>> ^chilaxe:
We care about it because it's a 'pretty lie,' like Creationism. Creationism makes us 'feel good' even though it's anti-intellectual, but letting the masses have their way and persist with pretty illusions has nothing to do with progressive civilization and makes us all dumber.


Um, chilaxe, you need to... chilaxe. Having a laugh about somebody's wild guess (though an educated guess in many respects) coming true is not going to contribute to a significant rise in magical thinking in society. At least, not in anybody who isn't deeply into magical thinking to begin with.

"Who the fuck cares. Despite knowing that love is a series of chemical reactions from my brain to my penis, I love it.

I mean... I totally wasn't turned on by this video."

We care about it because it's a 'pretty lie,' like Creationism. Creationism makes us 'feel good' even though it's anti-intellectual, but letting the masses have their way and persist with pretty illusions has nothing to do with progressive civilization and makes us all dumber.

>> ^chilaxe:
Re:"they have insufficient humanity to ask him questions, since they're obviously subhuman worms."

Netrunner, did you really write that? Bronze age liberalism is beneath you. You should be a leader of progressivism instead of someone who drags it into filth.


I was paraphrasing Chavez's attitude. Politics is as much about anti-intellectual arguments as anything, and I think this may be partially a cultural difference between our politics and the politics in Latin America. I didn't see Chavez defend himself to Fox, I saw him say "you're dishonest, and evil, and so I'm not going to tolerate you questioning me or my behavior" and walking away. I got the distinct feeling he wanted to use words more along the lines of what I said, since they're more colorful and striking.

I kinda empathize with that position, even if I think Chavez isn't exactly the most fine upstanding guy in the world himself.

DFT, even if our enemies don't uphold their vows, we still need to uphold our vows.

My first vow is that I have to oppose all anti-intellectualism. When a figure admonishes his enemies and then breaks his own advice within 10 seconds, that's anti-intellectualism to me.

Perhaps I'm missing the point. Perhaps liberalism is supposed to be anti-intellectual, because that's what we want. If that's the case, then I'm not a liberal.

Part of it certainly is an Oklahoma problem. We pay our teachers crap, so we lose our best ones to the better-paying states around us. Oklahomans tend to have a very anti-intellectual attitude, and fewer and fewer kids are actually going to college. If this state doesn't get turned around soon, we're going to be even worse educated than Alabama.

There's no "moving forward into the future" when people are electing these relics who are staunchly anti-intellectual and anti-science. The best way to move forward into the future is to not vote for these fools; they serve only to stifle progress.

Fox may be right that journalism is dead, they would know. I'm so sick of hearing about "the other side", "the second side". etc. of issues. It seems no matter where you turn there are two sides to any single event/issue. Not 3 or 4 or 5, just 2 sides. Not one singular truth about what happened, 2 opposing views. I think in many cases it's disingenuous and anti-intellectual, and in some it's downright dishonest and manipulative. But politicians and the media love it because so many people just eat this shit up. *sigh*

Going Galt is a great option. Why would you sacrifice your life (literally or figuratively) for a nation of lazy, ego-centric, anti-intellectuals?

You'll find me on a swiss lakeside far before you'll find me in the path of a gestapo bullet...

>> ^rottenseed:
I *3 u, Bill.


I'm not sure Bill would appreciate being multiplied by 3.

That's IF you believe in Biology. I already told you science is a lie.

>> ^Crosswords:
Her speech writer/adviser may be a dumbass for putting that in there, but she's a dumbass for keeping it in.
Anyone who took biology in highschool should know fruit flies have been a staple of biological research for decades. Easy to obtain, easy to care for, nobody cares what happens to fruit flies, and probably most importantly, they're prolific breeders.
It's an appeal to the anti-intellectuals, it's Bush's 'fuzzy math', it's go with the gut, and it's a large part of what's wrong in this country.

Her speech writer/adviser may be a dumbass for putting that in there, but she's a dumbass for keeping it in.

Anyone who took biology in highschool should know fruit flies have been a staple of biological research for decades. Easy to obtain, easy to care for, nobody cares what happens to fruit flies, and probably most importantly, they're prolific breeders.

It's an appeal to the anti-intellectuals, it's Bush's 'fuzzy math', it's go with the gut, and it's a large part of what's wrong in this country.

There are plenty of successful intellectuals who are religious. Christianity needs to realign its path so that its no longer a synonym for ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

Ask yourselves if it's really so impossible for the U.S. to become a fascist state.

Is it nationalistic?
Is it militaristic?
Does it suppress political dissent?
Is the government anti-intellectual and populist?
Is power increasingly concentrated in a single leader?
Are civil liberties being eroded?
Does it scapegoat external groups to justify its actions? / Is there always an enemy to fight?

And let's not even get started on the attendant symptoms like rigged elections, torture camps and naked corruption.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Payback:
Wow, this thread sure has people putting their heads up their asses. Jeez, this is a video rating site, not Capitol Hill...

Its a controversial video, in a political channel--what do you expect? If you're anti-intellectual, stick to the big boobs, nut shots, and fluffy bunny videos.



mmmm big boobs....

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Payback:
Wow, this thread sure has people putting their heads up their asses. Jeez, this is a video rating site, not Capitol Hill...

Its a controversial video, in a political channel--what do you expect? If you're anti-intellectual, stick to the big boobs, nut shots, and fluffy bunny videos.


I'm sorry, do you have something to prove here?

From what i've read about your comments, you take things out of context and try to make some form of rebuttal against them.


"You clearly have no understand of the meaning of excessive force. Excessive force is judged, and is applied to the current situation only! It has nothing to do with past actions--it has to do with the current state of the arrestee. No matter how belligerent/criminal they were acting prior, if they are currently passive and cooperating you cannot apply force based on previous actions."

This seems to be a cover-up for the fact that you said that cops aren't allowed to do anything to someone who has been shooting cops.

"She could have shot 10 cops right before this, and they still could not have used that much force to arrest her."

Of which, two things. First, you only furthered their point about "But that doesn't mean that it would be excessive in every situation."

See, what I draw from that is, That much force can be used in certain situations and not be called Excessive, and that seems to be what you're trying to lecture them about.

And the second thing, If you think cops aren't allowed to use lethal force to subdue a target that's been shooting at officers, no matter how innocent they were in the first place, THEY JUST FUCKING SHOT 10 COPS. Lets even take cops out of the picture and replace it. THEY JUST FUCKING SHOT 10 PEOPLE.

There.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^anyprophet:
These types of videos always bring out the crazies who think we live in some kind of police state.

What is that, a joke? Rights don't mean anything unless you have them when you need them and in every single case in recent memory when someone actually needed them, they were violated. How is that not a police state?
Examples:
Confiscation of firearms during Katrina
Japanese sent to internment camps after pearl harbor
The American citizen who was sent to Guantanamo bay for several years.
Inability to protest in public (freedom cages)
Un-prosecuted Police Brutality



Ooo, a fun one now. Lets start with.. Oh, The guns, during Katrina. Now, you can keep in mind I'm canadian, and maybe we somehow think differently about these things up here.. But during a state of mass panic of the people, where mass disaster is happening, looting, all that fun stuff, I don't think it's a smart idea to have any form of firearm. All that's going to cause is more potential panic and destruction.

Japanese sent to internment camps? wow, we're really digging here aren't we. You are right for that point, their right to freedom was compromised, but that somehow doesn't fall under the category of "Recent Memory" to me. That more falls under the.. "There was a war going on at the time" category of things where lots of bad shit happened.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Aemaeth:
>> ^charliem:
Its legal to defend yourself against a cop...hell you can kill a cop if they are arresting you and you are innocent.
Happened a few years back, guy got off any charges at all.

Wait, what? You can't be serious. What country is that in?
"I knew I hadn't been speeding, but he kept writing that ticket anyway, so I shot him."

Jesus you're ignorant. What is the difference between a cop and a criminal who approaches you, while you are minding your own business and not breaking any laws, and tries to utilize lethal force against you? Nothing! Unless the cops badge number is 007, he doesn't have a license to kill. If your life is in danger--from cop or criminal--you have a legal right to defend yourself. What country are you living in?


ohh... an attempt at a joke! It really wasn't funny.
Why don't we backtrack here to show the point they were making originally, but YOU were too ignorant to see it.

"She could have shot 10 cops right before this, and they still could not have used that much force to arrest her."

The main quote, by the way, really doesn't have anything backing it up, So far it's just someone saying "I heard once that..." which really has nothing to it. For all WE know, that's exactly what happened.

Other then that, their quote was a joke. That happens on the sift. a lot. They're usually funny... usually.

>> ^imstellar28:
If someone initiates lethal force on you, irregardless of the circumstances, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force as well....
How hard is it to make a simple argument around here without a bunch of random, irrelevant crap spewed in response?
Yes gwiz665, I understand you would go to trial after killing someone. Yes I also understand shooting a cop who simply arrests you is not a valid self defense argument. Why are you even making these points?
And for the 10th time, SDGundamX, what would be the point of finding out what she said beforehand--are you just curious or something? Because it has no bearing on the argument of excessive force.


Who the fuck are you to stifle curiosity? For all we know she threatened the cop, she could have punched him in the face, she could have been weilding a tazer that miraculously got knocked out of her hands by a big boobed woman carrying a fluffy bunny, and then went on to hit some guy in the nuts. The cop, then seeing his opportunity finally struck back at the woman and saved his life and then went on to cure cancer.

We don't know every single detail of the circumstances surrounding the lethal force. You've taken up an "Innocent until proven guilty" stance, where as the rest of us are actually being optimistic.

Whatever your issue is, being it getting off by trying to correct people over teh interwebs, or thinking you're somehow superior to the rest of the sifters because YOU KNOW HOW TO USE BOLD! just save the asshole routine, and watch the video.

Oh, and just a P.S. don't bother quoting me and trying to make yourself seem like a big man. This post is long enough as it is without it being picked apart, also: I don't care about what you have to say in response.

And now, I'm going to go get some pie.