Oops this turned into a semi rant. But I am legitimately open to discussion here, and am curious to get your thoughts on a few points Bob. That is, IF you're willing to actually think about them beyond the level of repeating talking points.

I find it interesting how divergent the two overall "sides" are in this country, in terms of where they focus. None of the issues brought up in this video are really on the radar of most progressives, beyond being aware some on the right are talking about them. And I'm guessing a lot of the concerns progressives discuss rarely come up in your chosen media landscape. A lot of the issues in the video are largely off of my radar, and I have to wonder how you feel they should be addressed - like, actual proposed solutions rather than just complaining about / worrying about them.

We only dedicate one day to remember our fallen soldiers

How many should there be? Arguably we have more than one already: there's Memorial Day and Veterans Day, and it seems that Sept 11th is often used for the purpose as well.

I'd argue we should spend more time acknowledging and understanding the principals behind WHY our soldiers died in the various conflicts which caused them to fall in the first place. Let's make sure our citizenry appreciates what we collectively rejected in the Revolutionary war. Why it was important that we kept the country together rather than allowing the south to split off in the mid-1800s. Why we chose to honor our diplomatic agreements and support our allies in WW1. Why we fought against the countries and governments we did in WW2. What our goals were in Korea and Vietnam, and what lessons we learned from those conflicts and from the Cold War in general. Commemorating and remembering those we've lost absolutely matters, but if we're ONLY doing that while forgetting why they fought OR ignoring what we learned then we're doing them an equal or greater disservice. Remember that America was built on the idea of forming "a more perfect union" - not a perfect one, a MORE perfect one - a work in progress. We're striving towards an ideal, not assuming we're already there. Learning from our past successes, failures, and our struggles around both outcomes is vital. If our self-analysis is no deeper than hero worship we'll never make real progress towards that theoretical perfect union.

The only mask that's gonna save us is duct tape on their mouths

Yeah, sound medical advice and evidence-based science is terrifying. Better to shut up those whose words we dislike, because we're reactionary authoritarian babymen. I truly do not understand being more afraid of reasonable safety measures than of a virus which has been shown to cause serious harm in the short and long terms. The only reason this "masks = liberal / maskless = conservative" crap came about is because politics has devolved to the level of team sports in the US, and one party has chosen "the opposite of whatever our political opponents say" as their entire governing philosophy. (And yes, ONE party - research and understand the GOP's 2020 platform if you want to argue the point.) This video even seems to reach a reasonable conclusion at the end, while coming up just short of that final logical leap to "maybe I should question what the public faces of MY side have been claiming in this Us vs Them madness." Seriously - keep going friend, you're almost there! George Washington was 100% right in wanting to avoid political parties being a force in the US, and it makes me immensely sad that his fears came true.

Big oil runs the world / the only wars to get fought are with the countries who have natural resources they want

Solid point here, no sarcasm. The US military has long been a tool of our profit-driven form of "free market" imperialism. A really great way to combat this, specifically with an eye to ending Big Oil's goddamn death grip on our foreign policy goals, would be an aggressive implementation of renewable energy projects. Remember the space race? America can be an absolute beast at clever engineering solutions when we dedicate ourselves to it. Fuck the petrostates, we have the available land and resources to absolutely kick ass in the realms of solar and wind power, and be leaders in the the post-hydrocarbon reality. We can certainly agree on that, right Bob? Left / Right nonsense fully aside, I think any reasonable American can agree on at least two points: let's stop sending heaps of cash to buy oil off of the Saudis (etc), and Fuck Cancer.

But if a white man acts too white he's white trash / he's a racist he's a bigot he's a monster

What the fuck is this horseshit? What does "acting too white" even fucking look like? Watching NASCAR on a sailboat while listening to polka? Typically when I see racism from white people it's in the form of denying that brown-hued people deal with any additional difficulties in life due to their skin tone, or denying that there have been structural obstacles for them through history, or lamenting that their white children are being burdened with a broader lens on culture or with (gasp! shock!) an accurate accounting of actual US history, including the ugly bits that we shouldn't be proud of (but MUST learn from). I'm progressive / lefty as fuck and there is no aspect of "white culture" or "acting white" which upsets me in the slightest. UNLESS one counts "denying racism exists / has ever existed" as a fundamental value of being white. Which... why would anyone want to claim that nonsense? If you want to listen to classic country music in a rusty pickup truck while driving to an evangelical church, then discuss hockey over Buds after 18 holes with the rest of your tractor pull team, then absolutely go nuts my fellow caucusoid! Just recognize and understand that your life experiences may not be the same as those of others. Further, if we care about trying to avoid unnecessary, avoidable unfairness in life (recognizing that life will never truly be fair, for anyone), then it might be reasonable for some governmental / legal / structural recognition in furtherance of that notion. There is absolutely room for legitimate policy disagreement here without being accused of racism. It's denial of others' reality which tends to garner the label of racist (sexist etc) - steer clear of denying the lived experiences of other people, allow for the possibility they may have encountered difficulties you haven't / won't, and we've room for further discussion.

Edit / final point: I voted the video back up to 0 from the -1 where I found it. Because while I disagree with a lot of the positions taken by the performer, they may have reached them through no fault of their own and with no true malice. Misinformation / disinformation is a devious shit of a motherfucker, and the rot it causes can run deep. It is painful to abandon deeply-held beliefs, on a fundamental level. If nothing else, the video gives us room to discuss some specific viewpoints held by people who think of themselves as good, but which can lead to harm.

I hope you at least extend a similar mistrust towards Nasser's Egypt and the Assad dynasty in Syria?

I know it's a stretch, but in wartime telling the difference between an American spyship and Egyptian one could be tough. Jacking up an American flag and using a different frequency for communications is something an enemy might be devious enough to think of...

This guy has many problems. The main flaw in his argument is his attempt to try and associate pedophilia with LGBTQ. Only individuals with an extremely low IQ, high religious beliefs and a devious agenda can follow him down that line of thinking. Most republicans can accept racism, but even the red state of alabama drew the line at pedophilia by not electing roy moore. It was close but america is not accepting child molesters for now.

http://ozonnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/57a284792e12aacf55659340a2c64fb7.jpg

The news says the police want to be clear that this was a school resource officer, not real police that handcuffed her, and any questions should be submitted to the school board, not the police department.
The board president is claiming this is somehow a setup by other board members as a devious plot to get rid of the superintendent. Does that make sense to anyone? I can't follow his logic.

Very analogous to Westboro Baptist "church" stooges. They (ab)use their constitutionally protected rights to free speech to say the most offensive and provocative crap that they can come up with, specifically with the intention to incite a (violent) reaction against them. Why? Because pretty much the entire Phelps family are lawyers, and they know that they can generally win any assault case that they can provoke people into. All that hate they spew boils down to a stupid, petty moneymaking scam.

Is the Seattle Nazi that devious and cunning? I doubt it. Probably just a crazy / fucked up guy, as Maher said. That doesn't excuse his fuckwittery, but it does reinforce Maher's argument that punching the guy is NOT the best response.

Morello is awesome, with RATM and Audioslave, and now Prophets of Rage, etc. But he's dead wrong on this issue, and comes across as a bit of an "internet tough guy". Outside of just ignoring them, I kinda think the only way to one-up these people is to know the law, what constitutes assault etc., and essentially beat them at their own game (ie. provoke them into doing something to you). On the other hand, there's something to be said for using using passive-aggressive snark to mock / humiliate them in a nonviolent way, ala the Foo Fighters:

Fuck off with your TTIP plug you devious bastard!

@Asmo
i get what you are saying but i think you are missing the insidious implications that this new system of indoctrination represents.

i think @ChaosEngine's term 'stealth totalitarianism" is rather clever..and apt.

i agree with you on the points of peer pressure and how people can easily be manipulated.we are all,to varying degrees,subjected to a plethora of propaganda and targeted rhetoric,all meant to mold and shape our opinions in order to sustain the status quo while giving the impression that somehow our conclusions are an organic and natural response,when in reality we have been duped.

on that point we agree that this is not actually something new or novel but an old,tried and true method of social control.

what is new about this 'gaming" system,is that it is not taking the more subtle and passive approach of what current and supposedly "free" societies now implement to control public opinions and attitudes in order to either remain in power,sway the public into policies against their own interest,or create an atmosphere of fear to foment opposition.

this new system is actually aggressive.
this system will actively use its own population to do the oppressing,manipulating and controlling FOR them.

it is brilliant in it's simplicity.
it will use very human attributes we all possess in order to enact a better system of control,all the while having the appearance of being a harmless and innocuous social media competition.

but it is anything but harmless.
nor innocuous.
it will and can affect every facet of someones life.from their job to where they will be able to live,to even HOW they live.

think back to the times of east germany and the stasi,or the weimar republic,or even the soviet union of the 80's.

all used elements this new gaming system is representing,but those systems of control,while relying on the public to do much of its surveilling,all had one thing in common that they ALL relied heavily on:fear.

fear of reprisal.
fear of exposure.
fear and suspicion were the driving forces that kept those systems in power and the people in a perpetual state of paranoia.

the dread of the midnight knock.
of jackboots and black bags.

but those systems of control were fragile and once even a little resistance was exerted those systems crumbled incredibly fast.

this new system is far more subtle and devious in my opinion,because it removes the spectre of an imposing and oppressive government that will respond with violence and replaces it with the citizen to do the work for them.

the government does not have to do anything.
your neighbor will,and not because of some fear-based reason but rather for points to propel their own ambitions.their own selfish desires.

the wholesale implications are absolutely terrifying if you really think about it.

i would speculate that within a very short amount of time dissent and criticism of the chinese government will all but have vanished.replaced by a obedient and compliant population.

not because they are afraid of reprisal from the government but rather fueled by their own selfish desires for a better job,better living quarters,more privileges etc etc.

so a seemingly benign system utilizing social media will become of a self-propelled system,where those who do not tow the party line soon face joblessness,homelessness and ostracization.

not because the government strong armed them into submission,but rather their own neighbors.

so you are right.
there is nothing new here,but this system has taken the old forms of social control and brilliantly utilized one of humanities greatest weaknesses:selfishness.

it is the simplicity that makes this so brilliant and yet so horrifying at the same time.

the common misconception by our lantern is that because we become outraged and incensed over the actions of bad cops being..well..bad,we do not have the capacity to understand that there are far more GOOD cops performing their duties with honor and conviction.

this is not only insulting and offensive....it is dishonest.

while i can understand lanterns desire to defend his chosen profession,being motivated by his own,personal understandings.i cannot understand his almost knee-jerk reactions to criticisms when they are warranted and that somehow all of us harbor this incredibly small and narrow view of police officers.that we do not have the capacity to realize that not all cops are bad,violent,thuggish brutes.

what lantern fails to realize,possibly because he is so close to the situation,is WHY we become so outraged.
police wield immense power over ordinary citizens.they hold in their pocket the power and authority of the state.most cops are aware of this and act accordingly,with honor and integrity,the statistics bear this out.

so when a cop over-reaches said authority,or performs acts of violence against an unarmed citizen,or lies about his actions to avoid the consequences (be they malicious or accidental).

it really pisses us off.

the argument is still:power vs powerlessness.
or in many cases with police over-reach:power vs the vulnerable.

think about it this way lantern:
if a grown man abuses or molests a child,that man is vilified and condemned by society.hell,they KILL men like that in prison!

why?

because it is a total abuse of power and authority,perpetrated upon the innocent and vulnerable.this act is viewed by society as to be so venal and grotesque as to warrant the most harshest of punishments.

that young child trusted the adult to protect them.to keep them from harm.that adult betrayed that trust.

we even,in this society,blame the other adults in the situation for not interceding,because we view the protection of the vulnerable as everyones duty,and to abdicate that duty makes you complicit and henceforth....guilty.

now i am not saying that police are child molesters.
what i AM saying is that to abuse the power and authority of your station upon the innocent and vulnerable is the exact same betrayal of trust.

which is why we become outraged.

you also seem to miss why we become outraged at the supposed good cops looking the other way when bad cops break the law.basically you are the complicit housewife who allowed her baby to be molested.you share in the guilt,even though you did not perpetrate the offense,you allowed it to go unpunished.

choices have consequences and standing up and taking responsibility for those choices is the cornerstone of not only being a man but a decent human being.yet time and time again we see bad cops lying,creating false evidence,even having other cops as co-conspirators in their fabrications,all to avoid the consequences of their actions.

this is NOT what men do.
this is what children do and it is up to the parent to correct this devious,weak and irresponsible behavior.a parents job is to teach their offspring accountability.that their actions will have consequences...sometimes dire..and to accept those consequences like a man.

so when we see bad cops being irresponsible and suffering zero consequences..

it pisses us off.

and when we see you defend these bad cops.trying to perform mental gymnastics to abdicate bad policing,we take you to task.

yes yes...
we all know good cops can make a mistake.
that there are mitigating circumstances and that we were not there.some cops become so distraught over a single mistake that they may leave the force,or tragically,take their own life.

we all understand this and it is not we take issue with.
we take issue with the coward who will not take responsibility.
we take issue with the lying.
we take issue with the systematic refusal of a "justice" system which allows these bad cops to abuse their authority with impunity.
we take issue with the brutish and thuggish behavior.
we take issue with the unnecessary violence.

we are full aware that there are some fantastic cops out there,but we call out the bad cops for being bad.

and you should as well.
because they besmirch the very profession you are employed in and their behavior tarnishes the reputation of the job you perform with honor and integrity.

all good cops should be calling to the carpet every cop that over-steps his authority,abuses his power,perpetrates violence for no other reason than to be violent.if you guys did that we would have far less youtube videos revealing the subtle rot in your institution.(not so subtle anymore,thank you camera phones!).

we realize that these bad cops do not represent you lantern,so do not feel the urge to defend every single cop video.those bad cops can own their actions...if they had any balls,which they do not.

stop defending these pussies.
they are performing their duties poorly.they are making your job not only harder but less safe and they leave a stain on the job you love (at least i think you love it).

so,
just stop.
and realize we totally understand and that we wont stop calling bad cops out for being bad.

/end rant

*doublepromote

The monthly updates on YT, the ones you introduced me to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMXfBm0IPd0

I completely forgot about the podcast, so cheers for the reminder. Is there any "proper" download link for the podcasts? I've been picking the dropbox url from TruthDig's source code by hand, there's got to be an easier way...

As for Taibbi:
The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet

It's about how the too-big-to-fail/jail banks became a cartell in the physical commodities market. The story itself was reported on before, primarily the aluminium shenanigans of Goldman Sachs.

Every jail has a tuning room, nanrod.

Know your Supreme Court Rulings?
In April of 2012 the "high" court decided that jails may perform suspicionless strip searches on new inmates regardless of the gravity of their alleged offenses. As one justice put it, "[p]eople detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals." As evidence for that claim, the majority invoked 9/11. "One of the terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93."

King County is a corrupt shitbox and ranks with the worst municipalities whose "law enforcement" take incredible license with her citizenry. Seattle after all, is one of the epicenters of G-Summit protests having an educated, frustrated, and passionate 18-45 yr-old demographic who are very vocal and way less organized and the cops have to have some practice heads to smash-in.

These voyeur cunts with cameras in a room that can be monitored while someone disrobes?? Bunch of sick, pathetic fucks.

In reply to this comment by siftbot:
Congratulations! Your dedication to keeping videos updated with thumbnail images has earned you your "Thumb Nailer" Level 7 Badge!
Thanks, Sifty! I have to say it's an honor to represent the Bronze tier on the Badge Board, along with the intrepid Timekeeper @Mandtis.
Shoutouts to Reaper @ant and Necromancer @enoch - watch your backs! I will not rest until I've taken my place on those boards as well!
(...Or until the triplets are born, at which time I'll probably be a might preoccupied.)
(...Or until VideoSift v5, if @dag @lucky760 and crew have something devious in store vis a vis the Badges.)
(...Or until I get tired and need to rest, which is...right now.)

The Joker is getting lazy with his intricate and devious plans to cause havoc in Gotham.

And to be doubly clear, there is no fundamental dichotomy between "chance" and "design". Chance needn't exist for a God or Godless universe, and "design" (as a vague concept, not specific theory) seems to exist either way too (though it could be illusory). I believe that I design things - so as an explanation for "how things are", most people are going to invoke design as a mechanism either way.

Of course there is a fundamental dichotomy between chance and design. Let's look at the definitions:

Chance

: something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause
b : the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings : luck -an outcome decided by chance-

c : the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence

1
: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive
2
a : to conceive and plan out in the mind -he designed the perfect crime- b : to have as a purpose : intend -she designed to excel in her studies- c : to devise for a specific function or end -a book designed primarily as a college textbook-

A design was deliberately caused by a mind, whereas chance just happens. Either existence as we know it was deliberately caused by a mind, or it wasn't. Whether the Universe is deterministic and things had to happen this way has no bearing, because that says nothing for the reason of the original configuration, or how it got that way. Either there is no particular reason and it just happened to be that way, or it was set into motion by an intelligence. Design is planned and chance is unplanned, and that is the dichotomy.

If you want to speak about what is arbitrary, then you have to consider that everything is equally unlikely from the standpoint of one who is unsure about everything. You may suspect there is a truth, because things appear to happen for a reason, but be unable to grasp it. This is like a black hole for the mind, and there is no escape from uncertainty.

You have to make a couple of assumptions to even begin to reason. The first is that you are real. The second is that the Universe is not inherently deceptive. The first, because you cannot reason without assuming you exist, and so assuming the contrary will only lead to absurdity. The second, because again, if you cannot trust anything then you cannot trust your own thoughts either. Therefore, you have no route to reason and again it leads to absurdity.

This isn't to say you couldn't be deceived about the Universe. It is to say that there is always some route to the truth. Therefore, the truth is something tangible and can be grasped. However, you are still in the quandary of being a subjective being with limited knowledge. There may be a route to the truth, but it requires you to be omnipotent. This is where most people stop and say, well, we just can't ever know what the truth is, but this isn't true. Even if you are not omnipotent, an omnipotent being could tell you what the truth is. That's my claim.

God is also the simplest explanation for everything, which can account for absolutely everything we see, feel, or experience, and that is precisely why some people don't like it. They don't want an ultimate answer like God because He interferes with their personal autonomy. They want to be free to imagine that it could be any number of things, so therefore they have the ultimate freedom to live however they please. To say there is any particular answer, especially a personal one, restricts their personal freedom and makes them accountable to specific outcomes.

I'm not saying this universe is in any way likely or that it should compete with your current understanding of the world. So to clarify: my question to you is "do you agree it's not absolutely impossible that is the case". If you're leaving your answer to this clarified question as "no", what possible evidence could you have to rule this situation out? What evidence or experience couldn't be falsified by a devious supernatural agent? What if they could mess with your very process of reason (and I see no reason why they couldn't - again just as hypothetical)?

Well, you've agreed with me that God could reveal Himself to someone in such a way as they could be absolutely certain about it. Such a person could justifiably consider all other outcomes to be absolutely impossible, and be absolutely certain about that. That's my claim. Can I prove that I am that person, even to myself? Not entirely, but I have faith that it is true. This is not a blind faith, it is faith based on my personal relationship with God, which is experiential. Faith is the *substance* of things hoped for, because although I do not see God with my eyes, His Spirit dwells within me.

I do believe there is another supernatural power in this world, a kingdom of darkness which is a lesser power, but powerful enough to deceive human beings. Satan does want you to believe in God; the wrong God. Satan actually doesn't care what you believe, so long as it isn't in the Lord Jesus Christ. Another reason is that I have personal experience with demons; I have been around demon possessed people, and I have spoken to them when they manifested themselves in those people. They are professional liars (actors), the like you have not imagined.

It comes back to the Universe being inherently deceptive. You can't reason that way; you have to believe there is a route to truth. Neither can Satan completely deceive you; God gives everyone the opportunity to know the truth and to break free of their slavery to sin.


>> ^jmzero

You can make it as convoluted as you like..in the end, it is all either the product of design or chance. If you disagree, come up with an alternative.


I apparently haven't been clear in what I'm trying to say.

The existence of "anything" isn't design or chance or anything like that - those are the wrong kinds of concepts for answering the fundamental question. Design and chance and other "ways to summarize operations" (see also: decay or evolution) can get moving once we've instantiated "something" - but to start with our options are "arbitrary", "arbitrary" or "more arbitrary". If there's always been an eternal God, that's arbitrary. If the universe is some cycle of foam and explosions then that's arbitrary.

Maybe a simpler example: the universe could have sprung into existence in 2011 at that current state. I can't imagine evidence to the contrary. What is the reason I don't believe that? Because it's more arbitrary than other possibilities. That's part of why someone might accept evolution; it seems very arbitrary that all these animals should just happen to exist - it requires less arbitrariness if somehow all of these creatures could have come from a smaller set of simple ones.

Similarly, having a God reduces the number of things we have to start with. All you need is one thing: God. Then, by his desires and actions, you get all the other stuff for free, without having to assume in more things. God is a better explanation than having all things start at their 2011 state, partially because it requires far fewer arbitrary assumptions (just one big one).

I'll also say that you're putting way too much stock in "chance". Science currently sees a certain amount of true randomness in the operation of physics, but the gross physical mechanisms involved in, for example, evolution are not precluded by a fully deterministic universe. The world (or a world very similar to ours) could be explained by an arbitrary start state and arbitrary deterministic rules without chance being involved at all. Again, I don't think "chance" is a terribly useful concept for this discussion.

And to be doubly clear, there is no fundamental dichotomy between "chance" and "design". Chance needn't exist for a God or Godless universe, and "design" (as a vague concept, not specific theory) seems to exist either way too (though it could be illusory). I believe that I design things - so as an explanation for "how things are", most people are going to invoke design as a mechanism either way.

No, because God has given me sufficient evidence that I can be certain of it. A person receiving absolute confirmation of Gods existence has a justified true belief in God, regardless of what someone who has no such revelation perceives as reasonable. Indeed, a person on the outside of this revelation is irrational and incapable of determining what truth is.


I was using the term "possible" to mean "not absolutely impossible". I think perhaps you're using the word "certain" in a less absolute way.

For example, I'm certain about my phone number. I'm more certain that, for example, I have been alive for longer than a day. But I can't absolutely certain. We can imagine a universe that is intent on tricking me about this fact - and I have no way to rule out that universe based on my experience or logic.

Similarly, my choice of question for you wasn't random or intended to be silly. Imagine a universe with more than one powerful supernatural agent (I called one a demon), some of whom were intent on deceiving humans. Their actual motivations are completely inscrutable, but for whatever reason they take some joy in tricking you into believing in God.

I'm not saying this universe is in any way likely or that it should compete with your current understanding of the world. So to clarify: my question to you is "do you agree it's not absolutely impossible that is the case". If you're leaving your answer to this clarified question as "no", what possible evidence could you have to rule this situation out? What evidence or experience couldn't be falsified by a devious supernatural agent? What if they could mess with your very process of reason (and I see no reason why they couldn't - again just as hypothetical)?

(@shinyblurry)

Never knew how deviously handsome he was.