what's it all about - ghetto dreams - bring the noise - bonfire - escape

(slum village, common, public enemy, childish gambino, samiyam)

err

>> ^Pprt:

This is the reality of population movement to first world countries.
People abandon developing nations for a meager existence elsewhere. Hundreds of millions have absolutely no hope for their own countries and simply dream of leaving it... what are the hopes for the rest of the world if we allow this to continue?


'Allow' infers some sort of control..western imperial (or post-imperial) powers have as much choice about people following the wealth they extracted as a sandcastle does about the tide coming in.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^Jinx:

I think what I find especialy repulsive about such places is that they have no humility. Its a giant phallus of a city, where wealth and power is flaunted as if it were something sacred. There is no shame in Dubai.
I've only been to San Antonio in the States. It wasn't too bad tbh, I certainly expected much worse from Texas. The US has its problems, but its far from the worst. I felt more discomfort in Mexico driving out of gated community into basically a slum 15 minutes down the road, or spending a month in Mexico City after a couple of Months in the south close to Guatemala.


I told a friend about driving through Texas and looking over across the border at little shack villages and such. He told me that they build those there on purpose to make us feel sorry for them. Yeah...yeah I know.

I think what I find especialy repulsive about such places is that they have no humility. Its a giant phallus of a city, where wealth and power is flaunted as if it were something sacred. There is no shame in Dubai.

I've only been to San Antonio in the States. It wasn't too bad tbh, I certainly expected much worse from Texas. The US has its problems, but its far from the worst. I felt more discomfort in Mexico driving out of gated community into basically a slum 15 minutes down the road, or spending a month in Mexico City after a couple of Months in the south close to Guatemala.

Serious Sam was a good game. Serious Sam 2 was a horribad impression of some other game. With number 3, it looks like at least they've figured out what was good about the original (ie. a million enemies, and shooting them) and are bringing the good gameplay ideas back.

But the writing needs serious help. It's funny; they owe much of their success to good comedy writing. Not in their game, but by Eric Wolpaw, who wrote about it on OldManMurray. Eric would later go on to write for Portal, and help create probably the best games of the last decade.

Do you think Valve regrets hiring Eric? And yet, other game companies haven't figured this out. If you want to do comedy in a game, hire someone who's proven successful at doing comedy.

The one-liners in this video are sad crap. Yes, I understand that they're supposed to be over-the-top. That's the problem: they aren't, and they aren't funny.

Without any digging, you can see Wolpaw had plenty of contemporaries that are still around, still being funny, and still available for hire. Seanbaby is slumming it at Cracked. Lowtax has to be bored over at SomethingAwful. Hell, there are tons of great writers at SA who'd be great for a comedy video game. I don't think it would take crazy money to get Yahtzee (or one of the other current generation) doing game writing either.

Why aren't they being picked up by someone? How do you still get crap like this in a high budget title?

I'll check out the documentries. I agree, not everyone in the movement is like those people, but it really just seems like a mess. The coverage I've seen is a bunch of people slumming around, hawking their pet causes. I also don't see any coherent solution being offered. Do they want us to put all the rich people on a boat and sink it? I've seen people marching with communist flags and other who seem to think socialism is a good idea, which it isn't. Capitalism has flaws, that is undeniable, but it also has done a lot to spread personal freedom around the world. Capitalism is flawed, just like other system, because people are flawed. Anytime you have people entrusted with money and power, they find a way to screw it up, and good people get punished while bad people get rewarded. It's not the system which is the problem. It's the human heart:

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

>> ^westy:
A couple of crazies does not invalidate an argument , I have yet to see these hippie/anarchist type people repress anyone to the extent that the banks/cooperate owners and mega rich have (even if intentional or not) .
"I can't get behind a bunch of whiny entitled anarchists"
Don't then I certainly am not behind Whiny entitled anarchists. I think the whiny entitled types are very much in the minority in these protests , the main point of the protests is to draw attention to the fact that the super rich are controlling the policy and are affectively steeling from the majority of people and getting away with it.
Another affect the protests have had is that people are FINALY talking about how fundamental aspects of capitalism are flawed and its not necessaries 1 political party or another that's at fault ( although you can attribute deregulation of the markets to some people more than others)
If you have not seen it already and want a good over view of things watch these documentaries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-FyuuWlWQ
http://www.archive.org/details/AdamCurtis_PandorasBox
http://www.archive.org/details/AdamCurtis_TheTrap

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...

Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.

And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.

"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.

*Off soapbox.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^aurens:
"He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself."
This is the main fallacy of your post. Ron Paul does believe that we have a responsibility towards others. He doesn't believe, though, that it's the government's role to enforce that responsibility. Until you understand that distinction, you'll continue to misunderstand his message.
>> ^NetRunner:
Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction ...

I think NR gets that, but I can only speak for myself:
Let's say RP gets his ideology through to the presidency and would have 76% of all seats filled with people that share the same ideology, supreme court as well, and ditto for the military (just for completeness). Abolish the national health care system and all other governmental social securities. All regulations and all subsidies get canned, plus: No more wars on foreign soil. Small government.
So let's assume that all people who were laid off in the social sector are immediately hired by the free market companies, all the laid off military personnel from foreign bases find some jobs. Plus: Everyone's net pay comes out as it would be without the taxes.
Let's assume patent laws are still in existence: Drug companies holding a patent can charge whatever price they want, other companies would have to field the costly research themselves to come up with a similar patent. --> costly and ineffective.
If there are no more patents, no company would do research for new patents to stay in business.

People can get fired on a whim without regulations. As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce. Wages will be low, as there will be enough replacement workforce. People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies), expensive public transport (no subsidies, high prices for gas) and their rents (which would most likely also be high, as their landlords need more money).
Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded. The underfunded ones only pay out for immediate threats of life. Only few charities with rich backers have enough income to provide for their employees and selectively only grant moneys as dictated yb their rich backer: Most likely to employees of his firm. What happens to people without jobs? Completely dependant on charity. Around the few charitable organisations, slums are built by the people who rely on the distributed food. Many of these people get hired for the day just for a little money and a bit of food.
Soem are kept by rich people as their personal poor they care for (see India).
People start flocking to the remaining rich states, large areas of middle-America are depopulated, as the aging communities cannot sustain themselves. Farmer is the most popular job again.
The poor revolt, the underfunded police force joins them. Private security of the rich fires into the crowds.
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

>> ^aurens:

"He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself."
This is the main fallacy of your post. Ron Paul does believe that we have a responsibility towards others. He doesn't believe, though, that it's the government's role to enforce that responsibility. Until you understand that distinction, you'll continue to misunderstand his message.
>> ^NetRunner:
Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction ...


I think NR gets that, but I can only speak for myself:

Let's say RP gets his ideology through to the presidency and would have 76% of all seats filled with people that share the same ideology, supreme court as well, and ditto for the military (just for completeness). Abolish the national health care system and all other governmental social securities. All regulations and all subsidies get canned, plus: No more wars on foreign soil. Small government.

So let's assume that all people who were laid off in the social sector are immediately hired by the free market companies, all the laid off military personnel from foreign bases find some jobs. Plus: Everyone's net pay comes out as it would be without the taxes.

Let's assume patent laws are still in existence: Drug companies holding a patent can charge whatever price they want, other companies would have to field the costly research themselves to come up with a similar patent. --> costly and ineffective.
If there are no more patents, no company would do research for new patents to stay in business.


People can get fired on a whim without regulations. As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce. Wages will be low, as there will be enough replacement workforce. People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies), expensive public transport (no subsidies, high prices for gas) and their rents (which would most likely also be high, as their landlords need more money).

Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded. The underfunded ones only pay out for immediate threats of life. Only few charities with rich backers have enough income to provide for their employees and selectively only grant moneys as dictated yb their rich backer: Most likely to employees of his firm. What happens to people without jobs? Completely dependant on charity. Around the few charitable organisations, slums are built by the people who rely on the distributed food. Many of these people get hired for the day just for a little money and a bit of food.

Soem are kept by rich people as their personal poor they care for (see India).

People start flocking to the remaining rich states, large areas of middle-America are depopulated, as the aging communities cannot sustain themselves. Farmer is the most popular job again.

The poor revolt, the underfunded police force joins them. Private security of the rich fires into the crowds.
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

Now Brazilian slums will be even more colorful.

@Issykitty - HOW DARE YOU INSULT THIS MEETING OF GREAT MINDS!

FYI - I like when I write a thoughtful comment and it gets downvoted by the people I'm arguing with, especially when they aren't able to come up with any kind of worthwhile response. I take it as a sign of weakness. Very cool.

Also, I'm not pissed at anyone, Prozac, Camp or Blanco. I'm just - as always - up for some lively discussion and not afraid to be brutally honest. At the risk of further offending the klansmen in the room, I think conservatives also intertwine politics with emotions and personality more so than liberals, and thus end up getting mad and thinking everyone else is mad too. Who knows? I'm limited to my own SUBJECTIVE REALITY.

@campiondelmenudo - I know your sn is Italian and possibly a soccer reference, but thanks for the tip all the same. I can stop mocking your screename if it bugs you. Your screename just begs out for mockery IMO. Feel free to return the favor if you like. FalopianSutureTooGay is probably the route I'd go if I wanted to mock my own screename.

Honestly, this 'discussion' is pretty lightweight stuff. I probably wouldn't even be slumming here at the bottom of this dumb thread if I hadn't been suffering from an unfortunate lack of wifi.

Piss-off-some-conservatives jones: satisfied

Namaste

Wow, their poor, slum-living residents are a lot more educated than ours...

Ya know I was planning to go to Brazil for World Cup 2014 but I saw what the World Cup did to South Africa. Already it seems that Brazil have plans to wall off the slums and make certain they can't be seen by the visitors.

That got me thinking...is there any social action group in the US that can use the World Cup as a back drop to help the Brazilian people obviously one that already has roots in Brazil? I think it would be a great idea while all eyes are on Brazil to not shy away from showing how the slums around Sao Paulo are being shut down and cleared out. Or are we gonna continue to see every once in awhile something like this?

Alright I redacted my post here because on a third reading it was just too emotional and ugly.

I'm not opposed to the military in general. I'm opposed to calling the 401 "The Highway of Heroes" and the misuse of the military. I know some people in the military too and for the most part they're fine intelligent individuals. That said, they joined up mostly for financial reasons or because they figured military training would serve as or help them towards an education. Not to protect the country or preserve my freedoms. What in the fuck does patrolling the mountains of Afghanistan or patrolling the slums of Iraq have to do with protecting my freedoms?

I would still like to say this, though: Shove the "love it or leave it" attitude up your ass, you fascist idiot. Also, I say these things because I'm relatively anonymous here on the web. I would not make these statements publicly even in Canada, because guys like you get so wound up you can't even comprehend what I've typed, and you'd love to see me pay somehow for offending you. So, yeah you're most likely a fascist while simultaneously living your life of helping people. "Exile to infidels" is the response of the indoctrinated, and the inculcated... whoops, there I go again.