I used (for 30 years) to have fairly traditional but liberal christian views. All of it. I havent for 10 months or so. Now i'm atheist. I'm still thinking about stuff. this is a fairly large paradigm shift for me.

I do have things I belive, and my atheism is a belief just as my christianity was before. Its just now, i dont belvie there is a god and if i'm wrong and there is, i dont like him.

It wasn't exactly a solicitation -- more of a prediction. You should try searching comments for it (not easy because search doesn't work well with the short words). You might be surprised.

In reply to this comment by Kreegath:
If this had been youtube then we'd probably see a couple of pages of comments like that. However, unless there's a paradigm shift on the sift, I think it's safe to say we try and hold ourselves to a higher standard.

If this had been youtube then we'd probably see a couple of pages of comments like that. However, unless there's a paradigm shift on the sift, I think it's safe to say we try and hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Science has nothing to say about self awareness, religion has nothing to say about science.

People have emerged on both sides questioning their respective fields' dogma. For example the head of the Anglican Church in England does not believe that God created the universe, he believes that God "made the universe make itself", which strikes me as a *huge* paradigm shift.

Physicists like Lee Smolin, Milo Wolff, Halton Arp, etc, are absolutely convinced that string theory and in fact the last 30 years of particle physics are seriously misguided, even questioning the interpretation of early quantum experiments, Big Bang theory (which has had to be modified and patched with each new discovery to the point that it isn't a good foundation for cosmology any more, inflation, dark matter, dark energy, mis-interpretation of red shifts etc etc)

Neither the scientific rationalists nor the religious irrationalists have their house in order, and disciples of each shouldn't be so smug.

"Maybe this video is misleading, as sineral suggests, but it's still intriguing, and it DOES involve scientific research and theories from some of the top minds in the field."

It absolutely, categorically, scientifically does NOT contain one single piece of experimental data to back up the claims and it in fact IGNORES and is contrary to some of the most important, groundbreaking, paradigm-shifting experiments of the 20th century.

Is this now the level of the VS Science Channel?

Sadly, I share Choggie's feelings to some degree. What gives me hope about Obama is that I sense sheer terror in the media and from corporate Republicans and Democrats alike. Does this mean he is a threat to the cabal of international billionaires who control our country? I don't know, but it's the only game in town, so I'm willing to buy the lottery ticket and see what happens.

I agree that it is the masses who must force the paradigm shift, hence my avatar, but I do think a dynamic leader can give us the inspiration and institutional support we need to do so. Obama might be just the guy to do it. He has yet to be beaten down and broken by the system like McCain and the Clintons, so for the moment I'm going to indulge in hope over fear.

I think the internet is already changing the paradigm and inflicting some serious wounds on the mass brainwashing tool the is television. The internet allows us to speak freely in large numbers and to reject bullshit when we see it. In our own small way, even we here on videosift are creating our own programming, not based on ad revenue, institutional pressure or corporate profits, but rather our own values.

Call your cable company and cancel right now.

Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

No, that wasn't my intent or message. Sarcasm noted BTW.

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument.

I can't agree with that assessment because conservatism factors in something liberalism doesn't: facts. For example, it's been fairly well proven that every time the minimum wage is raised, prices go up and businesses hire fewer workers and still fewer inexperienced workers, such as teens entering the job market. But the genius of liberalism is people are emotional animals. What graph or chart is as colorful or loud as one "activist" screaming about hungry children, even if it has nothing to do with the issue at hand? So, the minimum wage goes up, prices go up, and once again, the media can blame higher prices and unemployment on...well...whatever's handy at the moment.

Republicans have failed to properly emotionalize their arguments, and even if they did, they'll always have a harder battle to fight, because there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Liberals don't believe that because they're selling what they believe to be permanent solutions.

Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine.

We are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. You're young yet and will have to find your own answers, of course. Being raised in a Republican household might very well have been a handicap, because the family unit is communistic by nature and now you're out there, seeking knowledge for yourself as you make your way through life. Conservatism and other -isms are being cross-examined by you, put through your tests and yes, through the filters of your experience.

Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

I'm not a fan of Bush myself, and could probably match your laundry list of what's wrong with him. It's all ebb and flow, and there are going to be low points, for the party and the nation. Research what America was like during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

If the R's want to survive, they'll find a way to get back to what matters. Or they'll die out. It may take people like you leaving for greener pastures for them to wake up. Hell, maybe you won't come back. I believe that things balance out, eventually. The Soviet Union, as bad is it was, fell because it was beneath human dignity to live like that. Hopefully China will also lose the Red.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course).

If it could be proven 9-11 was an inside job, my first reaction would be to find out how the conspirators managed to keep the silence and complicity of thousands of people, many of them government workers that can't even deliver the mail (a line from Maher). The problem with conspiracy theories is that when there's no evidence, the theorists say, "That just proves how good the conspirators really are."

For the sake of fun, let's say it was a conspiracy. If so, it backfired in several ways. If Bush was seeking to become a tyrant, his perceived inability to protect New York was not an asset. People like me, already pissed-off at the size and power of pre-9-11 government didn't suddenly relax now that there was going to be more bureaucracy to protect us.

Second, if Bush was seeking the tyrannical power that the left claims he has now, he failed to go far enough. There was no mass censorship or government seizure of media and Homeland Security did not suddenly have thousands of stormtroopers at its disposal. The message was, "Live your life like always, in spite of the attacks."

Lastly, Bush united an opposition that, if they agreed upon nothing else, could blame Bush for everything. He was still in trouble with leftists before the attacks due to the 'stolen' election, and he couldn't placate the left fast enough spending OUR money.

That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

True on all counts. Thus my new policy. There's enough going on at VS not to bother with it anymore.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

The American form of government is unique in world history and remains one-of-a-kind today. The 3 branches make it extremely difficult for any one individual or group to consolidate too much power, too quickly. It "survived" Bush and if Obama gets in, democracy will hobble his efforts at trying to change things overnight.

The creation of an "Other" for government to consolidate power is a given throughout history. However, when there are not imagined barbarians at the gate, there are real ones.

Our opinions differ on the war. I happen to think history will show taking out Saddam was the right thing to do, but no, I can't "prove" it any more than scientitians now can prove with climate models that global warming is man-made.

I get the subtext of your message.

We all like to believe that the people who disagree with us are unread, inexperienced, missing obvious truths, buying into lies, etc. It's simply not so. There exist people on every side of the issues that are intelligent, well-read, etc. But being human, we will be biased toward one side: ours.

It all goes back to Patrick Moynihan's timeless saying: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Ancora Imparo.

"I've spent so much time with spiritual advisors, so much money on crystals and weird drugs. To think Cthulhu had been living in Hollywood Hills this whole time. He's saved my career."
--W. Axl Rose











In reply to this comment by uhohzombies:
Your points are fair and valid, I was only poking fun at you for the little passive aggressive "p.s." at the end which was essentially saying "you people probably beat your wives because you don't agree with conservative viewpoints".

As far as the last bits I left below this comment, replace the word Liberal with Conservative and you have pretty much the same argument. Look, I was raised in a Republican household and I am still a registered Republican despite having moved left of center over the past 4 or 5 years. I've learned that someones morals and viewpoints are subjective and vary wildly based on where and how they were raised and by whom. Some peoples emotions and thought processes run differently and they see things differently. Sometimes they evolve over time when they engage in free-thought and tune out what everyone else says or thinks for a while. That's fine. Personally, the acts of the Bush administration have left me in utter disbelief and ashamed of what the Republican party has become, but of course a great many Americans disagree and feel the bogeyman is real and we have to assert our might lest our stature in the world degrade any more than it already has. Giving up is for sissies even if staying the course leads to economic and social ruin.

Oh well, what I have ultimately learned is that after a certain age, opinions are pretty firmly cemented not withstanding a severe paradigm shift (like what if irrefutable proof came out that 9/11 was orchestrated a la Crassus and Spartacus or the Reichstag Fire in order to further a political goal; how then would you feel about this country and government? Just a hypothetical of course). Most political arguments are just that... heated arguments which lead to nothing. True debate is almost nonexistent because usually one person or both are just completely incapable of objectively examining someone else's viewpoints. That having been said, going into a place where a majority of folks disagree with you politically and essentially poking the lions is generally a wasteful gesture. Nobody is going to suddenly think Olbermann is wrong and O'Reilly has it all right, or that Obama is the anti-christ and McCain will save this country from the failed policies of the Bush administration.

Ultimately, history is the best educator and can truly open ones eyes to the way the world works because in all honesty not much has changed in the last 2000 years as far as how men control other men and how power asserts itself. I highly recommend delving into the history of the Roman Empire, particularly the way Crassus used the gladiator revolt and paved the way for the Triumverate and God-Emperors of Rome, and the way the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire, a staged act of 'terrorism', to increase their power and further their agendas. There are many precedents throughout history for governments creating enemies or events in order to tighten their grip on a population, solidify power, engage in wars, and strip away freedoms.

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:

I'm thinking about the psychological makeup of the submitter. Let's go inside their head: they've just posted yet another lopsided fake newsman like Colbert or Maher or the despicable Keef Overbite, bashing Bush or criticizing the war in unproductive fashion. The same 5-10 kudos arrive and everyone's in agreement.


Liberals take their worldview very, very seriously, to the point there are no other valid points of view. So, I says to myself, I says, even if you're trying to "educate" among the fun-poking, none of these people signed up to hear from you. And so I says to myself, "Self, you're right."

And that's where we are today. I don't expect anyone after these few comments to even bother. Another month and no one will know I was there. There's enough music and tech and stuff not to bother with election '08 and beyond.

I'm still around and my views remain the same. But just as I wouldn't walk around Target or the (hated) Wal-mart telling strangers what I think of Bush or Colbert, now it has its place. That's all.

"I fail to see the absurdity of being responsible"

I think the absurdity is suggesting that all people will be responsible. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be taking a humanistic stance, in suggesting that people are basically good. Given the chance, free of outside influences such as government, religion, or other social forces, people will do what is good.

Personally I don't believe that is the case. Selfishness, impulsiveness, and irresponsibility are all very human traits, I also think the exact opposite of those things are as well. Some people are more driven to be socially responsible, and others more self serving. If there were no law enforcement, you'd have a lot of people trying to be responsible and you'd have a lot of people who would do whatever they pleased.

Speeding was mentioned, I too attempt to obey the speed limits, not because I'm afraid I'll get caught if I don't, but I understand doing so helps create a measure of safety for myself and the others I share the road with. I've known plenty of people who just don't care, they don't think they'll get caught, and they don't think they're causing a hazard to themselves or other and/or don't care that they are. They're only interested in getting where they're going faster. I've also known some of those irresponsible people who have stopped speeding. Not because they realize what a danger they've been, but because they've racked up hundreds of dollars in speeding tickets.

I guess I just don't buy that everything would be A-OK if there was no law enforcement. Actually I think it would be the exact opposite. As a matter of fact I'd say there are plenty of instances historical and current where there was a lack of law and atrocious things happened. Yes there are plenty of instances current and historical where there was law and atrocious things happened, but that's exactly my point. No matter what you can have bad things happen. Comparatively we're probably better off than a lot of countries, we also don't have it as good some countries. I think we should be striving to improve our law enforcement rather than calling for its removal.

All that said, I think it would be great if there was no need for law enforcement or even government, but I think that's an unrealistic ideal. There would have to be a huge 100% universal social paradigm shift, and that just isn't going to happen, not any time within the next several hundred or thousand years at least. If it happens it'll be a (mostly) slow progression.

I don't like to compare spotlight to quicksilver. spotlight is a simple search tool. quicksilver is a paradigm shift in how you use your computer... (and one of the greatest enhancements to an OS ever).

dance of eternity-0.00, metropolis pt1-1.33, erotomania-1.56, dance of eternity-3.36, metropolis pt1-4.19, the darkest of winters-5.14, the ytse jam 6.00, dance of eternity-7.42, paradigm shift-8.27, universal mind-9.28, dance of eternity-10.14, hell's kitchen-10.55.

Art is one the bastardized terms in the lexicon.....a statement of current affairs as represented in the devotees of Burning Man,(which in and of itself is cool as shit) labeled "art",...not a defining artistic 20th century, yadda yadda sense,seems silly and meaningless-to describe anything as art is subjective at best, this is a bunch of friendlies with no particular direction, expressing their collective need for paradigm shift.....art is what you think it is.....

The race card played when effective, by all. The race riot is still a tool in the compednium of acceptable risky tactics of the brokers of governments. Drugs too, m'kay. They have used it against nations and segments of societies since the creation of the same.
They effectivly use the emotions and anger of innocents as well, though they are not really innocent, but an aiding and abbeting element which the machine uses very well, to distract. For those wound-up tight with a mission or cause or a fervor, are distracted as well, from the real issue.

That being humans used as pawns, for the benefit of a few.

Summary: Bleeding hearts do nothing to effect a desperately needed, paradigm shift, towards, the real, and folks who read their own poetry aloud, need to keep their day job.

interestingly, dag, william gibson speculates a bit on the nature of this american divide. i'm not sure i agree with him, but i haven't explored it enough to really have a clear perspective. he compares the left/right polarity to the paradigm-shift model (of kuhn's _Structure of Scientific Revolutions_), where the two paradigms, old and new, literally cannot communicate, as the entire worldviews on which they're founded are incommeasurate and cut up the world differently.

like i said, i'm not sure i agree, as kuhn was describing a different sort of process. at this point, im not sure how well kuhn transfers, conceptually.
check it out: http://tinyurl.com/mq66h

**update
i just re-viewed gibson's page, and i am not exactly accurate in my description. he's not really writing of the left/right divide as much as the 3rd-generation/4th-generation war models.