*promote the master!
welcome back @blankfist
ya'all need to start taking notes.

this guy was super entertaining,i thought he was gonna have an embolism at the halfway mark.

hiiiiilarious!!!

look,no matter which direction you approach this situation the REAL dynamic is simply:power vs powerlessness.

we also should establish which form of libertarianism we are speaking.cultofdusty criticizes the bastardized american version and this dude come from a more classic libertarian (sans the unbridled capitalism).so there should be no surprise they are at odds in their opinion.this man is defending a libertarianism that cultofdusty may not even be aware of at all.

libertarianism has little or nothing in common with the republican party.

so when this dude posits that the corporation is the fault of government,while not entirely accurate,it is also not entirely wrong.corporations in the distant past were temporary alliances of companies,with the blessing of the people (government) to achieve a specific job or project and once that project was complete,the corporation was dissolved.

it was a cadre of clever lawyers,representing powerful interests who convinced the supreme court that corporations were people and hence began the long road leading us to where we are now.

so it was partly the government that fascillitated the birth of the corporation.

i do take issue with this mans assessment of public education.his commentary is the height of ignorance.while i would agree that what we have now can hardly be called 'education".his blanket and broad statements in regards to public education TOTALLY ignores the incredible benefits that come from an educated public.he ignores the history of public education,as if this system has been unchanging for 100 years.

that is just flat out...stupid..or more likely just lazy,regurgitating the maniacal rants of his heroes without ever once giving that 100 years some critical study.

so let me point to the the late 50's and 60's here in the USA where our public education was bar-none the best in the world.what were the consequences of this stellar public education?
well,...civil rights marches,anti-war movement,womens rights movement and a whole generation that not only questioned authority and the entrenched power structures but openly DEFIED those structures.

this absolutely petrified the powered elite.
during the height of the anti-war movement nixon was forced to baricade the white house with school buses and was quoted as saying to kissinger " henry,they are coming for me".

again,the fundamental premise is,and has always been -power vs powerlessness.

so over the nest few decades public education was manipulated and transformed into a subtle indoctrination to teach young minds to tacitly submit to authority.

which this man addresses and i agree,i just disagree with his overly generalized non-historically accurate puke-vomit.

my final point,and its always the point where libertarians lose their shit on me like an offended westboro baptist acolyte (its actually two points) is this:
1.if we can blame the government for much of the problems in regards to concentrated power and the abuse that goes with that power,then we MUST also address the abusive (and corrosive) power of the corporation.many libertarians i discuss with seem to be under the impression that if we take away the symbiotic relationship between corporations and government that somehow..miraculously..the corporation will all of a sudden become the benign and productive member of society.

this is utter fiction.
this is magical thinking.
many corporations have a larger GDP than many nation states.this is about POWER and there is ZERO evidence any corporation will be willing to relinquish that power just because there is no government to influence,manipulate or corrupt.

which brings me to point number 2:
my libertarian friends.
you live in a thing called a society.
a community where other people also live.
so please stop with this rabid individualism as somehow being the pinnacle of human endeavour.im all for personal responsibility but nobody lives in a vacuum and nobody rides this train alone.the world does not revolve around YOU.

but i do understand,and agree,that the heart of the libertarian argument is more power to the people.i also understand their arguments against governments,which directly and oftimes indirectly disempowers people.

i get that.its a good argument..
BUT...for fucks sake please admit that the corporation in its current state has GOT TO FUCKING GO!

because if you dont then ultimately you are trading one tyrant for another and in my humble opinion,ill stick with the one i can at least vote on or protest.

there aint nothing democratic about a multi-national corporation.they are,by design,dictatorships.

so i will agree to wittle the government down and restrict its powers to defense (NOT war),law and fraud police,if you agree to dismantle and restructure the seven headed leviathan that is todays corporation.

deal?

Strawman? Do you even know what strawman is? why don't you look up the definition of strawman. Oliver's whole argument is 'strawman'. Show me some proof.

This is just another progressive ploy to make people think there is some war against women and the gov't needs to do more to make sure it doesn't happen.

Pathetic, truly pathetic.

Also, here's an anecdote for ya...STFU.

I tried to read the article -- I'll try again later.

Seems like same old, same old to me.

Look, I agree with you that it is pretty stupid that women are held up as being better than men. It is really stupid that men are insulted by being defined by their lowest common denominator or by some superficial stereotype.

When I was in my 20s, which was a long time ago, I would hear things like -- if women were in charge of the world, we wouldn't have wars. Bullshit. Women are just as capable of being territorial and selfish as any man. And men being stupid about their emotions, and walled off? It was clear to me that they were victims of emotional terrorism from men, boys, women and girls, who put enormous pressure on them to "be men." Whatever the fuck that means.

But to constantly throw everything into the pot and expect every single video about women to include the pressures on men is not helping. I'm glad to hear that you acknowledge being "triggered" -- which to me is an emotional response out of scale with the current situation. I'm glad you know that.

Maybe if you could channel that energy into specifics, instead of broadsides. Instead of challenging women's right to talk about themselves and their experiences, why not challenge the part of the videos that do the denigration towards men? I try very hard not to denigrate men, and I fall into it way way way too easy. (A source of shame for me.) A woman makes a crack about men being stupid? Jump on it! Say it is bullshit. Say you don't like it when we do it to you. OPEN OUR EYES TO OUR OWN BULLSHIT.

But that isn't going to happen when a woman is talking about her own experience and you jump in and muddle things by bringing up men and their challenges. That is where the "make your own video" comes from. Men aren't the topic right now. Women are the topic. And fuck yeah, we are victims. And we need to learn how not to be. Which is what this (flawed) video was trying to do.

The thing is, men are victims too. They just never talk about it. Why is that?

I absolutely agree with you that men have enormous pressures on them. I have two male friends who have talked at length about the experience of growing up male and not fitting the stereotype (and it is a stereotype), and what they suffered as they tried to make their own lives despite those pressures. Both of them were perceived as "weak". And now they are some of the best people on the planet because they had the courage to stay true to themselves.

I just beg of you to keep these topics separate.

Let women talk about their issues.

If you can find videos where men talk about their issues, post them.

If you find something in a video where men are denigrated, speak up about that specific piece of it.

It godawful tiring trying to change the world, isn't it?

(And maybe as you stick up for men in specific instances, you might grow some insight into the challenges faced by women. Maybe gain some sympathy as you attempt to help women have some sympathy towards men.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-war-on-women.html?hp&rref=opinion

Thought of this comment stream when I read this. The last line.

It's been clear to me for decades that men have a rough go of it -- societal expectations and pressures that I would find crushing.

As a feminist/humanist, it has always been clear to me that men have to tackle that on their own. Women have been fighting against societal crap, men have to fight their own fight.

Our fights are different, however. (And we need to hold each other accountable. We need to get up in each other's grill about how we compartmentalize each other, and react to each other from our "lizard brains" -- the non-thinking part. Women do it, too -- example -- as much as I say I like a man to show his feelings, when a man cries, sometimes I recoil instinctively. Operative word -- "instinct". Not reason.)

It doesn't help when someone speaks up about their own problem, and someone else says -- yeah? well? I got it bad too. Shut up!

That isn't going to fix either problems.

If we could talk about how these problems are interrelated, that would be grand, rather than turning it into some kind of competition.

Next up, how the United States government gives one billion dollars to Egypt to help finance the killing of gays and perpetuate the war on women.

Wow. Thanks again!

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
*slow clap*

*promote

What US citizens need to understand is that the right wing fundagelical war on women is more than that, it is part of a deliberate de(con)struction of *equality and freedom in favour of a patriarchal, theo-plutocratic hierarchy. If you don't have the right sex, the right colour, the right sexual orientation, the right religious beliefs or the right amount of cash, than you are not "entitled" (a core concept for these ass-hats, although they wouldn't dream of admitting it) to the same rights, liberties and choices as the "chosen few".

*slow clap*

*promote

What US citizens need to understand is that the right wing fundagelical war on women is more than that, it is part of a deliberate de(con)struction of *equality and freedom in favour of a patriarchal, theo-plutocratic hierarchy. If you don't have the right sex, the right colour, the right sexual orientation, the right religious beliefs or the right amount of cash, than you are not "entitled" (a core concept for these ass-hats, although they wouldn't dream of admitting it) to the same rights, liberties and choices as the "chosen few".

>> ^legacy0100:

Country is going to shits.


It is but this isn't an indication of that. Our Army would've done this in any War had women been featured prominently in it. Heck read about how Russian and US soldiers treated the French and German women of the countries they liberated. The surprising thing isn't that this happens, it's that it happens constantly and the men in charge do nothing. This is why this has to come out, and shine a light on this stuff. It's sad but we're humans and we need to be shamed into doing the right thing sometimes. It's an ongoing process that needs to happen.

I feel terrible that the women who serve have ever feared the men who they serve with and are meant to be protecting them like a sister in the field. People say that feminists have overstayed their welcome or something, well here's your issue feminists, this is something that you can't overreact to.

Live Action public relations:
"AUSTIN, May 29 -- Today, Live Action released a new undercover video showing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin, TX encouraging a woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly carrying a girl and wanted to have a boy. The video is first in a new series titled "Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America," exposing the practice of sex-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective elimination of baby girls in the womb.

"I see that you're saying that you want to terminate if it's a girl, so are you just wanting to continue the pregnancy in the meantime?" a counselor named "Rebecca" offers the woman, who is purportedly still in her first trimester and cannot be certain about the gender. "The abortion covers you up until 23 weeks," explains Rebecca, "and usually at 5 months is usually (sic) when they detect, you know, whether or not it's a boy or a girl." Doctors agree that the later in term a doctor performs an abortion, the greater the risk of complications.

The Planned Parenthood staffer suggests that the woman get on Medicaid in order to pay for an ultrasound to determine the gender of her baby, even though she plans to use the knowledge for an elective abortion. She also tells the woman to "just continue and try again" for the desired gender after aborting a girl, and adds, "Good luck, and I hope that you do get your boy."

"The search-and-destroy targeting of baby girls through prenatal testing and abortion is a pandemic that is spreading across the globe," notes Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action. "Research proves that sex-selective abortion has now come to America. The abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, is a willing participant."

Six studies in the past four years indicate that there are thousands of "missing girls" in the U.S., many from sex-selective abortion. The U.K., India, Australia, and other countries ban sex-selective abortion, but the U.S., save for three states, does not. On Wednesday, Congress will debate the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act (PRENDA), which would ban sex-selective abortions nationally.

"Planned Parenthood and their ruthless abortion-first mentality is the real 'war on women'," says Rose. "Sex-selective abortion is gender discrimination with lethal consequences for little girls."

The complete, unedited video and transcript can be viewed at www.ProtectOurGirls.com, a hub of research and information on sex-selective abortions.

Live Action is a youth led movement dedicated to building a culture of life and ending the human rights abuse of abortion. They use new media to educate the public about the humanity of the unborn and investigative journalism to expose threats against the vulnerable and defenseless.

For further information, please contact Dan Wilson or Jameson Cunningham with Shirley & Banister Public Affairs at (703) 739-5920 or (800) 536-5920 and email at media@liveaction.org"

This is actually the point I'm making: these underlying factors are not separate from the discriminatory effect they have on wage disparity. We do not ameliorate discriminatory practices by imposing equal discrimination on all parties. Rather, we raise awareness and consciousness of the issues impacting men and boys, just as we attend to those impacting women and girls. >> ^davidraine:

>> ^Trancecoach:
There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."
I think there's merit in this argument, but I have an issue with it. I don't think we can adequately measure the impact these factors have and the effects on compensation they should be given without first closing the pay gap. Discrimination plays such a large and varied role in the wage gap that it completely dominates the effects of the other variables you cite below. Furthermore, many of those variables them have substantive effects on job performance. If discrimination's effects are removed from wages, those variables' effects on wages should become self-evident.

>> ^Trancecoach:
There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."

I think there's merit in this argument, but I have an issue with it. I don't think we can adequately measure the impact these factors have and the effects on compensation they should be given without first closing the pay gap. Discrimination plays such a large and varied role in the wage gap that it completely dominates the effects of the other variables you cite below. Furthermore, many of those variables them have substantive effects on job performance. If discrimination's effects are removed from wages, those variables' effects on wages should become self-evident.

@NetRunner, you wrote: "In other words, you don't dispute that women are being paid less as a group, you just believe that this is because women as a group aren't doing equal work. They stay at home to raise children, don't pursue advanced degrees, or maybe they just weren't raised to be as outspoken/competitive/aggressive as men. Whatever the cause, you posit that it is this deficit in quality or quantity of work from women which is the primary reason women get paid less than men on average. That's not a basic agreement with A, that's a wholly different assertion."

>>>Actually, that's not my argument. There is a disparity between the ways in which men and women are expected to contribute value to the society and this disparity is reflected, generally speaking, in the kinds of jobs that are sought/provided, responsibilities that are sought/provided, and roles or identities that are sought/provided by and for the genders. This is a distinction from lifestyle choice, which is not as socio-culturally pernicious as what I'm attempting to convey. However, if you are suggesting that I disagree with PL for EW, you're only partially correct. There are statistics by which the disparity in wages could be held in the light of (stats which are outside the scope of my work-week to specifically cite here), which indicate, for example, that men are more likely to spend more time away from the families than women, more years of their lives in careers than women, more involved with physically debilitating occupations than women, more likely to be sent to (and die in) wars than women, more likely to be held financially liable for the support of children with or without legal custody, etc. What I am suggesting is that while each of these taken individually might be considered an "lifestyle choice," as a whole, they are part of a much larger underlying societal expectation which then holds men accountable if they are unable to serve their male function as "providers" or "protectors."
As I asked before, what value is lost by the wage disparity?

@NetRunner, you wrote: And yes, I get that you're saying it in a soft, non-accusatory tone -- it's not that women are intrinsically inferior, it's that our society as a whole is shaping them into less valuable workers, whether they want that or not.

>>>Closer. The society is also shaping men into 'wage earners' whether they want that or not.


@NetRunner: Still, I think anytime you go around saying pay discrimination is in any sense justified, you're wading into some dangerously misogynistic waters. Worse, I think if you use the word "myth" to describe the idea that women face unjust pay discrimination, you've pretty much jumped in with both feet.

>>>Show me where I have posited that the pay discrimination is justified! I will immediately retract it. There are ingrained habits of this argument into which you seem to want to place me, but that is not the position I am taking. It is, by no means, a "myth," that women get paid less than men for equal work. That much is mathematically accurate. What is "mythical" about it is that circumstances under which that wage disparity exists is identical between the genders. It is not, but is instead indicative of a much larger, deeper, societal disparity between the genders... one that did/does not get adequate attention.

>> ^Yogi:

I don't think Jon even has to try anymore. Just look to Fox he filled two segment by making them look like utter shit.
I think we should separate this country up into the people that watch Fox, I'm sure they'd love their own place to live and be awful. And the people that watch the Daily Show that make fun of the idiots at Fox. This whole America thing was great, then people went insane so lets just make our own country and they can fuck off.


See: http://videosift.com/video/George-Carlin-on-State-Prison-Farms

>> ^sirlivealot:

>> ^Sarzy:
The "Space Neurosurgeon" bit is definitely the biggest laugh I've gotten from The Daily Show in a while (I'm assuming that's in here -- I can't actually watch this clip since I'm in Canada).

http://ohryan.ca/blog/2009/08/15/how-to-watch-comedy-central-v
ideos-from-canada/


Yeah, I was happily using that trick for a quite a while, but I switched over to Chrome a couple of months ago and haven't been able to find an equivalent plugin.

>> ^Sarzy:

The "Space Neurosurgeon" bit is definitely the biggest laugh I've gotten from The Daily Show in a while (I'm assuming that's in here -- I can't actually watch this clip since I'm in Canada).

http://ohryan.ca/blog/2009/08/15/how-to-watch-comedy-central-videos-from-canada/