>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ghark:
Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats.
I think there's a myth that it's a myth there's a divide between Democrats and Republicans.
Like, where's all the Democratic legislation that's trying to disenfranchise Republican voter demographics?
Are Democrats going out and saying that taxing the rich is "class warfare" and therefore a taboo topic for discussion?
Are Democrats trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?
Are the Democrats saying national healthcare is a secret plot to commit genocide?
I'm all for trying to rearrange American politics so it doesn't have this huge right-wing corporatist tilt, but spreading this myth that there's no difference between the parties doesn't help.
Part of convincing more politicians to move to the left and stand up to corporations would be to reward the ones who take a stand with your support. Withdrawing it (and encouraging others to do the same) because you're disappointed with their ability to deliver doesn't help tilt things back to the left. On the contrary, it helps ensure that the tilt to the right continues.
As an aside, I haven't seen Cenk promote that bogus myth. He's a lot harder on Democrats than Maddow (or Olbermann), but I've never seen him promote the "voting is meaningless" lie. I hope what he's been saying is some form of "voting against Republicans isn't enough -- we need to pressure the Democrats to move left too!"


In terms of Democratic legislation that disenfranchises Republican voter demographics, I think that's really the point, it isn't there.

In terms of public remonstration that taxation is 'class warfare' I think they've made their public opinion clear, they think taxes on the rich should be raised (so they appear to be on the other side of the fence to the GOP), however what they say and what they do are two different things, I think this is a good example of them playing a pretty standard political game. There is plenty of public voice (even here! See QM) saying the 'taxocrats' are all about raising taxes - but in reality the complete opposite is true, the wealthy are enjoying some of the lowest tax rates in US history. So I would say no, they are not trying to stifle discussion on raising taxes, rather that their words become rather meaningless when looking at their results. Did the Dems not enjoy a filibuster-proof 60 seat senate majority after the elections, I would love to know if they achieved anything meaningful during that period, I really honestly would.

In terms of social security, I give you this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
In terms of Medicare, the debt ceiling negotiations results in the reduction of physicians medicare reimbursements, and further reductions may happen down the road once the super committee has finished their work. But in those 'negotiations' they ended the tax break on the wealthy right? Unfortunately not.

In terms of genocide plots etc, their role is to keep a voter base so that wouldn't be smart, however once again, what matters are results.

As far as convincing politicians to move left, I really wish that were possible, but in 2010 three and a half billion dollars was spent by lobbyists alone, there's just no way you can get your voice to make a difference when you're up against that - and lobbyist money is just the tip of the iceberg, many politicians receive far more money in contributions from other sources, take a look at Harry Reid for example:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009922
There's a video that's just been posted on the sift of Dick Durbin decrying BoA's new credit/debit card fee's, however this 'voice of reason' has taken over 9 million in contributions in the past 4 years from all manner of sources (including pro-israel). What does this mean? It means he votes yes for bills like H.R. 3080 and H.R. 3079 that will ship US jobs overseas and reduce working conditions in those countries affected (Korea, Panama and Columbia), in addition to supporting a government that is involved in the active killing of journalists that try to expose the brutality of the regime in place (in Columbia).

You just.... can't compete with the influence that that amount of money brings, I'm sorry.

Cenk changed on MSNBC, that was quite clear, and he even explained why that was in his interview after he left - he was being pressured to fall in line and not go too heavy on the Democrats. in fact I think the video you posted 7 months ago is the best demonstration of that, and ironically I commented on it back then too:
http://videosift.com/video/Cenk-to-Wisconsin-Progressives-No-Compromise

Some of his quotes from the clip:
"the war that the Republicans want to start"
"they are coming after you" (referring to the GOP)
"I have a bold proposal tonight, that we fight back" (the 'we' meaning we Democrats)
"Thank god so far the Democrats aren't going to give in to his threats"
"They always reject the word compromise" (GOP again)

and the Pièce de résistance comes at 4:10,
"I have this crazy new idea, how about two can play at that game, how about WE don't compromise either" (this is clearly setup to mean the Dem's)

Did he not just try to get people to buy into the idea that it's us (the Dem's!) vs the GOP (them!).

He had the balls to reject a nice offer from MSNBC and go back to his show where he can speak his mind rather than try to persuade people it's us vs them on the mainstream media.

If you listen to him since he's left, he's gone back to his old, relatively unbiased nature, for example in his recent interview with Al Gore, when Al says that he still has hope in Obama to make 'change' Cenk goes out of his way to say that he is quite clearly 'less hopeful' than Al that Obama will bring about change, i.e. he's pretty much back to his old pre-MSNBC self.

So I think it's safe to draw the conclusion that the mainstream media (MSNBC) used Cenk to try to perpetuate the myth that it's 'us vs. them', because since leaving he has been far more candid. This is the exact same type of thing I see In Rachel unfortunately, and that's why I wish I could see her with her own independent show, she would be awesome on the RNN for example.

Anyway, you already know all this, you're the one posting some of the video's that bought me to the conclusion I did, so I would be interested to hear why you disagree with my position.

>> ^ghark:

Enjoyed the vid, but I have to say I really stopped watching most of Maddow's stuff lately, she seems to try to perpetuate the myth that there is actually a divide between Republicans and Democrats.

I think there's a myth that it's a myth there's a divide between Democrats and Republicans.

Like, where's all the Democratic legislation that's trying to disenfranchise Republican voter demographics?

Are Democrats going out and saying that taxing the rich is "class warfare" and therefore a taboo topic for discussion?

Are Democrats trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare?

Are the Democrats saying national healthcare is a secret plot to commit genocide?

I'm all for trying to rearrange American politics so it doesn't have this huge right-wing corporatist tilt, but spreading this myth that there's no difference between the parties doesn't help.

Part of convincing more politicians to move to the left and stand up to corporations would be to reward the ones who take a stand with your support. Withdrawing it (and encouraging others to do the same) because you're disappointed with their ability to deliver doesn't help tilt things back to the left. On the contrary, it helps ensure that the tilt to the right continues.

As an aside, I haven't seen Cenk promote that bogus myth. He's a lot harder on Democrats than Maddow (or Olbermann), but I've never seen him promote the "voting is meaningless" lie. I hope what he's been saying is some form of "voting against Republicans isn't enough -- we need to pressure the Democrats to move left too!"

To me this video represents liberalism in society... which is why I want to see what QM says about this. Without liberalism running rampant through the 60's I feel many of these topics would still be taboo. Through liberalism I feel as though consciousness has expanded on many fronts. Although, don't tell that too a business man - they're not supposed to be empathetic with humans who are below them in the hierarchy.

It seems like this video has a couple of things going on. It wants to talk about the evolution of consciousness & how it relates to being bi-polar in our modern world. But, mental illness for the masses in America is just a drug war. "Buy these, don't buy those". It's largely a fabricated industry & consciousness is another story.

As far as I can see on the topic of evolved consciousness - many, many, many more people in liberal cities have evolved. But, I think the internet is a great device so I think if someone is interested in certain aspects of reality they too can evolve their consciousness & thought processes from the middle of no-where in Kansas; if they really care to or know to. I mean we're constantly expanding QM's consciousness - he just doesn't know it yet he's afraid of it!

I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was a teenager by a psychologist... but I may as well have been diagnosed bi-polar. I was pissed off at the world even though I had it all and was fairly sheltered... and that was the problem. It was too peaceful & I knew the world was out there waiting for me to find out the truth. So, I'm not exactly sure if we could say that my affliction was/is the symptom of post-modern evolution of consciousness but just an annoyance of mundane life tangled up with general anxiety.

I definitely think many people could benefit from "alternative medicine". I know it has a new agey bad wrap. I was prescribed both ritalin (legalized speed) & zoloft (what the hell is it? I don't know!) which are obviously fairly potent. I've experimented with herbal shit like 5-HTP which helps produce more serotonin and it works. It's not as potent but if someone doesn't have a serious mental illness it can work for short-term use and is great for people who would rather not turn into a zombie/robot.

As far as weed... I'm not sure if pot is the greatest thing for someone who is "bi-polar" or super depressed... mushies are great for positive consciousness just don't take em when you're feeling low, lol!

Either way, no one can be happy all of the time. We're human after all. Even though I hate the (human capitalist pig waste) fucking world - I am happy & people always tell me I'm super positive hahaha!! They can never know the truth!



As always...

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^MaxWilder:
Look, it's your choice.
You can use grown up words to express yourself, and other grown up people will respect that.
Or you can spew ignorance from your dirty blow-hole like an inbred 12 year old, and the grown-ups who hear you will dismiss you as a waste of oxygen who will never amount to anything of any importance except for when you knock up your cousin and spawn some duplicates of your diseased and ill-formed brain.
Choose your own adventure, kid.

I assume you're talking to me in which case I'll explain that you don't know me.

I wasn't talking to you specifically, but that's besides the point. Do you want mature people to respect what you are saying? Then use mature language. I don't have to "know you" in order to dismiss you as immature, ignorant, and inconsequential if I hear (or read) slurs based on gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference.

So you're saying that swearing or taboo words make people think that I am somehow ignorant or inconsequential?
That's bullshit. Stephen Fry pointed that out as well, some of the smartest most educated people he's ever known swear all the time. Dan Savage uses "faggot" he's definitely smart and respected. Louis CK uses faggot in his act all the time...he's obviously a very good writer.
I'm sorry I just do not fucking agree with you, based on these examples. If you want to dismiss me as immature or ignorant fine...the likes of Stephen Fry, Louis CK, and Dan Savage won't and that's just fine by me.


I never said anything about swearing in general, though that is closely related. I'm saying that how you use words reveals things about yourself, and you will be judged accordingly. As others have mentioned, context is essential. Of course I can't claim to have seen everything they have ever said, but I will bet dollars to donuts that Dan Savage and Stephen Fry have never uttered the word "faggot" as an intentional slur against another person. They would use it tongue in cheek, or as satire targeted at people who use it as a slur. And if Louis CK uses it as a slur, then yes, my opinion of him will drop several points. But I would have to see it in context. As for other types of swearing, if you swear occasionally to emphasize a point, it can be very effective. But if you're dropping the f-bomb every other word, it ceases to become a bomb and starts to become a sign that you're an idiot.

But I think you know what I'm saying and are intentionally being argumentative. So this is my final statement on the subject: Human beings are constantly judging each other. It's in our nature. One of the things that we judge is the maturity level of a person's discourse. The use of slurs based on gender, ethnicity, and sexual preference is rapidly becoming the realm of ignorant, backward, irrelevant people. Are there exceptions? Probably. Should you count on people making an exception for you? Not if you're smart. You can argue that there are powerful and important people who still use these kinds of slurs, but most people will not think of those exceptions when they hear you talk. They will be thinking instead of the 12 year old moron anonymously shouting bile into his xbox, or these horrible children celebrating the death of an innocent boy. It is your choice how you wish to present yourself to the world, so don't try to convince me that you should be allowed to spew hatred without repercussions. That won't get you anywhere.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^MaxWilder:
Look, it's your choice.
You can use grown up words to express yourself, and other grown up people will respect that.
Or you can spew ignorance from your dirty blow-hole like an inbred 12 year old, and the grown-ups who hear you will dismiss you as a waste of oxygen who will never amount to anything of any importance except for when you knock up your cousin and spawn some duplicates of your diseased and ill-formed brain.
Choose your own adventure, kid.

I assume you're talking to me in which case I'll explain that you don't know me.

I wasn't talking to you specifically, but that's besides the point. Do you want mature people to respect what you are saying? Then use mature language. I don't have to "know you" in order to dismiss you as immature, ignorant, and inconsequential if I hear (or read) slurs based on gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference.


So you're saying that swearing or taboo words make people think that I am somehow ignorant or inconsequential?

That's bullshit. Stephen Fry pointed that out as well, some of the smartest most educated people he's ever known swear all the time. Dan Savage uses "faggot" he's definitely smart and respected. Louis CK uses faggot in his act all the time...he's obviously a very good writer.

I'm sorry I just do not fucking agree with you, based on these examples. If you want to dismiss me as immature or ignorant fine...the likes of Stephen Fry, Louis CK, and Dan Savage won't and that's just fine by me.

I don't get a super 'High IQ' vibe from right-libertarians, which isn't to say they are stupid - they are certainly more thoughtful than your typical conservative. But as far as intellectuals go, right-libertarians have a shallow bench. When Milton Friedman is your most revered intellectual, you've got problems...

I think part of the problem with finding young leaders is that in right-libertarian circles, it's generally considered taboo to question free market doctrine. While this kind of ideological purity is good at creating loyal and aggressive followers, it's not the kind of thing that inspires the critical thinking necessary for a good leader. That's why the younger leaders end up being creepy, dictatorial narcissists like Stefan Molyneux. Political fundamentalism isn't much different from religious fundamentalism in that respect.

My brother committed suicide one week and a half ago. No warning, except for a few small clues of "usual" depression. He most likely had Asperger's from everything we know. But, he never got diagnosed as he was paranoid of doctors and hadn't seen so much as a dentist in 13 years.

I've tried to commit suicide myself in the past. I failed and was diagnosed with bi-polar. My brother pulled his off without a hitch. He had no such second chance--to rise from your own ashes and learn to understand yourself, and in turn others.

I have the vision of hindsight with me now. I know just how dangerous these murky waters of the mind are. They are utterly ignorant. Unrelenting. These waves deceive your mind's eye and convey only one premonition to come. And just when you think it can't be worse reality chases you through your days and dreams like some harried demon; an elemental made of some compulsion filled fateful last night of twilight's last dance. The lighthouse throws shadows rather than light and all the ports are closed.

THAT is what it means to be lost, truly. It requires great effort to stave it off. It is very much like a pitching sea. You must treat it almost like a monster of the deep by going to your doctor and arming yourself with what you can. Drugs, meditation, life changes, and most importantly knowledge...

The Internet may be a trigger in some small amount of cases, I agree. But, it is at school before we become young adults that we need to know these things and learn where to get help. We need to know how to recognize all types in ourselves and others as it is a common place issue; meanwhile psychiatry still remains semi-taboo topic in the public domain, making it a bigger problem still. It's very hard to help someone set on suicide as they are very much like Ahab in "Moby Dick". Watch your words, but know it is never truly one needle that truly breaks the camel's back.

@SDGundamX

(just so you know, I do not agree with everything Harris says, but he makes quite a few good points).

Interesting extract from this article (bold=added): http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/holy-terror


Of course, the Bible is not the only ancient text that casts a shadow over the present. The social policy that can be derived from the Koran currently poses even greater dangers. According to this text, it is the duty of every Muslim man to make war on unbelievers (Koran 9:73 and 9:123), and such men are promised eternal happiness after death. It is true that many Muslims seem inclined to ignore the Koran’s solicitations to martyrdom and jihad, but we cannot overlook the fact that many are not so inclined, and they now regularly murder innocent noncombatants for religious reasons. The phrase “the war on terrorism” is a dangerous euphemism that obscures the true cause of our troubles in the world, because we are currently at war with precisely the vision of life prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran. Anyone who reads this text will find non-Muslims vilified on nearly every page. How can we possibly expect devout Muslims to happily share power with “the friends of Satan”? How can we expect the faithful to feel about people who God himself is in the process of “mocking,” “cursing,” “shaming,” “punishing,” “scourging,” “judging,” “burning,” “annihilating,” “not forgiving,” and “not reprieving”? While there are many charges that can be fairly leveled at men like Osama bin Laden, perverting the teachings of the Koran is not among them. Why did nineteen well-educated, middle-class men trade their lives in this world for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed that they would go straight to Paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of human beings so fully and satisfactorily explained. And yet, many of us are reluctant to accept this explanation.

Religious faith is always, and everywhere, exonerated. It is now taboo in every corner of our culture to criticize a person’s religious beliefs. Consequently, we are unable to even name, much less oppose, one of the most pervasive causes of human conflict. And the fact that there are very real and consequential differences between our religious traditions is simply never discussed. Anyone who thinks that terrestrial concerns are the principal source of Muslim violence must explain why there are no Palestinian Christian suicide bombers. They, too, suffer the daily indignity of the Israeli occupation. Where, for that matter, are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against the Chinese? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam.

Not really on board with enforced civility. I'd always prefer to have an honest conversation with someone than one where we're both tiptoeing around whatever taboos.

Of course, what the man is saying is taboo -- and socially awkward -- which for all intents and purposes is what an encounter with von Triers (cinematic or in vivo) is going to be about.

In my limited exposure/understanding of the man and his films, if von Triers is "for" anything at all, it is the liminal ambiguity that lays beneath that which individuals and society deems to be "settled" matters -- if only to provoke the discomfort needed to elicit societal changes or individual learning. (See "Manderlay," "Dogville," "The 5 Obstructions," "Boss of it All" et. al., for example.)

And Hitler happens to be one such so-called "settled" matter, for better or worse.

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:

Swear this was on here already but I don't see it now.


It's a different version.

>> ^Payback:

"Fuck" diminishes and degrades. That version of "torture" is metaphorical and hyperbole. The words have the meaning they do because of the way they're used, and how often for a particular reason, not because of what they describe.
Make love, not war. Fuck, don't fight. Both say the same thing, but because "fuck" is normaly used as a curse, usually in anger, it's percieved that way whenever it's used.

Exactly, but that doesn't really explain why the expletives we use are those words and not others. Why are so many swear words connected with sex, and not as Fry suggests something like torture? Its not as if its unique to English either, its the same deal across multiple languages. Its not just sex tho, shit is a popular one, as is blasphemy ofc, but when I tried to think of swears connected more to violence the only ones I can come up with are rape/d, which is sex again, and Bloody which I think is pretty limited to the UK and even then its prolly not going to bother the censors.


I suppose the question really is why are such trivial things so taboo while we speak quite frankly of the worst humanity has to offer.

the bible is an excellent reflection of the time it was written in. superstitious, petty, violent, tribal taboos and warfare. that was 100 percent accurate.

you're half right, bobknight33. Close the corporate loopholes (but that will never happen because deep down both left and right want them)

But the Flat tax is anything but fair, Do the math and you'll figure it out. Just because it's called "fair tax" doesn't mean it's fair. Giving everyone the same tax rate is yet another giveaway to the rich. Progressive tax is the only real fair way to go because the business owners and the rich utilize gov't services far more than a low or middle class person ever will..so since they use more gov't services, it's only fair that they pay more.

Simple fact of the matter is that a "fair" tax rate for a upper class person or business is anything but fair for a lower/middle class person. a fair tax rate for a lower income person applied to everyone simply wouldn't bring in enough revenue to pay the bills even if Republicans had their wet dream of axing all entitlement and art programs, they wouldn't have enough for defense either I'd wager.

Closing the corporate loopholes is the only thing I've ever heard that both proponents of the left AND the right can agree on, but it simply never happen because the people at the top (both left and right) have grown fat from the tax breaks from those loopholes.

If you want to get serious about fixing the budget. As others have already said, nothing should be sacred, everything should be on the table to be cut...but that also means that raising taxes should not be the taboo it currently is. If it's ok to cut spending, then it's ok to bring more money in.

Small gov't is not efficient goverment. Efficient government is efficient gov't. Efficiency has nothing to do with size.

I was going to make a blanket statement but upon researching it a bit further...

Although the United Kingdom, Ireland, the US, English Canada and Australia are all among Countries that see Horse meat as a taboo and don't eat it, it looks like the US and Britain are the two top countries that prohibit the meat meat. The US does however have horse meat for slaughter but once mature horses are ready for slaughter, they are transported to Canada or to Mexico for slaughter.

Several countries that don't eat horse meat still farm them as cattle for slaughter for other south asian countries.

There is too much detail to go into here so check out the Wiki page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_meat