The twist to try to blame Obama for this is pure evil genius. Had to watch a second time to catch that trick.

This is actually a pretty interesting video overall, just happens to be a video of an evil asshole and his friends and guests.

Basically the radical Trumpist position is that it is OK to hurt children (or anyone) for a political cause and it is everybody elses (ie democrats) fault that they dont respond to blackmail faster.

I think its a shame these videos get downvoted so readily. Not quite the holocaust, but enough of a warning.

MK Ultra (the program) was real, but it never actually worked.

Besides, if I subliminally messaged “obey helium” to you, even if the subliminal message worked, you’d need to know that “helium” is my code name for “send ChaosEngine money” to have any effect.

The government is clearly not innocent, but neither are they some super competent evil geniuses either.

It’s great that you want to question things, but you should always apply Occams Razor and always look for evidence to back up any outlandish claims.

I guess the only reason daddy had a son was to make this video some day to emotionally blackmail Valve.

Evil genius.

I don't think Clinton is outright evil. Cunning and manipulative, yeah, but no more so than any other politician.

Drumpf on the other hand, is worse than evil. If he was some kind of evil genius, that would be one thing, but all his faults are born out of the laziness and arrogance.

He's still not as bad as Cruz though.

I love you, dft.
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Ideas for more Die Hard sequels.

Live and Let Die Hard - John McClane is hired by the MI1 to stop an eccentric evil genius from destroying the world.

Live Each Day As If You Will Die Hard Tomorrow - After being diagnosed with cancer, John McClane travels the country, checking off items on his bucket list in this heartwarming tale of self discovery.

Only the Good Die Hard Young - After Billy Joel's bass player sprains his wrist, John McClane is hired on as an unlikely side man.

Live by the Sword, Die Hard by the Sword - Sir Johnus McClanus takes down a brutal feudal lord in this medieval prequel.

I Do or Die Hard - John McClane races against the clock to make it to the alter after his bachelor party gets out of hand in this riotous comedy.

To Die Hard For - John McClane helps Nicole Kidman to murder Tom Cruise.

Curl Up and Die Hard - Hilarity ensues as John McClane is enlisted to coach the Jamaican Olympic Curling Team in this vaguely racist Disney comedy.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Ideas for more Die Hard sequels.
Live and Let Die Hard - John McClane is hired by the MI1 to stop an eccentric evil genius from destroying the world.
Live Each Day As If You Will Die Hard Tomorrow - After being diagnosed with cancer, John McClane travels the country, checking off items on his bucket list in this heartwarming tale of self discovery.
Only the Good Die Hard Young - After Billy Joel's bass player sprains his wrist, John McClane is hired on as an unlikely side man.
Live by the Sword, Die Hard by the Sword - Sir Johnus McClanus takes down a brutal feudal lord in this medieval prequel.
I Do or Die Hard - John McClane races against the clock to make it to the alter after his bachelor party gets out of hand in this riotous comedy.
To Die Hard For - John McClane helps Nicole Kidman to murder Tom Cruise.
Curl up and Die Hard - Hilarity ensues as John McClane is enlisted to coach the Jamaican Olympic curling team in this vaguely racist Disney comedy.


*wipes away tears of laughter*

Ideas for more Die Hard sequels.

Live and Let Die Hard - John McClane is hired by the MI1 to stop an eccentric evil genius from destroying the world.

Live Each Day As If You Will Die Hard Tomorrow - After being diagnosed with cancer, John McClane travels the country, checking off items on his bucket list in this heartwarming tale of self discovery.

Only the Good Die Hard Young - After Billy Joel's bass player sprains his wrist, John McClane is hired on as an unlikely side man.

Live by the Sword, Die Hard by the Sword - Sir Johnus McClanus takes down a brutal feudal lord in this medieval prequel.

I Do or Die Hard - John McClane races against the clock to make it to the alter after his bachelor party gets out of hand in this riotous comedy.

To Die Hard For - John McClane helps Nicole Kidman to murder Tom Cruise.

Curl Up and Die Hard - Hilarity ensues as John McClane is enlisted to coach the Jamaican Olympic Curling Team in this vaguely racist Disney comedy.

>> ^dannym3141:

Have we put ourselves in this situation? So many things work like this. Have we put ourselves in trouble by taking a million bad decisions, or accepting a million injustices, one at a time, each one insignificant, but eventually adding up to something very bad?


I think you really hit the nail on the head there -- that's the real underlying cause of so many problems we face right now. There's so much emphasis on "individual responsibility" and self-interest that people have totally lost sight of the idea that they should be thinking about how their decisions impact society at large.

The end result is that all of that self-centered disregard for other people's problems at the micro level just piles up until our entire society has become organized in ways that seem oppressive and abusive to most of us. That's not because we've been taken over by some cabal of evil geniuses (as so many seem to think), it's because we've walled ourselves in with our own mutual disregard for each other.

You know your son is an evil genius when he builds this as his proof of concept for when his mom asks him to pick up his room.

>> ^Duncan:

I was hoping for them to toss a dummy off the roof.

You, sir, are an evil genius! You wait someone's going to try it.

>> ^Kreegath:
It does kind of feel like a stunt to get ratings through advertisement masked as controversy.


If true, that would be some kind of evil genius. But I think this controversy is sincere. And sad.

I think i'm going to try talk in the evil genius voice for the rest of the day...

At dg: First of all let me say this conversation has been fun. Few people obviously well versed in these issues are willing to engage in this dialogue. I haven't given you your due as someone willing to engage in respectful debate.


The universe does not really have rules, it has limits and structures, no enforcer is needed, because nobody can break rules which can not be broken.

I don't see, at this point, how what you posit is not simply a poetic view of physics. What is the difference between consciousness and existence? Is consciousness simply the attribute of being beholden to physics?

I'm not sure there is a difference between consciousness and existence. And you may be right, it might just be a poetic view of physics. My contention is this, physics, science, and philosophy all exist in order to explain in some precisely predictable manner the nature and causation of our common experience. This includes all aspects of that experience. Thus far it has done a remarkable job at explaining certain aspects of it, but it has come short of explaining experience itself. As I keep saying to you, there is nothing to suggest we should experience anything at all, just as you do not suspect your car engine experiences your depression of the pedals. To me, this begs for inquiry.


Heisenberg makes this entirely unrelateable to cuddling up to a fire, which is the main reason I consider this thesis incoherent.

I'm unclear on what you mean here.


I generate a coherent narrative, but you seem to be suggesting something else entirely. Something which has no context or meaning. Something which we share which is not a narrative, but is an experience in the absence of a narrative. And though it is common in my culture to claim otherwise, I don't see how this resembles anything I have.

What is it that "hears" the narrative? Do you understand the distinction? Why doesn't the narrative simply update synaptic weights, or activate ion channels, or whatever is physically happening, why doesn't that just happen without being experienced? To understand the distinction you'd probably have to refer to how you imagine internal states being recorded, presumably (under your presumptions) without experience. For instance, these words are internally represented by bits being set low and high in registers throughout my computer, but you don't seem to suggest that anything is "experiencing" those registers getting set. It just happens, the way physics always happens. Yet when you consider OUR experience, for some reason we are different. We "decide." We are "counter-entropic." You use these things to explain without evidence why I have experience, yet the computer does not. I, on the other, prefer to posit experience as the atomic element of existence.


We start in the middle, with experience. Then we build the tertiary structure, our theory. The theory points to the primary system, matter/energy/universe which gives rise to the systems which allow the theory to be created.

If we are under the spell of an evil genius, then you are right, matter follows from observation, but it is of no consequence, since observation is completely suspect, and in all likelihood meaningless. If the universe is instead how it appears, then our theory is almost certainly correct in pointing out that we, and our ability to create the theory, are consequences of the physical system the theory describes.

I don't understand why observation is "in all likelihood meaningless". Again, I'm not trying to separate us, or anything from physics. I'm simply trying to pull this final aspect of experience, experience itself, into the fold of physics. This, ultimately, is the goal of science. To describe existence as we know it. As of yet we have no physical description, or causation underlying experience, yet this is certainly part of existence as we know it.


I think the vagueness contributes to the ease with which you find agreement, but what you have described seems much more specific, and very different from the "phenomenal experience" most people claim. Just as an example: what is the "qualia of phenomenal experience" while you are dreamlessly sleeping? Many people would claim that they have none, but you suggest that small bits of matter are eternally having phenomenal experience. Are we also consistently conscious? If so why don't we remember sleep, but do remember our waking time? Is our awareness/thinking/memory completely distinct from this phenomenal experience?

Well, the question becomes "can you experience oblivion?" IMHO, yes. In fact, I believe this to be the state that many in your culture aim to attain. It requires practice, however, as quieting the unrelenting, driving signal of sensory input, and ending the maintenance of internal states is against the tendency of the system. When it is achieved, however, I think it helps one to understand the nature of experience itself, as divorced from the sensory input you're so conditioned to associate it with.

>> ^bmacs27: Things can not be enforced without an enforcer.

The universe does not really have rules, it has limits and structures, no enforcer is needed, because nobody can break rules which can not be broken.

I don't see, at this point, how what you posit is not simply a poetic view of physics. What is the difference between consciousness and existence? Is consciousness simply the attribute of being beholden to physics?

I don't see how that's different than cuddling up to a warm fire.

Heisenberg makes this entirely unrelateable to cuddling up to a fire, which is the main reason I consider this thesis incoherent.

I can't other than to refer you to what I presume you to have. I could suggest focussing on your breathing, or what have you.

I generate a coherent narrative, but you seem to be suggesting something else entirely. Something which has no context or meaning. Something which we share which is not a narrative, but is an experience in the absence of a narrative. And though it is common in my culture to claim otherwise, I don't see how this resembles anything I have.

Matter is merely the logical consequence of applying induction to our particular set of shared experiences.

We start in the middle, with experience. Then we build the tertiary structure, our theory. The theory points to the primary system, matter/energy/universe which gives rise to the systems which allow the theory to be created.

If we are under the spell of an evil genius, then you are right, matter follows from observation, but it is of no consequence, since observation is completely suspect, and in all likelihood meaningless. If the universe is instead how it appears, then our theory is almost certainly correct in pointing out that we, and our ability to create the theory, are consequences of the physical system the theory describes.

I told you, in the best english I can, what X is. It's the qualia of phenomenal experience. Now I can't provide you with direct evidence for it, but I can tell you that nearly everyone I talk to has some sense of what I mean.

I think the vagueness contributes to the ease with which you find agreement, but what you have described seems much more specific, and very different from the "phenomenal experience" most people claim. Just as an example: what is the "qualia of phenomenal experience" while you are dreamlessly sleeping? Many people would claim that they have none, but you suggest that small bits of matter are eternally having phenomenal experience. Are we also consistently conscious? If so why don't we remember sleep, but do remember our waking time? Is our awareness/thinking/memory completely distinct from this phenomenal experience?