i think they should have pressed her to describe the CIA milleu, how and why she became what she was, etc.

Most of if not all of the problems with conspiracy is the fact that the background of the dealings described therein seem, to put it mildly, outlandish

BUT,
If there's this guy called (for instance) Michael, who likes to cut off peoples balls and shove them into their mouths (as in some sort of torture scenario, and we know that torture happens) or if he can even calmly watch a man who is being waterboarded, THEN


we are dealing with something akin to a "subculture" that needs to be adequately described before we can make sense of the actions of people like "spooks" torturers, assets, etc....


In the end, does it strike me likely that something like this COULD have happened: sure it does. I actually think is more probable than the "official" scenario, but I still don't know

People's perceptions are funny. Many of them who've heard of Frank Zappa assume (quite wrongly) that he was this huge drug addict hippie. Fact is, Frank Zappa never did drugs and hated the hippie subculture.

But in the end, facts require work to obtain and perceptions are free.

*timeshift

This is what I love about the Sift -- being introduced to different subcultures ==

@messenger

1. Yes, if speaking English is the path toward success, reading a prepared statement in English after living here for 20 years is a prosocial obligation both toward the larger society and toward his own subculture. (That's assuming the good of anyone beyond ourselves matters at all.)

2a. Yes, any American can do whatever he wants, even if it's antisocial and anti-success, but if that's the case, the good of society probably no longer matters.

2b. Asking a 20 year resident to read his prepared statements in the language of success (he can do this) doesn't seem comparable to the things you described.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I don't get it.


If you haven't been exposed to the demo scene and just see a video then I can understand why people wouldn't get it. You have to bear in mind that what's in the video can also be rendered in real time on existing (usually consumer) hardware.

The demo scene consists of coders, artists and composers who try their best to get computers to do as much as possible with as little as possible. In this example they have free reign over pc hardware; but you'll also find demos for older, self contained machines (Amigas, Ataris, Gameboys, iPhones; even calculators). You'll also find demos for self imposed limitations, such as writing the demo as a program that fits into a limited space such as 256kb, 64kb, 1kb and all the way down to an insane 32 bytes.

The techniques used, such as data compression; procedural content generation; and streaming can be influential on other real time software such as video games.

The programs that they produce (often known as Products or prods) also have to be visually interesting. Parties are often held where the coders and artists come together and demonstrate their work to each other. This leads to some competition; and/or sharing of ideas and techniques. The teams also often create these things at the parties themselves; creating prods in only a couple of days; and often with alcohol involved.

An aspect of this whole scene that I find interesting is that in order for the participants to actually achieve this stuff they inevitably have to produce content; which means they need an art direction. This has lead to a subculture of visual and audio styles that you perhaps wouldn't otherwise have found elsewhere; especially with the unique limitations.

Nowadays the styles that have come about in the demo scene have very much influenced mainstream culture; from music and music videos; to advertising; to movie and tv titles; and print.

Edit: If you're interested and want to see more; try out pouet.net.

Whoa. Intense.

I didn't know that the "famous hacker" actually turned Manning in. Says to me that the hacking subculture isn't monolithic -- which is just human nature.

http://videosift.com/video/Conformity-scientific-and-sociological-insight Really worth a look.

I also find it ... fitting, that Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq led to spreading our forces too thin, led to a drop in recruitment, led to keeping an unstable Manning, which led to this huge security breach.

It all comes back to that, doesn't it? Bush was a disaster of a president.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Again, you're the one who's claiming that you had some moral high-ground in judging that song was trash.
"Oh, I'm s'pposed approve of a song that contains 'misogynistic', "violent" or 'lecherous' lyrics?!"
Even tho your culture contain all those things just in a different style.
What would you should have a said was: "My prejudice & intolerance for subcultures is my only actual reason for judging this song to be inferior."
We can end this here tho, since you obviously didn't read that article on fallacies -
i.e. Ad Hominem: Me being a hypocrite doesn't justify you being a bigot.
Hope you'll learn something from this. Have a great day.


that is...the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. how could i have claimed a higher moral ground than you? you are the one telling me what i can and cannot like. your basic point was that it's bigoted to dislike anything. so if it is bigoted to dislike something outside your own culture, then you're a bigot, too. and if you're a bigot and i'm a bigot, and my mom's a bigot and my dad's a bigot, if t-pain and bono and obama and jesus are bigots, then what the fuck? what's the point of telling me off? oh, right, it's because i don't like something you like. what a bigot.

i hope you and i can organize that bigot party. everyone's invited.

ps. when say a word so much, it starts to lose its meaning. weird.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Music & dance are cultural expressions.
He's expressing his interpretation of the things that are important in his social environment.
It is a distinct cultural thing to go chat up big booty hoes at the Walmart.
Just like it was a distinct cultural thing to chat up wholesome christian girls at a malt shop.
I'm saying that this video & the culture it represents are only 'awful' by your ethnocentric standard.
>> ^legacy0100:
Chasing cheap booty is considered a cultural activity? I think you're way over-thinking this Genji.
It is what it is, a terrible rap video. That's the whole irony of our upvotes, the action is a statement saying that we recognize its awfulness, and not because we support the content.



I like that you made me think about this subject, Genji. You've presented me with a challenge, and forced me to gather my ideas and articulate myself. Thank you for this rare opportunity.

I've reached to the conclusion that you were right Genji, IT IS CULTURE. But it isn't just any culture, it's POVERTY CULTURE. This DOES NOT demand the same type of respect as some other cultures. Not all cultures should be considered equal, and I do believe I have a logical explanation.

So hear me out.

Robbing convenient stores or force raping other men can be considered a culture as well if you happen to live in a very violent ghetto or in prison. That is not a desirable environment to live in, but you would end up developing a subculture that specifically meets the needs of that particular environment. And now some may argue that these subcultures should also be held in the same regards as any other cultures. Well, I can respect the logic and reasoning of how these subcultures came to develop, but I still won't agree with the practices itself.

Let's go back to the contents of the video and its characteristics. Poverty culture generally tends to lean towards public nuisance and aggressively lascivious activities, which are actions that closely reflects our true basic instincts. But celebrating lack of control over your inhibitions and celebrating shopping at Wal-Mart isn't the highest standards one could have about themselves.

I'm sure there's a good reason why the types of dance and lyrics came to popularize in this particular town the video makers came from. And I can certainly understand that it is a culture sprouting from different environment and various life circumstances. But would I be supporting such low standards of self-control and standards of living? Hell no. I have higher living standards. Although everyone enjoys a fine booty rubbing against them, I can control my inhibitions and fight off the urge to dry hump someone in public.

All in all, this video reaks of low-class everything. Do keep in mind that this is not what all African American culture has to offer. This is the poor side of African American culture, just as white American culture would have Jersey Shore and Sarah Palin. I know plenty of African Americans who have much higher standards about themselves and their culture, and often speak out against the exact same thing this rap video is representing, and that is: Low Standards.

Subcultures dissimilar to yours make you racist?

>> ^Enzoblue:

this stuff makes me racist.

>> ^MaxWilder:

Only if they show some sign they are trying to learn. Otherwise they deserve to be mocked.


@MaxWilder But when has mocking ever been a successful tool for social change? Take Sarah Palin as just one example. She's mocked publicly on pretty much a daily basis yet you don't see her changing her opinions, do you? What you do see is people rallying to defend her from the "lib-tard smear campaign." And from there it just degenerates into name-calling and and rhetoric and there's no real dialogue about any issue. I don't think mocking help matters at all and in most cases just makes it worse.

@AnimalsForCrackers

I'd ask kindly that you respond what I write and not whatever "hidden meaning" you think my message has--there is none. I write as clearly as possible but if there is some ambiguity about what I wrote, how about you just ask me my opinion rather than make off-the-wall accusations and assumptions? Also, I'll ask once again (you'll remember from the last thread we had a discussion in), could you put an @ in front of my name when you respond to my posts so I get an email that tells me you're commenting about me and I can reply (thanks for the heads-up @bmacs27)?

MLK never insulted or condescended towards those he opposed. He advocated dialogue to promote change, not name-calling. He inspired people to find their commonalities, not focus on their differences. He did organize people to change the status quo and he did it without the need to be "militaristic" in any sense of the word.

I agree with you that secularists would be a great replacement name for atheists who believe the things you talked about (people should be free to practice religion, but it shouldn't invade politics or religion). But that's not what Harris and the rest have been talking about recently--as I demonstrated by doing you the courtesy a less-than-5-minute Google search and finding those three quotes/talks and pointing out what Harris said in this video clip.

Given the ease with which I found those it should be no problem for you to do me the same courtesy and send me links showing the three gentlemen expressing the views you claim to be their true position (there is in fact one video here on the Sift from Dawkins giving an interview in the UK--sorry, can't seem to find it in the search at the moment--from about 4 years ago where he puts out such a stance, but more recent comments seem to indicate that he's moved away from tolerance and more towards open hostility).

On a side note, what exactly is "religion" doing to "your country" (I'm guessing the US)? Are the Jains destroying the separation of church and state? How about those Quakers, can you imagine the damage their doing? And let's not even get started talking about the Buddhists. You accused me of not using words accurately, but I get the sense you're not using the word "religion" accurately. I think (feel free to clarify) that when you say religion what you really mean is fundamentalist Christians who believe the US in a "Christian nation" are ruining the USA. And that's fine, if you believe that, but let's not confuse a very vocal minority of religious believers with "religion."

Why don't I rail against religion? Because my position is that religion is not the problem (as I think I've told you in other threads). I've said repeatedly that religion is a tool that can be used for good or for evil and that the challenge for religions in the 21st century is going to be to try to change themselves so that they maximize the good and minimize the potential for evil. Are bad things done in the name of religion? Yeah, all the time. That doesn't de facto make religion bad, though. But I will absolutely criticize specific actions which I think are wrong, like I did on this other vid--I'm an equal opportunity critic.

You perceive religion as a threat, apparently. I don't. That's the difference between us. I'm happy to hear your views on why you think it is a threat. I'd be even happier if you listened to mine on why I don't think it is without getting either hostile or emotional.

Very well said. Thanks for taking the time to explain the difficult position of seeing the irrational behavior in others and how that can tend towards a feeling of personal superiority. Modesty, while ideal, can be difficult to maintain.

In reply to this comment by MaxWilder:
Let's get some terms straight:

Atheist - Anybody who does not believe in a specific religion. This includes those who call themselves agnostic, secular, non-religious, or skeptic. These groups use other words because they fear the negative stereotype associated with the word atheist. It just means that you don't believe. That's all. Maybe you even think that it's possible, but so unlikely that you will live your life without it. That's still atheism.

Strong atheism - Anyone who firmly believes that there is no supreme being. Yes, this is a type of faith, since there is no proof one way or the other. But these people are actually rare. Most atheists are simply saying that the God of Abraham (Christianity, Judaism, Islam), Hinduism, Shintoism, and anything else that requires magical thinking are nothing more that stories made up by human beings.

Anti-theist - Anyone who advocates for the end of religion and magical thinking. Of course there are many atheists who fall into this category, but there are also many who don't. You may know many atheists but are simply unaware of it, because they never talk about religion. It's just not a part of their lives.

I agree that anti-theists can be very annoying because anybody who is outspoken can be very annoying. But their cause is vital as long as there are religious nuts trying to inject religion into so many aspects of our secular government. If the evangelicals would go away, the loud anti-theists would disappear overnight.

And in regards to atheist arrogance... When you are ten years old and you know that Santa Clause doesn't exist, it's very hard not to feel superior to your seven year old sibling who still believes, and writes him a letter, and tells the guy in the mall what he wants, and stays up late on Christmas Eve trying to catch a glimpse. It's obvious to you that the presents come from Mom and Dad, not some fat guy in a red suit that magically visits every home in one night. Magic doesn't exist. The story doesn't fit with what you know of the real world.

It's the same way with atheists. Even though I bite my tongue around friends who are religious, it's hard not to look down on them and think of them as immature. Wishing doesn't make something true, praying doesn't make things happen, and a beautiful sunset or rainbow is not a miracle. And every time I hear somebody praising God for something good in their life, I can't help but think about all the real things they should actually be thanking, like their family and friends, their job, or even their own hard work. Some atheists are better than others in hiding this feeling of superiority, but it will always be there. And with good reason.

Nail on the head. Hitchens, Harris, Maher, et al are the cranky sub-culture of atheism. I've discussed a myriad of issues with people of many different perspectives - religous or otherwise - and it cannot be argued that there are people in all camps who are the loud, noisy, pushy, somewhat 'out there' advocates for whatever cause or other.

I see a lot of folks trying to say that is OK. Clearly that is a defensive reaction spurred primarily by personal bias. If the shoe was on the other foot, and some "Fundie" preacher was saying the same stuff about Theism, then I very much doubt that guys like Crackers would be so quick to be apologists for it.

Bmacs27 said it well. When having a discussion, it is important to try and be respectful even if you disagree. It's tough to do that when one of the participants is openly hostile, beligerent, and unwilling to listen to other points of view AKA Harris. People who are religious commit this error all the time, and are rightfully called to the carpet on it. If a person really is religious, how can it possibly be said that God would approve of them entering a discussion with that sort of mindset and outlook? Likewise - how can you take an atheist seriously when he carps about the 'bad behavior' of people of faith, and yet behaves like an uncultured boor every time he opens his mouth?

Physicians - heal thyselves.

Too often, I've found that atheists have this smug superior attitude towards people who are religious and im kinda fed up with it. It's no different from the smug superior people who think they're going to heaven and I'm not. I've known too many people who are religious who are decent good people who aren't fundie whackos who take a hard religious line. The vast majority of religious people are decent people just trying to make a living and do NOT suspend logic when confronted with a reasonable argument and/or proof.

Amen. That's where the 'cranky atheist subculture' really just goes off the tracks. Like most folks with a biased axe to grind, they cherry-pick isolated, unrepresentative examples out of large populations and portray them as the norm. It is the same bull that MSNBC and FOX infotainers routinely pollute discourse with.

Thanks for the link

In reply to this comment by entr0py:
I was able to find the continuation of his speech, almost exactly where that left off. Here it is.

>> ^Drax:

In my view an athiest is a person who doesn't believe in God, but will also tell anyone who does, "I'm sorry, but you're wrong.". An agnostic may not believe in god at all, but if someone else does they're willing to concede that anything's possible (there's other varients of agnostics, but to me this is what being agnostic means.. having a belief but accepting that they have no way of proving they're right over anyone else (no matter how crazy another belief seems)).
Tomorrow when I wake up there's not going to be a helicopter outside waiting to take me to work every day for the rest of my life.. but it -could- happen in an 1 in infinity minus one chance sort of way... So in my mind, an athiest will "push his or her belief" just as much so as a religous person will theirs. Therefor, I too somewhat disagree with some of what's said in this video... though, perhaps some athiests are open minded in the way I discribed but still consider themselves athiests. Not sure if that's the case.
I did like his mention of being good people, as I find that's one thing religous people hold over others. If you don't learn the word of God, how can you be moral? Though religion does tend to teach good practices, anyone has the capability of becoming a good person.
I personally believe we are limited to our physical senses in what we can detect in the universe, but is there a judging God out there that has this list of rules we have to follow with various places to attend after we're gone? No.. that just sounds way too man-made up for me to accept.


Mostly this part "So in my mind, an athiest will "push his or her belief" just as much so as a religous person will theirs."

In holding this belief you will always have confirmation bias against the types of people who don't fit your model and you will likely ignore or not be aware of the opposite when that opposite is standing in front of you.

And if you continue to hold that model, even in the face of evidence, then it is you sir, who are like the religious who maintain their doctrine in the face of contradictory facts.

Just keep in mind that someone can be both an atheist and an agnostic, they are not mutually exclusive. Considering yourself an atheist doesn't require you to make the claim that there are no gods, it doesn't require any claims at all.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

So I tend to think that a much better approach to this labeling than avoidance is to embrace it. Yes, I am an atheist.

I personally find it far more productive to discuss ideas rather than groups associations. While it is easier to identify oneself with atheism or conservatism or whatever, that also invites an enormous number of preconceptions into the discussion that only serve to hinder a real understanding.

Anytime someone asks me if I'm an atheist, I tell them I'm just not religious. Likewise, when people describe themselves in terms of any label then I ask them to define that label. When the discussion moves into issues and ideas then it's much easier to speak of evidence and support... when it instead involves labels then it becomes more about assumptions vs assumptions, and it just takes far too long to weed them out.