Feel free to be specific, and not just coy and vague. Which parts were intended as 'tongue in cheek' - was it linking to right wing activist blogs? I am truthfully and honestly unsure, because we don't know each other - for some people, quoting CHS would be a joke, similar to quoting Anne Coulter, and for others it's a valid source. I still don't know which, if either, opinion you hold.

Trust me, I will happily and heartily chuckle at your wry, irascible tongue in cheek wit, if you can tell me which parts you thought you were being tongue in cheek about, and what your serious arguments are.

As to whether Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist or not, I would guess that it's not as easy as just calling yourself a feminist. I can call myself a conservative, but the evidence is against me: I never vote conservative, I typically espouse progressive views, and I usually criticize flaws in conservative thought and policy, comparing it unfavorably to progressive thought. I think a reasonable person would have to say that I'm either being disingenuous if I call myself a conservative, or that I'm very very bad at it.

I don't get to decide what CHS calls herself, but as a rational person I have to look at her argument and see if it's based in feminism or in something entirely different, and make up my own mind about it regardless of labels.

As for the rest, I'm not sure, again, which parts you say are just straw manning it up and which parts we agree on. I thought we had some disagreements but you might have been tongue in cheek about all of it, for all I know.

For example, I thought we were in agreement on this: "so the situation is not some cut and dried situation,and there are extreme elements of any social movement,but those elements should not invalidate the message" - so I didn't comment on that part. It makes sense to me, and unless you were being tongue in cheek, we're in agreement.

I thought we came to an agreement (?) on the prevalence of rape and the need to look at the whole picture, but also agreed (?) that there are several other disheartening factors at work in the so-called justice system.

I thought, however, that we disagreed about your entire first point (both about how making discrimination illegal should eliminate the wage gaps, and about how no serious economists cite it). This is where I thought CHS was a poor rebuttal - regardless of her right wing activism, she's certainly not an economist; she's a philosopher by education, and not a particularly credible source on the economy. Again, if you were being tongue in cheek when quoting her I'll just erase that part and assume that we agree.

As for contradictory evidence, I can't swear that I'll be influenced by it, and I certainly won't accept it uncritically - we all have a hard time breaking down our own biases. But I'll happily and gratefully read it, as I assume you will too.

@Babymech

are we playing the numbers/statistic game?
oh goodie../claps hands
i love these games.
can i play?

since i actually agree that mens issues are different than womens in certain cases,and that you recognize that the "patriarchy" affects men as well as women.i see no reason to address something we both agree on.

so we can agree the base premise is "power vs powerlessness",and that women have a right to address this power structure,just like men do,because BOTH suffer under its influence.

but then you posted some tasty links for our enjoyment,and then made the specious claim that this somehow made your argument MORE valid.

ok..lets play by YOUR standards shall we?

1.the gender pay gap,which before 1962 may have been a valid argument,but since it is ILLEGAL to discriminate in that way in regards to pay,and if true would translate to waaay more women in the workplace (because corporations love them some dirt cheap labor).so why is this trope still trotted out?why is it given so much validity as being born as fact?when no serious economist ever sites this disparity,yet so many keep regurgitating this gap is being a real thing?

well,i will just let a feminist economist break it down for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

see? just got me one of them fancy links you like so much.

2.political power in regards to gender.well,i cant argue the statistics.there ARE more men in politics,but what your link fails to do is ask a very basic question:why?why are there more men than women?

pew research addresses that question,and is fairly in line with your link:http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/

3.as for who suffers from the most sexual violence.well,according to your link which uses cdc numbers,women suffer far more,BUT (and is the statistic that the women in my video pointed out) when you include prison (which the cdc did not) that number flips on its head:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html

so the situation is not some cut and dried situation,and there are extreme elements of any social movement,but those elements should not invalidate the message.

just like this woman in my video is not dismissing feminism,she is disagreeing with feminisms more extreme authoritarian bullies,who because they scream louder and are more controversial..get more attention,but that does not make their position MORE important just because they are louder and more obnoxious.

in fact i would posit that this obnoxious behavior works against the very thing they are trying to convey.

we can all agree that we all want equality,fairness and justice and the current,and historical power structures,have always sought to retain and even further their own power.which has been traditionally held by men,but this does not automatically equate to men getting a free ride,quite the opposite.

so women absolutely have a right to challenge this power structure,just as men do.what they do NOT have a right to is imposing their ideologies upon me,or this woman in my video.

this woman has received death threats and threats of physical violence from other feminists! just because she had the audacity to disagree with their position.

at the end of the day this is actually a human issue,and a valid one and we all have a right to our own opinion,but not a right to impose it upon another.

feel free to disagree.

> "you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
> you didnt click the link i shared did you?
> it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to. "

The link is about libertarian socialism, not strictly anarchism. I consider libertarian socialism, not left-libertarianism, but rather a contradiction. Coherent left-libertarianism, like that of Roderick Long, is for free market, not the traditional definitions of socialism. Different people define these differently. I use libertarianism to mean adhering to the non-aggression principle, as defined by Rothbard. But whatever it means, socialism, communism, syndicalism, and similar non-voluntary systems of communal ownership of "property" cannot but interfere with individual property rights, and by extension, self-ownership rights. These also need rulers/administrators/archons to manage any so-called "communal" property, so it cannot fit the definition of anarchy. If you don't have a bureaucracy, how do you determine how resources get allocated and used? What if I disagree from how you think "communal" resources should be distributed? Who determines who gets to use your car? It is a version of the problem of economic calculation. That wikipedia article conflates several different "libertarian socialist" positions, so which one does he adhere to?

> "i agree with your position.
> i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part."

This may be true, at least once we do away with any notions that socialism, or non-voluntary "communal" property can be sustainable without a free market and the notion that you can have any such thing as "communal" property, owned by everyone, and not have ruler/administrators/government to make decisions about it. that shirt you are wearing, should we take a vote to see who gets to wear it tomorrow? How about if there is disagreement about this? Anarcho-socialism is unworkable.

> "what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will
> point to the government and say "there..thats the problem" while someone from a
> more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit."

Governments exist without corporations. Corporations cannot exist without government. Governments bomb, kill, imprison, confiscate, torture, tell you what you can and cannot do. Apple, Microsoft, Walmart do not and cannot. Government produces nothing. Corporations produce things I can buy or not voluntarily and pay or not for them. There is no comparison in the level of suffering governments have caused compared to say Target.

If you disobey the government, what can happen? If you disobey Google or Amazon, then what?

> "in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a
> civilized society. fairness,justice and truth."

Yes, but some want to impose (through violence) their views on how to achieve these on everyone else and some (libertarians) don't.

> "i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize
> government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of
> people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing."

If people are inherently good and will do the right thing, then why do we need government/ruler?

Why not just let everyone do the right thing?

> "this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the
> "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local
> communities and municipalities."

I agree. And from there we can go down to neighborhoods, and then households. And of course, logically, all the way to individuals. And any government a voluntary one where everyone unanimously agree to it. But this is not longer government per se, but rather contracts between voluntary participants.

> "for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced
> apathetic coma and participate and become informed.
> no easy task.
> in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
> but worthy..so very very worthy."

Ok.

> "when we consider the utter failures of:
> our political class.
> the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege
> and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
> and the venal corporate class."

So if people are basically good and do the right thing, why has this happened? Then again, when have politician not been self serving kleptocrats?
few exceptions

> "we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
> not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the
> corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people."

True.

> "nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the
> state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence."

True.

> "we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of
> its own hubris and self-aggrandizing."

True.
Nothing a libertarian anarchist would not say.

> "even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire
> for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to
> watchdog."

I have not gone into this, but you can thank "democracy" for all this.

> "when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not
> ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people."

Yeah, governments are generally no-good.
Let me interject to say that I agree that plutocrats cause problems. I certainly agree that kleptocrat cause even more problems. But I am not ready to exclude the mob from these sources of problems. As Carlin said, "where do these politicians come from?

> "it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political
> class."

The mob can and does often get out of control.

> "we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political
> class."
> "we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was
> obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it."
> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

I don't disagree. But people's movements are not necessarily always benign. And they have a tendency to fall in line with demagogues. Plutocrats bribe kleptocrats. Kleptocrats buy the mob. They are all guilty. I know, you say, they people need to be educated. Sure, like they need to be educated abut economics? How is that going to happen? If everyone was educated as an Austrian libertarian economist, sure, great. Is that the case? Can it be? Just asking.

I do support any popular movement that advocates free markets and non-aggression. Count me in.

> "power is petrified of peoples movements."

People's movements are often scary. And not always benign. But non-aggressive, free market ones, like Gandhi's, sure, these are great!

> "because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being
> subjected to today. civil disobedience. and i aim to misbehave."

Maybe. This is a question of strategical preference. Civil disobedience. Ron Paul says he thinks that maybe that's the only option left or it may become the only option left sometime in the future. But, like you said, secession to and nullification by smaller jurisdictions is also a strategy, although you may consider it a "legal" form of civil disobedience. You seem on board.

I see great potential for you (writer), once you straighten out some economic issues in your mind.

> "there will be another movement.
> i do not know when or how it will manifest.
> i just hope it will not be violent."

If it is violent, it is not libertarian in the most meaningful way, adhering to non-aggression.

> "this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
> it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns
> into a burning flame.
> i am a radical. a dissident. but radical times call for radical thinking."

If you want something not only radical, but also coherent and true, here you have libertarian anarchy.

> "you and i both want fairness,justice and truth. everybody does."

Yep.

> "some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
> we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other."

Yes, good. Keep listening, and you will see for yourself.

> "this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
> which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political
> class and propaganda corporate tv."

And for clarity, I don't say the corporate is made up of saints. I only point out that their power to abuse comes from government privilege that they can control. Whether corporations control this power or the mob does, either way, it is a threat to individual liberties. Break the government monopoly, and let the market provide for what we need, and they will have little power to abuse, or as little as possible, but both more power and incentive to do good.

> "I don't say the corporate world is made up of saints"

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, abusive plutocrats will arise.

As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will seek office to enrich themselves and cronies, as well as for the power trip.
As long as government and not the market distributes the spoils, kleptocrats will bribe the mob (the so-called people) with stolen goods taken from their legitimate owners through force.

The only real positive democracy, is market democracy, the one much harder to exploit and abuse. the one that is not a weapon used to benefit some at the expense of others.

> "the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me."

But I do empathize with you! And you are making an effort to understand me.
And remember, many not in the "power elite" have been bribed/conditioned also to turn on you and prevent you from understanding/empathizing.

> "fear and division serve their interests.
> hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.
> i aim to disappoint them."

Good for you! And for everyone else.

> "maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
> chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
> just some of the people who have influenced me greatly."

I know them well. Now perhaps you can take a look at things from a different angle, one that I think corrects some of their inconsistencies.

> "nowhere near as polite and awesome as you."

Thanks, man. You too

you are sounding more and more like an anarchist.
you didnt click the link i shared did you?
it explained in basic form the type of anarchy i subscribe to.

which leads us further into the rabbit hole of governments role.
which by your response it appears i need to describe a tad further.

so lets change the question from:
"what is governments role?"
to
"what,if at all,is the FEDERAL governments role"?

which of course we can refer to the federalist papers or the articles of confederacy.
one is a great argument in regards to what federal powers should be the other was an absolute failure and needed to be discarded.(too much anarchy lol)

that argument is still going on today.
well,between people like you and i,not from the political class.

i agree with your position.
i may word mine differently but our views are in alignment for the most part.

what i do find interesting is how a person with a more right leaning ideology will point to the government and say "there..thats the problem"
while someone from a more left leaning will point to corporations as the main culprit.

you need to understand i point to both.
hence my "plutocracy" argument.
so while you are correct that a corporation cannot throw you in jail,they can and DO influence our legislation (in the form of alec,lobbyists,campaign funding) to enact laws which may make anything their competitors do "illegal" or keep them out of the market completely.or make anything they do "legal".both governments and corporations do this for their own survival and self-interest.

the war on drugs and the private prison system come to mind.since weed is becoming more and more acceptable "illegal" immigrants will become the new fodder for the prison.

in my humble opinion most people all want the same things in regards to a civilized society.
fairness,justice and truth.

now how we get there is the REAL discussion (like you and i are having right now).

i agree the federal government should have limited powers but i recognize government DOES play a role.i believe in the inherent moral goodness of people.that if pressed,most people will do the right thing.

this is why i think that governments should be more localized.we could use the "states rights" argument but i would take it further into townships,local communities and municipalities.

for this to even have a chance this country would have to shake off its induced apathetic coma and participate and become informed.

no easy task.
in fact,what both you and i are suggesting is no easy task.
but worthy..so very very worthy.

active citizenship basically.

when we consider the utter failures of:
our political class.
the outright betrayal of our intellectual class who have decided to serve privilege and power at the neglect of justice and truth for their own personal advancement,
and the venal corporate class.

which all have served,wittingly or unwittingly, to create the corporate totalatarian surveillance state we now find ourselves living in.
there can be ONLY one recourse:

we,as citizens,have to demand a better way.
not through a political system that is dysfunctional and broken and only serves the corporate state while giving meaningless and vapid rhetoric to the people.

nor can this be achieved by violent uprising,which would only serve to give the state the reason to perpetrate even greater violence.

we cannot rely on our academic class which has sold itself for the betterment of its own hubris and self-aggrandizing.

even the fourth estate,which has been hamstrung so completely due to its desire for access to power,it has been enslaved by the very power it was meant to watchdog.

the institutions that existed 50 years ago to put pressure on the levers of power are gone,destroyed and crushed or outright abandoned.

when we look at american history.the ACTUAL history we find that never,not ONCE,did the american government EVER give something to the people.those rights and privileges were hard fought for by social movements.
in fact,america had the longest and bloodiest of labor movements on the planet.
the woman sufferagists.
the liberty party in its stance against slavery.
the civil rights movement.

it is the social movements which put pressure,by way of fear,on the political class.

we have seen the tea party rise and get consumed by the republican political class.

we saw occupy rise up to be crushed in a coordinated effort by the state.this was obama that did this yet little was ever spoken about it.

power is petrified of peoples movements.

there will be another movement.
i do not know when or how it will manifest.
i just hope it will not be violent.

because that is the only way to combat the power structures we are being subjected to today.
civil disobedience.
and i aim to misbehave.

this starts exactly how you and i are talking.
it is the conversation which sparks the idea which ignites a passion which turns into a burning flame.

i am a radical.
a dissident.
but radical times call for radical thinking.

you and i both want fairness,justice and truth.
everybody does.
some of our philosophy overlaps,other parts do not.
we discuss the parts that do not overlap to better understand each other.
this forms a bond of empathy and understanding.
which makes it far more harder to demonize each other in terms of the political class and propaganda corporate tv.

the power elite do not want me to understand you,nor you to empathize with me.
that does not serve their interests.
fear and division serve their interests.
hyper-nationalistic xenophobia serves their interests.

i aim to disappoint them.

now go watch that video i posted for ya.
when ya got time of course lol.

maybe it will help if i share the people i admire.
chomsky,zinn,hedges,watts,harvey,roy,
just some of the people who have influenced me greatly.

anyways.
loving this conversation.
i am in 3 other debates with highly educated people.
nowhere near as polite and awesome as you.
then again..i am kicking the crap out of them.
arrogance really annoys me,makes me vulgar and beligerent.
peace brother man.

@blankfist

i would be totally on board with a massive re-structuring of the corporate charter.

might i suggest we return the clause "for the good of the people"?
and force responsibility financial and otherwise when a corporation causes damage to either the enviroment or society at large.

adam smith said"only with absolute liberty can a free market truly exist".
we do not have absolute liberty nor a free market.
we have a protectionist government which serves the needs of the corporate elite.
and those needs simply translate to :less competition...for them.

which is the point i think you were trying to make and on that note i agree.
but i think the leviathan is a far larger beast and will not be dismissed so easily.

power begets power and seeks only to retain its power.

we have to get money out of politics.
money should never equal free speech,yet sadly that is where we find ourselves to day.

corporations spend billions towards influencing legislation favorable to their bottom line.i read somewhere that for every dollar spent they receive 22,000 from the beneficial legislation.

so not only is out government bought and paid for...they are more trashy than the 10 dollar crack whore.

the only thing that has ever worked to change things...ever.
is the people.
social movements.
we need to starve the beast.

in my opinion the very first step to even BEGIN to make that move forward is we need to fix our fourth estate,or at the very least ridicule and dismiss the fucking circus that we know as corporate media news.
its not news.
its propaganda.

i really think that most people would agree to an extent on what your saying blankie but the reality does not reflect the dream and may be why some people dismiss the notion as silly.

@JiggaJonson brought up a good point and is actually a great way to start to starve the beast.
civil disobedience in the form of refusal to participate in the system.
dont file your taxes.
dont buy car insurance or register your vehicle.
cut up your credit cards and dont pay them.
buy local,from family owned establishments (so your money stays local).

but in my experience most americans do not like being uncomfortable nor afraid and doing these things will bring both to your doorstep.

i always said the american revolution will commence the moment they take away their cable tv.

i know this is rare but im with @bobknight33 in regards to the tea party.

when you understand how power reacts to social movements things become clear.

1.they ignore you
if that is unsuccessful?
2.they ridicule you.
and if creating a narrative that your movement is either a.batshit crazy or b.dumb as a box of rocks they
3.co-opt you

which is what the koch brothers did with americans for prosperity (sorry bob.these two douchebags dont give one fuck about you or your ideals)
and it was quite effective in taking all that frustration,anger and a desire to get the country back on track,and funneling that energy into the political process.
it worked extremely well.

but what many people do not know is that those who were co-opted were not EVERY person who identified as a tea partier,
many of those people saw what was going on and went in another direction.

you do not hear about them often because they do not have a few billionaires bankrolling the media to follow them around.

the occupy movement was treated in the exact same order.but they never got co-opted because they were set up in a much more amorphous and democratic way which made co-opting near impossible.
so the occupy movement made it to step:
4.intimidate,threaten and strong-arm.

a systematic tactical engagement to disperse the occupying people in the major cities where they were protesting.

and it worked.

but occupy is still around as is the tea party.
corporate media is just not covering them.

so this is the point i wish everybody to consider:

do you REALLY think the tea party was stupid,bigoted and a fundamental christian?
or that occupy was populated with unwashed hippies who didnt want to work but wanted the government to supply free food and strippers for all?

or is it more reasonable to assume that maybe a corporate media which is beholden to power created a narrative to set people against one another?

because ill tell ya what.
a tea party person has more in common with an occupy person than a wall street ceo or somebody at the white house.

there will be another movement.
and its gonna go global.
and i fear it will go to some very dark places that will be remembered for a long time in history.

people are waking up and they are not pleased.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Yogi:
You think voting is working to change the system? I'm working by doing my own things to change the system, being involved in social movements to change minds...not pulling a lever once every four years and thinking I'm fucking doing something. You're doing nothing, you just don't get that.

Well, first off, I don't live in the U.S.
I take an interest in its politics because whether I like it or not, it affects me.
Second, I'm not doing nothing, I'm participating in a democratic process. Hell, I'm not even an NZ citizen and I still get to make a difference.
Finally, if you are genuinely involved in social movements (where "involved in social movements" does not equal "bitching on the web") then kudos to you, brother.


OH MY GOD HAVE YOU BEEN TO HOBBITON??!?! :3

>> ^Yogi:

You think voting is working to change the system? I'm working by doing my own things to change the system, being involved in social movements to change minds...not pulling a lever once every four years and thinking I'm fucking doing something. You're doing nothing, you just don't get that.


Well, first off, I don't live in the U.S.
I take an interest in its politics because whether I like it or not, it affects me.

Second, I'm not doing nothing, I'm participating in a democratic process. Hell, I'm not even an NZ citizen and I still get to make a difference.

Finally, if you are genuinely involved in social movements (where "involved in social movements" does not equal "bitching on the web") then kudos to you, brother.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Yogi:
I think George Carlin cleared this up already. If YOU vote than it's your fault, the people who don't vote get to complain because YOU Voters screwed up the country.

Sorry, but that's bullshit and my respect for Carlin has just gone way down.
Fine, you don't like the system. You feel that both candidates are crooks, liars, war criminals and nickelback fans. You don't want to vote for either of them.
Ok, what are you doing about that? If you're not going to vote within the system, what are you doing to change it?
"What can I do to change the system all by myself?"
I dunno, but that's not my problem. You're the one who believes it's so fucked up that you can't participate. Yeah, it's difficult and you have fuck all chance of making a meaningful change, but if you believe it's that badly broken, don't you have a moral obligation to at least try?
So either use your voice to make an informed decision or work to change the system. Otherwise STFU.


You think voting is working to change the system? I'm working by doing my own things to change the system, being involved in social movements to change minds...not pulling a lever once every four years and thinking I'm fucking doing something. You're doing nothing, you just don't get that.

>> ^heropsycho:

Pretty sure Occupy doesn't think the proper way to respond to honest constructive criticism is get pissy.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^heropsycho:
I think you're misunderstanding what I posted.
How am I wrong in making an observation that political moderates have devoted more thought and discussion about the Tea Party than about Occupy, as I'm one of those people? Did Chomsky peer into my brain to know that what I've thought about and discussed with friends is actually quite different? No.
If you think you're going to affect change by not at least being something the political moderate discuss and think about, all I'll offer is that's usually not how political movements go. The Civil Rights Movement, the quintessential social movement of the last 100 years, started with radicals fighting for an ideal, but it took off when they devised methods that caught the attention and caused a reaction by mainstream people to eventually support it. If the mainstream aren't even thinking about your movement, it's very hard to affect change.
But if you think otherwise, good luck. I'm sympathetic to the cause and hope it succeeds in several of its goals. I generally think changes they want would be good for the country, but when I objectively look at the political landscape, and it pains me to say this, the Tea Party is kicking Occupy's asses. I think that's what Maher is primarily saying, and suggesting a course of action to change that. Maybe that's not the right answer, but the current course of action seems to be leading towards political irrelevance.

No misunderstanding...just an unwillingness to explain. I don't care.



Me not wanting to make my case and not caring if you agree with me is not me being pissy. It's me acknowledging that it's useless and stupid considering I have a final tomorrow!

Pretty sure Occupy doesn't think the proper way to respond to honest constructive criticism is get pissy.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^heropsycho:
I think you're misunderstanding what I posted.
How am I wrong in making an observation that political moderates have devoted more thought and discussion about the Tea Party than about Occupy, as I'm one of those people? Did Chomsky peer into my brain to know that what I've thought about and discussed with friends is actually quite different? No.
If you think you're going to affect change by not at least being something the political moderate discuss and think about, all I'll offer is that's usually not how political movements go. The Civil Rights Movement, the quintessential social movement of the last 100 years, started with radicals fighting for an ideal, but it took off when they devised methods that caught the attention and caused a reaction by mainstream people to eventually support it. If the mainstream aren't even thinking about your movement, it's very hard to affect change.
But if you think otherwise, good luck. I'm sympathetic to the cause and hope it succeeds in several of its goals. I generally think changes they want would be good for the country, but when I objectively look at the political landscape, and it pains me to say this, the Tea Party is kicking Occupy's asses. I think that's what Maher is primarily saying, and suggesting a course of action to change that. Maybe that's not the right answer, but the current course of action seems to be leading towards political irrelevance.

No misunderstanding...just an unwillingness to explain. I don't care.

>> ^heropsycho:

I think you're misunderstanding what I posted.
How am I wrong in making an observation that political moderates have devoted more thought and discussion about the Tea Party than about Occupy, as I'm one of those people? Did Chomsky peer into my brain to know that what I've thought about and discussed with friends is actually quite different? No.
If you think you're going to affect change by not at least being something the political moderate discuss and think about, all I'll offer is that's usually not how political movements go. The Civil Rights Movement, the quintessential social movement of the last 100 years, started with radicals fighting for an ideal, but it took off when they devised methods that caught the attention and caused a reaction by mainstream people to eventually support it. If the mainstream aren't even thinking about your movement, it's very hard to affect change.
But if you think otherwise, good luck. I'm sympathetic to the cause and hope it succeeds in several of its goals. I generally think changes they want would be good for the country, but when I objectively look at the political landscape, and it pains me to say this, the Tea Party is kicking Occupy's asses. I think that's what Maher is primarily saying, and suggesting a course of action to change that. Maybe that's not the right answer, but the current course of action seems to be leading towards political irrelevance.


No misunderstanding...just an unwillingness to explain. I don't care.

I think you're misunderstanding what I posted.

How am I wrong in making an observation that political moderates have devoted more thought and discussion about the Tea Party than about Occupy, as I'm one of those people? Did Chomsky peer into my brain to know that what I've thought about and discussed with friends is actually quite different? No.

If you think you're going to affect change by not at least being something the political moderate discuss and think about, all I'll offer is that's usually not how political movements go. The Civil Rights Movement, the quintessential social movement of the last 100 years, started with radicals fighting for an ideal, but it took off when they devised methods that caught the attention and caused a reaction by mainstream people to eventually support it. If the mainstream aren't even thinking about your movement, it's very hard to affect change.

But if you think otherwise, good luck. I'm sympathetic to the cause and hope it succeeds in several of its goals. I generally think changes they want would be good for the country, but when I objectively look at the political landscape, and it pains me to say this, the Tea Party is kicking Occupy's asses. I think that's what Maher is primarily saying, and suggesting a course of action to change that. Maybe that's not the right answer, but the current course of action seems to be leading towards political irrelevance.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^heropsycho:
Speaking as someone who has some sympathies at least for their motivations but falls under the general political moderate group who's "got crap to do" and doesn't have time to actively participate in any political movements, I personally had forgotten Occupy existed for months until Maher brought this up.
You can blame that on a lot of things, but one conclusion you have to draw from this is they haven't been effective in trying to affect change for quite sometime. I don't pretend to have an answer on what they should do, but what they're doing so far hasn't worked.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Stormsinger:
I don't think he was actually recommending they "support the democrats", so much as co-opt the Democratic party. That's certainly a reasonable approach, if you want a chance to make an actual difference in less than 30 years.

They're already making a difference. The Occupy movement has been a really great success, just need some more time and clarify the message better. We don't need a party.


And you'd be wrong. Not according to me, according to Noam Fucking Chomsky.

I see no problem mocking people who advocate prejudice. The old Ghandi saying about new social movements (first they ignore, then they laugh, then they fight, then you win) works in reverse for old dying movements.

I'm not suggesting we silence ourselves, I'm just suggesting we be a little more respectful and a little less evangelical in our approach. Cthulhu knows I've gone through years of spite and aggression - sex on a church alter, ripping the book of Genesis to shreds (in words) at a dinner party and baiting people who are clearly outmatched into a theological debate they have no hope of surviving, among countless other examples. Whatever. It was a phase, and I'm not ashamed of those days, but at the same time I don't really think all that spite accomplished anything but to further alienate people of faith.

I find my older self wanting to be a good ambassador for atheism, rather than a bad-ass, kick-ass sword wielding crusader. I want atheism to appear as calm and mainstream as possible. I want to lead by example. Secular Jesus.

Beyond that, I see how damaging religion is when it's used as a wedge issue, and we contribute to that wedge by terrifying otherwise good people of faith and driving them into the political margins. I believe that people of faith are more susceptible to fear than non-theists, and that in many ways we scare them further to into the arms of fascists and plutocrats when we go on the offensive. Back in the day when democracy was strong, people of faith stood along side the labor movement, the civil rights movement and other importance social movements. All that 'care for the poor, turn the other cheek, love your brother, rich people are going to hell (eye of the needle)' stuff was taken seriously. I'd love to see that altruistic, socially conscious, admirable side of Christianity make a comeback, and drive the free market, homophobic, racist bible belt bullies back into the fucking swamp where they belong.

We don't have to agree, but I want you to at least understand (and hopefully respect) where I'm coming from. Good chat @hpqp.