I actually thought, due to the timing that i first heard the nickname used, that it might be a reference to an anime called Evangelion 2.0 (or 2.22; as the release dates for everything lined up correctly, or at least I "thought" they did).

But, from what I learned later, he has been called that since his High School days. Although the "Beast Quake" was awesome. Anytime you create a football play awesome enough that you can get the fans riled up enough that an Earthquake Monitoring Station nearby picks it up (as an earthquake) is absolutely awesome and hilarious.

But, everyone is right. Even though he isn't doing anything *sort of* at these interviews, he is actually helping to generate publicity; because these interviews usually end up being far better than the status quo norm, that can cause people to fall asleep while standing at home (because they ask the same question over and over again, just with a different noun and verb...).

I used to be a pretty strong "doubter", if not a denier. I made a gradual shift away from that, but one strong instance of shift was when Neil Degrasse Tyson presented it as a (relatively) simple physics problem in his new Cosmos series. Before we started burning fossil fuels, x% of the sun's energy was reflected back into space. Now, with a higher concentration of CO2, x is a smaller number. That energy has to go somewhere, and at least some of that is going to be heat energy.

Still, I don't think that anything on the level of "average individual citizen/household of an industrial country" is really where anything needs to happen. Yes, collectively, normal people in their daily lives contribute to Climate Change. But the vast majority of us, even as a collective single unit, contribute less than industrial / government / infrastructure sources.

Fossil fuels have been a great source of energy that has massively contributed to global advances in the past century. BUT, although we didn't know it in the beginning, they have this associated cost/downside. Fossil fuels also have a weakness in that they are not by any means inexhaustible, and costs rise as that becomes more and more obvious. In turn, that tends to favor the status quo in terms of the hierarchy of industrial nations versus developing or 3rd world countries -- we've already got the money and infrastructure in place to use fossil fuels, developing countries can't afford the costs.

All of this makes me think that 2 things need to happen:
A) Governments need to encourage the development of energy sources etc. that move us away from using fossil fuels. Tax breaks to Tesla Motors, tax incentives to buyers of solar cells for their homes, etc. etc.
B) If scientists/pundits/whoever really want people to stop using fossil fuels (or just cut down), they need to develop realistic alternatives. I'll bring up Tesla Motors again for deserving huge kudos in this area. Americans (and in general citizens of developed countries) have certain expectations about how a car should perform. Electric cars have traditionally been greatly inferior to a car burning fossil fuels in terms of living up to those expectations, but Tesla threw all that out the window and made a car that car people actually like to drive. It isn't just "vaguely functional if you really want to brag about how green you are", it is actually competitive with or superior to a gas-engine car for most users/consumers (some caveats for people who need to drive long distances in a single day).

We need to get more companies / inventors / whoever developing superior, functional alternatives to fossil fuel technologies. We need governments to encourage and enable those developments, NOT to cave to lobbyist pressure from big oil etc. and do the opposite. Prices will start high (like Tesla), but if you really are making a superior product, economy of scale will eventually kick in and normalize that out.

Outside of the consumer level, the same thing goes for actual power production. Even if we did nothing (which I would certainly not advocate), eventually scarcity and increased difficulty in obtaining fossil fuels (kinda sad that the past 2 decades of pointless wars 95% driven by oil haven't taught us this lesson yet, but there it is) will make the more "green" alternatives (solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, whatever) more economically practical. That tipping point will be when we see the real change begin.

It's interesting how it's always people in power who say "we need to vote", "don't give up on democracy, that's what they want" etc. They fail to comprehend that giving up on democracy might be part of the movement that could usher in a new form of politics, a participation in decision making and execution. That politics is simply impossible with the status quo. But then, these professors and other elites of politics are part of that status quo, so it's not surprising they can't comprehend another way.

Vote with your wallet.
If you have an account with any Citygroup company, close it.
Same thing goes for B of A.
Small, local banks serve you better and don't lobby congress for bailouts and immunity.
If you give them your money but hate how they use it, take your money back. That simple.
If you like bailouts, wall street immunity, and the status quo of being under the thumb of big banking, keep your money where it is and vote republican.

EDIT:One might also lobby their congressman/woman for a constitutional amendment stating clearly that corporations are barred from government and are NOT citizens, so can't vote, lobby, make political 'statements' (as in commercial campaigns), or donate to political campaigns. I've written many a letter suggesting the same.

@newtboy
told ya he was pissed.
i admire this mans passion.
in fact,i applaud it.

while i do not agree with his attack therapy tactics and do not subscribe to his over-all conclusions.i absolutely ADORE how he calls out the cognitive dissonance of the american voter.

because he is right.

how can you subscribe to a law that makes prostitution illegal,yet porn legal?
or the guy who deals crack or meth as being a criminal? yet opiates are,by far,the leading cause of death in regards to controlled substances.so who is the bigger criminal?

and what,exactly,IS a criminal?is it because the state says so?if you subscribe to that,then i am a criminal.

i found his condemnation of the christian church to be the most delicious.
jesus christ was an insurrectionist,a radical,a dissident and a dissenter.a zealot in the face of the powered elite.

so how can you fight a war of aggression in jesus christs name?
how can you state that god blesses america with over 2.4 million people incarcerated?or to categorize and demonize those who may be different i.e:gay,lesbian or atheist and yet still call yourself a christian?

i giggled with delight when he pointed out that the very same people who are championing those insurrectionists,dissidents and agitators of the past as somehow being representative of their morals and ethics,are the very same people they are demonizing today for breaking the rules.

this man is so pissed off and i love it.
he says things that will make conformists extremely uncomfortable,and we NEED to be a bit uncomfortable.if only to shake off the apathy and lethargy.

as for the taxes argument..meh..i dont subscribe to the "privatize everything" ,because some things should not be profit driven,but i also do not subscribe to the 'taxes pay for essential services",unless wars of aggression,corporate welfare and big-agribusiness subsidies are considered "essential".

our democracy is broken,our government dysfunctional and serves only to keep the balance of the status quo on top..and fuck the regular dude.

can you REALLY say your government represents you?
ok,go ahead and vote.here are your choices:chocolate or vanilla but both are made by hagen daaz.

you really should watch to the end..he just gets madder and madder.
truths can often be uncomfortable,but that never changes the fact that they are truths.

and goddamn i love your optimism! just cant share it on this issue,though if you could bottle it up i am betting you would make a fortune.

ill have three bottles of newt please...to go.

@Enzoblue

Thunderf00t is probably the least level-headed response you will find. His video is terrible for a lot of reasons, mostly because he does all the same things Anita Sarkessian is accused of doing (for example, cherry-picking) to an exponential degree, but I recommend you watch it anyway and draw your own conclusions.

As much as some Gamergate supporters would like the movement to be about ethics in gaming journalism, it has its roots in a witch-hunt started by claims from a jilted ex-boyfriend that his girlfriend (Zoe Quinn) slept with reporters to get good reviews--claims that were later shown to be completely untrue but not before the Gamergate movement had found a cause to rally around. From the very start, the movement had trouble separating actual journalistic ethical problems (i.e. gifts from game publishers to game reviewers... see pretty much any tweet or video by TotalBiscuit about Gamergate for a reasoned overview of the problems) from anti-feminist screeds against Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and later Brianna Wu. And it only got worse over time.

To understand why people might be opposed to Sarkeesian's critiques, you should probably read: this article. Just to summarize the article's main thesis: there is a group of gamers out there who refuse to see a problem with the status quo and make the claim that anyone trying to point out a problem is demanding special privileges. This is not to say that Sarkeesian's critiques aren't without flaws. It is rather to explain how so many people got enraged by her analysis that they felt the need to personally attack her.

So, to put it in a nutshell, there ARE some problems with gaming journalism but they are akin to the same kinds of problems entertainment journalism has in general (Colbert's point). But there are also some serious problems with gaming culture that were brought under the magnifying glass by the whole Gamergate phenomenon.

Frankly, as a "hardcore gamer" (30+ years of gaming experience including games across dozens of consoles and the PC), watching the "debate" on the topic has been embarrassing to say the least. Gaming was finally overcoming the stigma and stereotypes that it had been shackled with before this thing blew up and made us look like the bunch of socially inept man-babies the rest of society assumed we were.

I think not only is it going to take years for our social image to recover, it is going to take years to overcome the toxicity that has pervaded the debate. People on both sides are seriously butt-hurt about how everything went down and the back and forth has been more on the emotional side than the intellectual, leading to lots of flame wars and very little critical reflection.

That's absolutely true, however it's precisely why it is realistic.

They've created a massive rigid process that allows them to stay busy for eternity without getting much work done.

It's that massive rigid process that empowers them to put the man in the OP through hoops that drain his time and money, and threaten him with fines/incarceration (for not participating or for failing to pay fines) - even though the evidence is out plain as day that the guy was never involved in any of the matters at hand.

You could call what they are doing "work" and "duties". You could also call it a waste of time and money, and predatory. If you consider it work, that's fine. If you consider it a waste, then what they are doing is 'just forcing it here'.

In the end, process is made by people. People choose to maintain the status quo.
Prosecutors/judge *could* just drop the charges/case/fines/whatever - but they won't. Because a chance to win an argument on some technicality is more important than the man in the OP's life - and the process requires this mess to play out.

To the 9 to 5'ers, this is just a debate team exercise. It costs them nothing.

-scheherazade.

@VoodooV: "Every one of these youtube crusaders are comfortably enjoying the perks of a system they despise."

What perks? Like roads and firemen? You know, it's not like we couldn't have those things without government. And those kinds of services are only a small portion of the federal budget. In fact, from all the excise taxes collected on gasoline, tobacco and alcohol, they'd cover the roads completely, which costs around $60 billion annually. In fact, things like the EPA, Dept. of Trans, NASA, Dept. of Edu, all cost less than the revenue the federal government categorizes as "other." Look it up: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

So what about all the wars and militarism? Is that, too, a perk? And the prison industrial complex that locks up 1% of our population? What are these perks you speak of?

Even Ayn Rand took gov't assistance.

I love it when statists bring this up. I personally am not an Objectivist, and find lots of flaws with their ideology, but this is a cheap blow. Obviously it shows the economic illiteracy of most statists. For one, she's forced to pay into social security, so therefore why shouldn't she receive some of it back? And second, if you spend more than a couple seconds reading about U.S. monetary policy, you'd know that the purchasing power of the dollar is reduced over time due to inflation, and hence savings are always impacted. This should alarm you instead of excite you.

The whole thing is infested with logical fallacies: false equivalencies, ad homs, strawmen, and even a no true scotsman thrown in for shits and giggles.

By all means don't take any time to point out which things he said were these things. No, that'd be helpful, and we wouldn't want to cloudy any appeals to emotion with pesky things like fact and well thought out rebuttals.

they spend all this time criticizing the problems of gov't and NEVER ONCE demonstrate how it would work without these systems.

I think there are plenty who do. It's just that statists don't accept those answers, or any answers that don't emulate the current status quo systems they're accustomed to. I'm not interested in replacing public schools with another bureaucracy.

The status quo must remain as it is.
Governments must keep the war machine going and Pageants must continue to keep our minds of wars.

So I wasn't just imagining things when I mentally replaced the 'L' in Thiel's name with an 'F'. The article really covers this subject better than the video and is worth the read even if I don't agree with all of his conclusions. For instance he asserts that competition hampers innovation because competitors are too busy fighting it out to take the time to do so, when innovation will be what differentiates you from the competition in the first place. He reasons that monopolies have the time and money to plot out the future, but without competition why bother when you can just continue to profit from the status quo. He seems to assume that monopolies will act as beneficent rulers and not greedy tyrants, even though recent events involving ISP monopolies would suggest the latter.

That's not a reason to listen...once you've heard enough that it's clear what their position is. They're simply against anything that changes the status quo of the mythical "good old days" that only exists in the RWNJ echo chamber. Once that is clear, and they have made it obvious that they are not in the slightest interested in considering anything outside of that viewpoint, any value in listening is gone.

That point has been long past in these cases. It's as simple as that.

I didn't know the investigation and the trial was already over. Guess that's it then.

You do realize that even if this situation was properly officiated by the police, that that is still a problem with people? I also hope you realize that, again if this situation is proper that still Black people aren't treated properly in America.

I understand that there are always these controversial situations which everyone jumps on. They try to pick teams and make sure they win as best as they can, but this isn't about winners and losers. This is a society, and it has rungs, those at the bottom tend to be disproportionately Black and they get abused by those higher up. That is hardly debatable, and we have to decide if it is tolerable.

Unsurprisingly those at the bottom rung have decided it is not tolerable, which happens occasionally in history. It's a constant struggle and many gains about been made. I want to be on the side of history that espouses equality, that is ahead of the curve. I find it noble to drag humanity, kicking and screaming sometimes into a future of further enlightenment.

I'm not going to name people as racists or not-racists. It seems to me though a choice must be made by the individual. If this isn't tolerable to you than you can stand up. If it does not concern you then you need not inject your voice. It's not an attack on you, your world or your advantages. It's a struggle for those who see a problem, they will keep going. Those who stand with the status quo will not be remembered as noble people, they become the false prophets of history.

Sounds like a very large simplification for something. You can't honestly think that the reaction was due to one single incident? And if you're sensible enough to realise that, are you genuinely suggesting that the black community is appropriately represented in prison and crime statistics?

Try and avoid racism when you reply.

I think you're living in a dream world. The abolition of slavery is only a generation removed, do you really think that many of these people have had the same opportunities as you have? Whether it be by design, by accident or what have you? I imagine your close ancestors were allowed to accumulate property and status in a way that their ancestors weren't.

That's not a recommendation for guilt, merely that unless you've lived their life in their world you have absolutely no idea what it's like, and you will only ever understand childhood and development (which form your opinions and beliefs) from your own perspective. So don't be too quick to judge others for their situation. I'd like to see how you fared if you grew up in the same environment.

You make it sound so simple to vote for black people... as though it's that simple, as though the democratic system in USA and UK alike isn't riddled with corruption, where money is power, and everyone is opposed to changing the status quo? How many of those in power know what life is like in a black community, to know what the problems are and how deep the divide runs between them and the councillors for their place of residence? ... I've got so many criticisms i don't know where to begin. You've got some points, but they're buried.

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.

@ShakaUVM

By that logic, what would make sense is a lower standard of oversight, not none. Scientific studies are not a realistic source of guidance unless you are an expert in the field. Regulatory agencies such as the FDA, should and do exist for the purpose of informing the average consumer. If they are not working they need to be fixed, not circumvented.

If both Zoloft and Wort have discernible and scientifically significant benefits against depression, then medical decisions shouldn't be made by a seemingly arbitrary price classification into pharmaceuticals or alternative supplements.

The problem is, as with any multi billion dollar industry, existing players entrench the status quo. I have no doubt that to some extent existing pharmaceuticals companies benefit from the high barriers to entry the FDA has imposed in being able to deter competition from new starts.

Similarly, they would fight tooth and nail any new and uncertain supplement oversight because of the potential impact on their existing lines of revenue. But purely relying on merit, these are all terrible justifications.