,which is a founding member of justice democrats!

so which one is it bob?

do you respect and admire a small group of democrats who are part of independent media and are creating a group to combat the corporate,establishment democrats? a group who is already
growing in size,and have already got some politicians on the ballot?

or are you sticking to your position you took on my justice democrat video,which was dismissive and critical?

please help me understand bob,because as of right now you are playing two positions that are philosophically inconsistent.

*promote bob's support of the democrats new caucus "the justice democrats",which i am fairy sure is the seventh sign of the apocalypse.

how did this thread steer into climate change waters?
heh...god i love this site,and i love all you fuckers as well!

i don't really understand the rehashing of the election,trump is president.it is a done deal.

which is probably why i am struggling with the hillary diehards.politics is not a binary equation,so stop acting like it IS,and for the love of god stop with the condescension directed at people who did not vote YOUR way.ya'all are acting like we are your wayward dog who just took a giant dump on your carpet.

just LOOK at what you have done! LOOK at it! bad dog..baaaad dog.

@Stormsinger and @MilkmanDan were kind enough to share who they voted for,but they should not be put in a position to defend their vote.their vote,their choice and their right.

you may disagree,and that is fine,but to place all the blame on them,and their "like-minded compatriots" is arrogant,presumptuous and condescending.the reason hillary lost is not simply due to a few small holdouts.there are a myriad of reasons,and in my opinion,hillary should take most of the blame.

and what is this purity test @bareboards2 ?
do you mean a person standing by their principles?
remaining steadfast in their moral values?
showing us all that they would rather lose,than give up one ounce of integrity?

are you seriously criticizing people for holding to their own standards of morality and decency?

politics is not binary,there a many mitigating factors and political affilliation is only one aspect.

i have seen friends who voted for trump,and were extremely vocal about their support in the run up to election day,only to become eerily silent the further we got into trumps presidency.many of these people had voted for obama..TWICE..they wanted change.were desperate for change,and now they are finding out,that change may not be what they were expecting.

because the trump presidency is going to one helluva horror show,but there are also positives to consider.it is not a total loss.

i have the seen the very same people who have ridiculed and berated fundamentalist christians for being ideologically rigid,and philosophically immovable.turn around and express the exact same rigidity,and binary thought processes when it comes to their girl hillary clinton.

i was talking the other day with a man i highly respect and admire,who flippantly and casually called me a racist.
my crime?
i had the audacity to criticize obama.
which he doubled down and accused me of being sexist for not supporting hillary,and being critical of her as well.

how is this NOT ideological rigidity?
that to critically examine two prominent public figures automatically equates to:racism and sexism.

this is the metric that i see so many hillary supporters use when dealing with someone that they may disagree.this is a cheap,ill thought and ultimately WEAK counter to valid criticisms.

at what point do hillary supporters stop labeling other people the most vile of terms,simply because they did not step into line with THEIR thinking,and begin to examine the very REAL problems that both the hillary campaign,and the DNC,created for themselves?

or is everybody simply a racist and sexist?
that's it..no discussion.

this is akin to the fundamentalist christian labeling anybody who disagrees with their religion,or has brought up solid criticisms,as being an agent of satan.

" i do not like what you are saying about hillary,so therefore you must be a sexist".

the easiest,and most human,thing we do when faced with information and/or criticism that is in direct opposition to our long held beliefs.is to demonize the person making those claims,and therefore silence any further disruption to our own subjective belief system.

so when i talk about "insulated bubbles",and "echo chambers".that right there is what i am referring to,and it is dangerous.

i refuse to judge anybody on how they voted.they had their reasons,and i may even disagree with those reasons,but they have a right to their vote and who am i to judge them?

rehashing the election,or assigning blame based on ideological differences,accomplishes nothing.the REAL work starts now.trump is in office,and he is gearing up to be an unmitigated disaster.

so get involved.head to your next town hall meeting and speak your piece.start to connect with the political movements in your area and start to put pressure on your local representative.

i think we can all agree that trump is awful on so many levels,but to witness the american people become so politically engaged,so politically active,more active than they have been in decades.it really is inspiring,and all this is due to trump.

if hillary had won,would we see the same kind of newly energized,and politically active public?

i don't think so.

so let us stop with the rehashing.
stop with the blaming.
and get off our asses,step outside our own little,insulated echo chamber and start to engage.

don't know how to step outside your own bubble?
there is an app for that:
https://videosift.com/video/it-is-time-to-pop-your-social-media-echo-chamber-bubble

*oh,and even though i may have alluded to who i voted for.let me state clearly that i voted for hillary.i stick by my dislike of the "lesser of two evils" but come on...trump in the white house?

yeeesh....

@kir_mokum has a point.this is dennis prager,from the illustrious (sarcasm) prager university.

you are not entirely incorrect when you state that this appears to be "fact-based",and it is..up to a point,because those 'facts' have been carefully cherry-picked to lead you to a pre-determined conclusion.

this video,in a nutshell,is propaganda.

he uses the word 'evil" as if somehow it is representative of communism.this is a canard,communism is not "evil",those who wielded power in their respective communist systems,perpetrated those "evil" acts.

communism itself,is not inherently evil.
failed and ultimately destructive and oppressive,but not inherently evil.

we can apply pragers logic to our own economic system of capitalism and come to the exact same conclusion that he did with communism.capitalism also causes immense hardship and suffering,and also death.deaths by the tens of thousands.

is capitalism "evil"?
of course not.

he also states without evidence,or supporting sources,that the "liberal" intelligencia from our higher educational system refuse to admonish communism as "evil".of course they don't,because communism is not inherently "evil",but stalin and moa WERE despotic tyrants,who were responsible for perpetrating immense hardship,suffering and death.a.k.a=evil.

i find it interesting how prager will state,and with zero sense of irony,how communism is "evil" and yet ignore how capitalism,and america's neoliberalsm policies across the globe kill millions.how even here in america,we have cities and towns laid waste by these policies of capitalism.they are called "sacrifice zones",and they look like beruit more than an american city.

i mean,if you are going to blame an economic system for being "evil",at least be philosophically consistent.

but no mention of that at all.
because prager is an ideologue who prays at the altar of neoliberalism and capitalism.he has an agenda,and manipulates facts to fit his own narrative to convince you that his argument is righteous.

it is not.
it is propaganda.