So you can't possibly live on less than $15/hr? I feel like maybe that's more an issue of your money management skills then.

Sure, $6/hr is probably not enough. But it wasn't too long ago when 15 was a pretty decent wage. And kids living with mommy don't exactly require the same kind of "living wage" as they don't have any real expenses. So now, you raise the bottom to 15, and these kids now make more money. What about those who were making 15 before? Suddenly they're making minimum wage. I'm sure that makes them feel swell! Everyone should get a boost, not just those at the bottom. Probably a combination of that and a bit of a sliding scale to a certain maximum, along with tax reforms to close loop holes for those gaming the system.

The problem is that the American election process is so fucked that calling it a democracy is actually getting to be a bit of a stretch these days.

The fact that @entr0py recognizes that his (her?) vote doesn't count should be a massive red flag. It is beyond stupid that in 2016, votes for a countrywide position (i.e. president) are split up at a local level.


And that's before you even get to the problems of how much first past the post voting sucks
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Problems-with-First-Past-the-Post-Voting-Explained

The presidential elections should be carried out under STV
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Alternative-Vote-Explained
and congress under mmp
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Mixed-Member-Proportional-Representation-Explained

Unfortunately, until you get some election reform.... you're kinda stuck with it.

Sorry, but if your choice is Clinton or Trump/Cruz? You HAVE to vote lesser of two evils. (although, I'm still hoping that if Bernie doesn't get the democration nomination, he might still run as a 3rd party)

Campaign finance reform IS a major political issue of the day, not a personal attack.
Hillary can't defend her actions on this issue, so she's attempting to deflect the focus back at Bernie for simply bringing up her public record/actions as related to this serious political issue.
That Hillary wants to characterize it as a personal attack shows clearly which side of the issue she's on and how deeply she's invested in that side, and it's the wrong side. There's absolutely no way to think she'll do anything meaningful about campaign finance reform when she benefits so much from the status quo.
If addressing this issue, one that dramatically effects ALL other issues and candidates, is meaningful to you, there's only one candidate for you, and it's certainly not Hillary or any Republican.

I'm glad he's bringing up campaign reform, especially since Lawrence Lessig's campaign went absolutely nowhere. Odds are still that by the general election this will all be forgotten since my guess is it will be Clinton vs. Rubio and neither will want to bring it up.

@enoch

Sorry, bro, you know I love you but I had to downvote this.

You mentioned in a previous comment in this thread that context is important and I think you're right--particularly the fact that the author of this video is hugely pro-GamerGate and the purpose of this video seems to be--yet again--to rationalize the personal attacks against high profile activists in the GamerGate saga.

This video is a classic example of how and why GamerGate as a movement completely self-destructed--it wanted to debate the people involved and avoid debating the actual ideas.

So what if the people making the claims are narcissistic? So what if they believe they are special snowflakes? None of that matters. What matters is their arguments and how strongly they can support them.

Some initial GamerGate arguments actually had merit, for example complaints about too close ties between media sites and game publishers and a lack of disclosure about those ties.

And you know what? People actually listened! For what it's worth, GamerGate did in fact cause most gaming media outlets to reconsider and revise their ethics guidelines. For example, journalists now feel the need to mention whether they bought their own copy of a review game or were gifted one by the company (honestly, I don't give a fuck either way but apparently some people thought it was a big deal).

I think the irony of this video is that everything that the author says about "SJWs" can in fact be applied to many GamerGaters themselves. Are they not seeking reform? Who could be against ethics in gaming journalism? It could be argued that just as the Occupy movement was destroyed from within by people more concerned with their priviledge than actual change the GamerGate movement was destroyed from within by "gamers" who felt their opinion alone was what should matter to publishers making games, and any form of dissent from that party line meant you were an SJW unworthy of being listened to.

On second thought, maybe I shouldn't have downvoted this video... the irony here is too delicious.

@Jinx

hey thanks for keeping this conversation going and not just making assumptions and allowing us both to come to a better understanding.

though i am not really surprised,i am gladdened.

in my opinion,i think this situation may be a problem with indentifying with labels and maybe putting too much weight on them to convey complicated and complex human interactions.

i would call myself a social justice warrior,but i would never identify as those who behave is the extremists do.but to imply that the responsibility is on ME,or any other critic,to redefine these radical social justice warriors as somehow not being representative of the majority,is a false dynamic,because that is how they define themselves.

basically the "No true scotsman" fallacy.which is employed ad-nauseum by these extremists.that somehow if you do not adhere to their radical agenda you are somehow not qualified to label yourself:feminist,anarchist (this has been directed at me),socialist, etc etc.

this is just a silly and binary way of breaking down peoples complex human perceptions and understandings to fit a narrow,and restrictive narrative,in order to achieve an agenda.

so while we all viewed GW bush's "if you're not with us,you're against us",as an inane and utterly stupid statement.how come there is little push back when the EXACT same tactic is used to silence someone who may not be 100% on board with a certain agenda?

does me posting this video automatically translate to me being "anti-social justice warrior"?

of course not! that is just silly,but in todays climate that is exactly how some people view complex situations,and it HAS to stop!

you brought up police.
good.
lets use that as an example.
the fact the americas militarized and dysfunctional police force has accounted for more police shootings than soldiers have died in iraq.do we REALLY need to be told that it is not ALL cops.

of course not.again,that is silly but it DOES mean that maybe there is a problem within the institution that needs to be addressed.

here is a perfect case for social justice warriors to bring this corruption and rot to the surface,and here we have black lives matter.which is receiving mixed coverage in the media,but they have gotten people talking and even some incremental reforms in the woks AND,just recently..6 cops fired from a cleveland precinct for shooting civilians.this is where social justice warriors are not only necessary but vital!

but what if.....

those cops who were feeling threatened,or intimidated by the criticism and examination of their institution coming from black lives matters decided to use a tactic right out of these extremists playbook?

maybe some doxxing?
exposing personal information about the protesters?
how about a few false accusations of rape?
maybe personal harassing calls to friends and family members of the black lives matter movement?
how about some false charges of harassment and sexual discrimination?

that would effectively shut down the black lives matter movement within weeks,and how would we respond to that kind of underhanded tactics?

we would be outraged.
we would be furious at the absolute abuse of power.a power bestowed by the state.

and our outrage would be justified.

do you see where i am coming from here?

in the example i have given,which may or not be the best analogy.we can easily see the abuse of power as a form of bullying to get a group that is a dissenting ideology..to shut..the fuck..up.

freedom of speech is NOT just speech you or i agree with,or happen to support,but it also speech that we may dislike,disagree and even find offensive.

but by allowing those we dislike or disagree to say their piece,allows us and everybody else to examine,discern and ultimately discard as ridiculous.or,converesly,find some merit that was previously hidden from us,due to our lack of knowledge or understanding.

i realize i am reiterating my previous point,but i think it is so very important.

free speech allows the free flow of ideas and dialogue and allows good ideas to be absorbed into the body politic and the bad ones discarded into the trash bin.

but there MUST be the allowance of the free flow of thought!

so when i post a video such as this i am not ridiculing actual socially conscious people.i am exposing bad ideas,supported by narrow minded people who wish to impose THEIR sense of how a society should be and attempt to circumvent the very slow process of discussion,argument and debate by hijacking the conversation and shutting down all dissent and disagreement with the most fascist tactics possible.

up until a month ago i was fairly ignorant to things like gamergate and whatnot.i thought i had a pretty fair understanding of what a social justice warrior was,and even included myself as one.

but then,quite by accident,i fell upon a few stories that highly disturbed me.one ,in particular was the case of greg allen elliot who was being criminally prosecuted for harassment on twitter.

now the case was finally resolved,and elliot was found not guilty.
so hooray for justice right?
free speech won in the end right?
or did it...did elliot actually win?
i am not so sure.

you see.
he was a web designer.
and once he was charged 3 years ago,he was banned from any internet use.so effectively he was jobless.
on top of that his defense cost 100k.
sounds like a loss to me.

now let us examine stephanie guthrie.a prominent toronto feminist and tedtalk speaker:
1.she made the accusation of harassment and brought the charges.
2.even though this all started with a man who created a game where anita sarkesians faced was punched,and was the supposed imetus for all this fuss,guthrie never laid charges against the creator of the game.though she did,along with her followers harassed and bullied this man until he closed down his account.so chock one up for feminism? i guess?
4.what guthrie found so reprehensible about elliot was that he had the audacity to question guthries rage and called for a calm interaction.(mainly because there are literally 100's of face-punching games).
5.guthrie and her followers found this call for calm offensive and doxxed elliot and proceeded to harass his employer,his family and ffirends.
6.elliot lost his job.his employer could not handle the harassment.so feminist win again? i guess?
7.when guthrie blocked elliot on twitter she continued to publicly accuse him of misogyny,bigot and even a pedophile.
8.she then brought accusations against elliot for criminal harassment,and that she "felt" harassed.
9.guthrie has paid ZERO for her accusations.she has suffered no accountability nor responsibility.

now the court case is over,and elliot has been vindicated and free speech is still in place for today.

but lets look at the bigger picture.
and let us imagine how easily this situation could be abused.
can we really look at guthrie vs elliot as ANY form of justice? or is it MORE liekly that guthrie was abusing a court system to punish a man she happened to disagree with?with ZERO consequences.

now maybe you agree with guthrie.
maybe you are one of those people that believe in your heart that words are weapons and people should be held accountable for those words.they should be stripped of wealth,work and home..they should be punished.

ok.
thats fine.
maybe you agree because it is a matter you support?
a racist pig loses a job for saying racists things.
or a bigot gets kicked out of his apartment for being a bigoted asshole.

but how about this..
hypothetically:
a devout chritian woman is protesting an abortion clinic with her children in tow.

and lets say a pro-choice atheist comes over to her and starts to berate her i front of her children.ridiculing her for her beliefs and saying jesus was a zombie.that she is a horrible person for believing in such a tyrannical deity,that this so-called all-loving entity punishes all no-believers in a lake of fire for all eternity.that as a mother,teaching her children to worship such a god is tantamount to child abuse.berating her so badly that her children begin to cry?

now what if that interaction was filmed?
then posted to youtube?
what if a "social justice warrior" of the religious flavor decided that berating person needed to pay for his words?
what if that person got doxxed?
and the end result was he loses his job (because corporations are notoriously controversy allergic),and maybe his landlord is notified and he is kicked out of his apartment?

would you be ok with all that?
because that is the EXACT same metric that radical social justice warriors use!

and what about false accusations?
you dont even have to be actually offended and /or harassed,you just have to accuse and the rest takes care of itself.

are you ok with that kind of creative abuse?

so when i bring things like this to the forefront and attempt to expose the underlying idiocy.what i just wrote is where i am coming from.

and yes.these radicals and their underhanded tactics need to be exposed and all the attention brought to them the better.

why? because what and how they are behaving is anti-democracy anti-freedom and anti-liberty.

and i am all for debating specific issues,and will gladly do so..with glee,but i will not and cannot respect what the radical elements are doing to an otherwise worthy cause.

and YOU should be calling them out as well.

i know this is long and i probably lost the plot somewhere,but this is very important,becuase it threatens all of us and if we simply ignore these nimrods they will just become even more entrenched,self-righteous and arrogant in their own little bubble worlds.

that bubble needs to be popped,and soon.

anyways.thanks for hanging (if you made it this far)
there will be danishes and punch in the lobby!

As always, my views are just a layman's perspective with no claims to expertise.

@RedSky

You correctly point out the intent of the reform, to stop fractional banking which they diagnosed as a primary driver of volatility within the financial sector. They want to revert back to a system where the banks were intermediaries the way you described it: deposit leads to loan, in this case at a maximum ratio of 1:1, no leveraging.

Unlike the current system where bank deposits are mostly created by banks themselves -- the act of lending creates deposits. In fact, deposits are liabilities of the banks, not assets. Reserves are assets, but they are only traded between entities with accounts at the central bank. And, in normal times, are provided quite freely by the central bank in exchange for other assets.

Anyway, "Vollgeld" places the ability to create money exclusively in the hands of the central bank. Controlling the amount of money in circulation was a concept most central banks were eager to drop during the '90s, since it never worked. Demand for credit is volatile, central control is inflexible, even if they could somehow quanfity the need for it ex ante -- which they can't. Hell, they can't even do it ex post. You can't quantify the need for additional money beyond what's already in circulation if the central bank's action set the conditions for a dynamic development in the first place. You can't know in advance what increases in production need to be financed, you can't know how demand for liquidity evolves over time. The quantity theory of money was buried for a reason, it ignores reality.

Anyway, I applaud the proponents of Vollgeld for pointing out the dysfunctionalities of our fractional reserve system as well as how questionable it is, ethically, to hand over so much power to a small cabal of financial elites. In fact, I'm quite ecstatic to hear them point out that a nation with a sovereign, free-floating currency does not need to finance deficits through banks -- how very MMT of them. Go OMF!

But their proposed solutions are a fallback to "the market will stabilise itself if left alone, a completely independant central bank will keep the quantity of money in circulation at just the right amount". This hands-off approach resulted in absolute devastation whenever it was applied. They want to turn the state into a regular economic subject that has to adapt to the amount of money currently in circulation. It's (the illusion of) control by technocrats, where you get to disguise policies against the masses as "economic neccessities". Basically the German Eurozone on steroids.

As for the absolute independence of the central bank: you are right, that is not strictly part of the Swiss Vollgeld initiative. But it's what almost every proponent of Vollgeld within the German-speaking circles argues for, including major drivers behind the initiative. Can't let politicians have control over our central bank or else they'll abuse it for populist policies.

They are true believers in technocrat solutions, completely seperate from democratic control.

PS: I cut down my ranting to a minimum of MMT arguments, given that many people see it as just a different sort of voodoo economics.

Edit: Elizabeth Warren's 21st Century Glass Steagal Act strikes me as a rather promising way to solve a great number of problems with the financial industry without going back into the realm of monetarism.

Somewhat related: Toxic “Reform” Law Will Gut State Rules on Dangerous Chemicals

The issue in a single quote:

The Senate bill prohibits states from acting on chemicals that the EPA deems “high priority” while the agency is evaluating them. But the agency’s investigations can go on for years and even decades before it takes action. Back in 2002, for instance, the EPA initiated a high-priority review of PFOA, a chemical used to make Teflon and hundreds of other products. Probable links between the chemical and six diseases have been found in the intervening years, and contamination is now known to be widespread, yet the agency has not regulated it.

The EPA has been investigating the safety of some of the flame retardants that would be banned by the Washington state bill for more than 25 years. And the agency has spent at least 30 years looking at the safety of methylene chloride, which is still widely available in hardware stores though its fumes have been killing people since at least the 1940s.

Wow, powerful video. I think this is why certain psychedelics, can (can) help people with addictions or even people with simple obsessions (porno, video games, etc). They have the potential to temporarily exit the cage for self reflection or experience outside of it. Some of the more powerful ones (iboga, ayahuasca) really physiologically reset the afflicted receptor sites - and much much more.

I agree whole-heartily that the way that the US handles drug addiction, mental illness & criminality are completely out of whack. Implying that the direct parallels between those subjects are ignorance (or taboo), incarceration & the lack of clear, precise scientifically proven reformation.

Yet more Bullshit from the left. *lies

Any immigrant having a job is one less for an American.

5 workers in 1990 now 3 to sustain 1retiree. So we need to allow immigrants to be my sugar daddy when I retire. Only the left would come up with this excuse of Pimping of immigrants.

Immigrants ARE a drain on public budgets 11Billion in generated taxes is jack squat to what we spend on taking care of them.

ABC news indicated...
"The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group that favors tighter immigration laws, argues that the answer is clear: illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion each year. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illegal-immigrants-cost-us-100-billion-year-group/story?id=10699317

"The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative advocacy group that favors tighter immigration laws, argues that the answer is clear: illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion each year. "


Another report indicates $346 Billion per year.
http://www.rense.com/general81/dtli.htm


Net rates of immigration has fallen 10% . Yep the shitty economy will do that.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/24/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/



He is right the game is rigged at the top. The rich want cheep labor and tha is not you. So yes immigrants are taking your job.


Sure today they might have a low skill job today but their children will grow up and take a good middle / upper class job which use to be yours or you childs.

Nahh... we surely wanted a minority government but Trudeau getting a majority isn't horrible. It means they have a chance to fix a lot of what the Conservatives have done to this country without having to worry as much about interference from the Conservatives.

Mainly, for the people who voted strategically for ABC (anyone but Conservative) like myself, it means the Liberals get a good chance at electoral reform without the Conservatives interfering. Anything is better than that 'Canadian twat' (Hear hear! and Harper, I'm referring to Harper here, even though @eric3579 left his implication open to interpretation... ) and four years of a Liberal majority will be better for Canada than anything Harper could have given us.

figured i would take this discussion to your page.

in response to this post:kinda,you are close,in the ball park.

the main reason why i injected my opinion in that thread was to add a dynamic that was not being discussed.

i wasnt actually offering a counterpoint but rather adding to the already complicated dynamic.

so i do not think we disagree at all.
one of the reasons islam has not changed much is due to there not being a reformation.this lack of canonization and core central philosophical tenants has left islam to a wide array of problems,many of those problems we see play out everyday on the world stage.

if you going to read any book on islam.i highly recommend reza aslans "no god but god".the entire book is an argument FOR reformation and you may recognize some of the arguments in the book from my commentary.

as always my friend,
a pleasure engaging and discussing with you.
stay awesome.

Of course. People always try to manipulate facts so that they fit their agenda.
History doesnt lie. Historians however... and history is written by the victors.
That doesnt make history meaningless, because sooner or later the truth gets out. It took a long while on WW2 and even WW1 (read The Sleepwalkers), but it happens. Also people, thanks to the Internet, get more and more informed from different sides. Common sense has been reformed. People actually understand cause and effect now, and dont just believe in what the news or some history books say that were written by PC or victor authors.

The problem with history is that it is taught fundamentally wrong. When it happened and who were involved are more or less unimportant. The real importance is that we learn from it, so we dont repeat historical mistakes and know what happens when we do this or that decision. People need to think for themselves when learning history, how that is projected on todays happenings, how we can avoid the things that happened so many times in history and always caused the same bad thing and how it all worked together to cause that. That should be taught. Instead names and dates are the most important thing to our society. No wonder history is so easily manipulated and repeated then!

what a fantastic discussion.
i would just like to add a few points:
1.religious texts are inert.they are neutral.
WE give them meaning.
so if you are a violent person,your religion will be violent.
if you are a peaceful and loving person,your religion will be peaceful and loving.
2.religion,along with nationalism,are the two greatest devices used by the state/tyrant/despot/king to instigate a populace to war/violence.
3.as @Barbar noted.islam is in serious need of reformation,much like the christian church experienced centuries ago.see:the end of the dark ages.
4.one of my problems with maher,harris and to a lesser extent dawkins,is that they view this strictly as a religious problem and ignore the cultural and social implications of the wests interventionism in the middle east.this is a dynamic and complicated situation,which goes back decades and to simply say that this is a problem with islam is just intellectually lazy.

there is a reason why these communities strap bombs to their chest.there is a reason why they behead people on youtube.there is a reason why salafism and wahabism are becoming more entrenched and communities are becoming more radicalized.

islam is NOT the reason.
islam is the justification.

the reason why liberals lose absofuckingalways,is because they not only feel they are,as @gorillaman pointed out,"good" but that they are somehow "better" than the rest of us.

sam harris is a supreme offender in this regard.that somehow the secular west has "better" or "good" intentions when we interfere with the middle east.that when a US drone strike wipes out a wedding party of 80 people is somehow less barbaric than the beheading of charlie hedbo.

yet BOTH are barbaric.

and BOTH utilize a device that justifies their actions.
one uses national security and/or some altruistic feelgood propaganda and the other uses islam.

yet only one is being occupied,oppressed,bombed and murdered.

this is basic.
there really is no controversy.
this is in our own history.
what is the only response when faced with an overwhelming and deadly military force,when your force is substantially weaker?
guerrilla warfare.

so the tactic of suicide bomber becomes more understandable when put in this context.
it is an act of desperation in the face of overwhelming military might to instill fear and terror upon those who wish to dominate and oppress.

and islam is the device used to justify these acts of terror.
just as nationalism and patriotism are used to justify OUR acts of terror.

thats my 2c anyways.
carry on peoples.

When a holy book includes an unusual punishment for something, and that punishment is carried out, and when asked afterwards why they did it they point at the book, it seems dishonest to discount the book as ever being a possible inspiration.

When someone decides to smite the neck of an infidel for drawing a picture of the prophet, how can that be construed as something other than a religious grievance? It's a religious punishment for a religious transgression.

The reformations and toning down of the BS in the other monotheisms came following massive popular pressure. I'm hoping for more pressure against these insanities.