November 5th, really? Okay, those people obsessing over V for Vendetta really need to get over it.

>> ^hpqp:

Other downsides: personal vendettas, poor training caused disasters, criminals with a badge, etc, etc.
I understand the sentiment behind the idea, but it's putting way too much trust in the masses.


Because none of that shit happens now of course...

The abuse of power is the problem, increase the number of officers by a few orders of magnitude, and give them no reason to cover for each other, and I see no reason to believe that it would be worse than it is now.

Also, change who does the job or not, all cops should have an always on audio/video recording device on them whenever they are on duty. The full tape from any cop within half a mile should also be required as evidence in order to charge someone with a crime, or for the officer to be allowed to defend themselves from charges of abuse.

Other downsides: personal vendettas, poor training caused disasters, criminals with a badge, etc, etc.

I understand the sentiment behind the idea, but it's putting way too much trust in the masses.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^hpqp:
@dgandhi and @GenjiKilpatrick
I don't know if it's because my faith in humanity is practically non-existent, but I have a hard time imagining a society which does not have some form of law enforcement, for when the preventive measures and education fail... The powerful (be that with brawn or dough) will always be tempted to prey on the weak, and some will heed that temptation. Then what?

I'm inclined to respond "Yes, obviously, look at how the police act.".
I'm not claiming that power vacuums will somehow remain vacant, I'm simply suggesting that there are probably better ways to fill them. I think that any number of radical departures could serve the need to reduce power abuse better than the current system.
My favorite option is going to lose me libertarian support, but I think conscription would work very well for law enforcement.
Lets say that everybody had to serve 21 days every 3 years, 7 weekends of training followed by 1 week of enforcement. We have some professional trainers, but the cops on the street are civilians for 99.3% of their lives. Since the number of officers would be very high in this case, most of them won't even have to take time off work, they just have a gun, badge and a radio with them at all times, and the closest officers are dispatched to do what is needed.
Down side: everybody has to do it.
Up side: more cops, nobody has to do it much, and nobody get in the habit of being above the law.

You got hobbling right? We shall hobbit people.

But there's the risk of one or both parties crying foul. There's also the risk of moderator mis-use Reddit style.

See the creation of /r/trees, and the close destruction of /r/starcraft.

Not saying you don't have to do something, but you'll never get away from the drama. You just replace one sort of drama with another sort of drama. Which one is worse?

Granted moderator misuse would probably happen less often then comment abuse, it would have much more impact on the community as a whole, as tyranny always does. So in a way transferring the responsibility to the user base is going to gut you're workload, in a good way and insure that the comments get a good seeing too, but the problems that arise have a chance to blow up into a community rupturing event.

What I mean to say, is that what starts out as a way to control asshat comments can turn into a way for users with a vendetta to destroy those they don't agree with, or those they don't "like".

The worst kind of tyranny is the kind where the rules creep. Rules are laid down in good interest and then are enforced differently than they were written. Kinda like Feature Creep but worse.

Eh, but I'm pretty indifferent to what the community decides mostly because I treat the internet as I would my cat. I feed it, I pet it, and I love it, but at the end of the day I just let it do whatever the fuck it wants to do.


PS: I haven't got anytime to edit my comment for spelling and grammar. If I derped it up, then herp derp.

I can't bring myself to upvote this. This is indistinguishable for Hollywood parodies of dystopian future newscasts like Robocop, The Running Man, Deathrace 2000 and V for Vendetta. Dystopian Future Today?

OK, I give in. Upvote for evil.

I can't bring myself to upvote this. This is indistinguishable for Hollywood parodies of dystopian future newscasts like Robocop, Deathrace 2000 and V for Vendetta. Dystopian Future Today. (get it?)

OK, I give in. Upvote for evil.

Anonymous likes Colbert:

"Colbert Nation has done several nods to the chans and anon in the past. Steven was holding his face so still for those few seconds that I image super impos[ed] the Guy Fawkes mask onto his face. [It] was just another way to let them know that Colbert Nation thinks what they're doing is cool and just." /Comment made by some anon on the Colbert Nation site.



Story link here: http://www.digitaltrends.com/entertainment/anonymous-mask-flashes-over-stephen-colberts-face-during-colbert-report/
>> ^EMPIRE:

Did anyone watch the rest of the segment when he interviews the journalist? There was a moment towards the end of the interview where for a single frame a Guy Fawkes mask (like the one's Anon use, from the movie V for Vendetta) is flashed over Colbert's face. AWESOME.

Did anyone watch the rest of the segment when he interviews the journalist? There was a moment towards the end of the interview where for a single frame a Guy Fawkes mask (like the one's Anon use, from the movie V for Vendetta) is flashed over Colbert's face. AWESOME.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^volumptuous:
If by fair you mean "a lot bloodier, and the protesters would now be "armed and dangerous" and the military would mow them down instantly"
Often, people don't think like you Blanky. Ghandi didn't want guns. These people most likely don't want them either. And it's so weird to me that you see every situation through the barrel of a gun.
>> ^blankfist:
I bet they wish they had guns. This revolution would be a bit more fair.


They're throwing rocks. I just assumed they'd want something a bit more effective at their disposal. Pardon me.


Throwing rocks is still a way of showing you being angry, but not wanting to do serious damage.

As stated, all guns would do is provide a medium for someone to do something really stupid.

Essentially, think the cascading events of V for Vendetta, and take this exact video as our grounds.

People are angry, some are protesting non-violently, some are throwing rocks (To me that says they're still disgruntled and showing it, but not wanting to do serious harm).

Then you get one or two idiots, who do something really stupid. Weather that's shooting a cop, or shooting another protester. This leads to someone else doing something stupid, be it the rest of the protesters who grow more violent due to the first stupid act, or the corrupt cops.

Either way, the other side is just going to arm themselves and get involved (Police to take down rioters, rioters to take down police).

The entire situation would become all out chaos.

I really can't see how having guns in this fight would cause it to go any other way. What else are you going to do? Stand there and wave them about saying "Hey look, I have a gun!"?

The fact that there's a lack thereof is probably saving dozens of lives.

All I wanted was a choice: logic or belief/faith. Do I feel the need to upend my fellow man (gay person), because I'm supposed to. I'm also not supposed to do anything to them. Yet believers use both sides as they wish when they need it or think it's needed, right?

I ask for little, proof. Proof of work and entropy. Like a plane flying in the sky. Practical, applicable, proof...

@bareboards2 is trying to calm things down, which is fine. I'm still trying to figure out why you keep ascribing to this notion that the Mormons are somehow "obviously" wrong, were as all the others are just fine. You speak of the "body of Christ", as though THAT is enough to have a religion. But, the guy sticks around for a few chapters and then is gone for the rest of time. Even Leonardo da Vinci has a longer history. If not for the Dark Ages we may have quite a few other people with history, but the books were burned by somebody.

I ask for nothing less than concrete evidence, because my fellow mans life may depend on it. I will listen to no others no matter there position unless they can agree to the same thing. This goes for all comments I read.

P.S.- I don't have a vendetta for the Mormon church (except maybe Glenn Beck) as it made me who I am. I assure you that the fog is just as thick on your side of the river; it's great to get a perspective that is free and only contains your observations.

Second, @bareboards2. Why would you think I'm arguing them out of their faith, only they can do that. Two, why do you allow him/her to wrangle others into religion. Same coin?

Lastly, I have a great conception of a "Christian" God, but I did decide not to impart my full knowledge less my posts become a thesis for a doctorate of the histories. The last thing I ask is that you shift your world view and ascribe to something that is not Christian (outright, just for a few months); make yourself uncomfortable. It's the best way to learn.

P.S.S.- That's it, I swear! There are only three people reading this anyway.

>> ^jwray:

>> ^TheGenk:
You know what would be funny? Hijacking Faux News during prime time and airing an apology for lying to the viewer...
I am not saying that someone should do this, but... who am I kidding? Someone do this!

Hackers style or V for Vendetta style?


Definately Hackers style, because no one was killed.

>> ^TheGenk:

You know what would be funny? Hijacking Faux News during prime time and airing an apology for lying to the viewer...
I am not saying that someone should do this, but... who am I kidding? Someone do this!


Hackers style or V for Vendetta style?

@VoodooV, not sure I understand why introducing competing currencies would "border on lunacy"? There are compelling arguments in favor of a value backed currency. And being a veteran I would disagree about the health care being "excellent". Adequate, certainly, but I still choose private doctors for all my health care needs.

And government does offer competitive pay. A lot of times better than the private sector. I'd prefer competitive services versus a 'one-size-fits-all' service offered by the government, to be honest. Choice is better than one option any day, and because the government is subsidized by tax dollars they can be unfairly competitive in any industry without having to worry about customer service or market cues.

The DMV and Post Office come to mind. I've never had a pleasant experience at the DMV, but it doesn't matter because I can't refuse to do business with them. And that goes for the US Post Office, because they've got a monopoly on first class mail. If I don't like that the postman bends and crams my mail into my mailbox like he has a personal vendetta against it, I have to suck it up because they're the only first class mail service.

I agree with what your saying, trust me. But, as I was trying to point out we've, as a species, gone to great lengths to hurt ourselves and negate progress. That is what I was alluding to when I said: "I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... ".

In many cases the "evil" or "good" are a neutral aspect anyway (if you look at it from a evolution point of view). But, evolution also shows why many of the things we consider good are merely evolutionary necessities to survive, i.e. grouping, society, negative impacts on the group by mentally ill group-mates--leading to punishment/exile/or death. This is present in the animal kingdom as well. There have been some recent books covering this very point and they're quite good; if you wish to read one, my advice would be for "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.

Lastly, I know science will not have all the answers. But, if we can deal with the problems I listed above it will bring us closer to a day with understanding; but, many problems will still be left (as technology gets more advanced, it requires less and less people to cause near fatal problems for cities-->countries-->and then the world. If we can't find a way to fold the people back into society willingly we may ultimately fail. By the mid-point of this century, maybe even sooner, it may only take one scientist with a vendetta or a psychotic break (caused by the mind or drugs) to create a virus that targets human specific genetics--if that scientist can throw in some nano-tech... That might be it.

Or we could end up with nano-bots able to self-replicate in our bodies and provide us with protection from viruses, bacteria, other nanites, and able to give you your daily medication as well.

The future is clearly open-ended right now, but I don't think it's quite as dim as justanotherday postulates. Yet, science and religion in the long-term are most likely completely incompatible. Religion can stay in the background without causing conflicts, but if it's at the core or upfront competing with science they'll always rub each other the wrong way--as they are nearly polar opposite in function and approach.

/Yes, I do think the "Atheist" in the video is a Anti-theist. It doesn't mean he's wrong, but he is approaching a solution in the opposite direction that I would suggest (unless the religious leader is like the scientist above in my example: psychotic, mentally ill, etc...).

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I didn't want to derail your conversation there, but as an aside, science has also been a great cause of pain and death. It is has a neutral bias, as I would also see religion. The state of it is largely in the hands of the humans at the helm. We have medicine, but we also have machine guns. We have the United Christian Children's fund, but we also have sexual abusing Fathers.

In reply to this comment by kceaton1:
>> ^justanotherday:

Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more.
--In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.--


The only problem with how you put this is that you are giving a value to something we can't reliably judge for ourselves. It's the same gripe he has with religion. Religion likes to contribute to it's own definition and no other relative position is welcome.

We would also be arrogant if we don't consider the fact that we may be the smartest thing there is. We know already that there were most likely ancestors and perhaps non-ancestors in human past that had a high IQ; due to the size of their neo-cortex. The difference is that our lineage brokered the gap between minds with an extremely descriptive language and body language piece of construction in our brain.

Also, you describe humanity as "sad". I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... Don't give aliens the benefit that they will not have to deal with the same issues.

Finally, science has made HUGE strides in not only understanding ourselves, but also the environment and creatures around us. In 100 years, out of the 250,000 years we've been around, we've made strides that would seem impossible just a decade earlier. In 1995 when I left graduated from high school the Internet was good for gaming and small-scale communications. In one decade it had become HUGE, allowing you to do things never imagined before (even gaming saw the same leap--just from the advancement of the Internet; WoW is a good example). The Internet is now on the verge of becoming threaded into our everyday life; this is true for a nearly endless list of technological changes and scientific knowledge.

Science also has made great leaps in understanding our psyche (soul for others) and our overall brain and psychology. If you want some quick rundowns on what we know don't look at psychology (as it tends to be secondary to neuroscience), look at neuroscience and artificial intelligence.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
No wonder liberals want guns banned. They're terrible shots!

Don't downvote funny posts you idiots!
Does anyone know why this guy was actually there? What the hell he was protesting and misinterpreting the Vendetta V for?


Um, let's see. HE (WAS) FUCKING CRAZY.