(a sate of permanent willful ignorance) it's 'state' and maybe, check a fucking mirror??

...and might we also thank the outspoken contingent of God-boppers, the self-described adepts of all things spiritual and non, and the followers of faith in what they know instinctively they haven't a clue about in their ownselves, to chime-in with the same virulent hatred for their own failings as evidenced in others of their species, whom they accuse and deride as too fucking dumb to share the same air with.

Some atheists are assholes and there is NO excuse amenable to all men, but there IS someone who was never called an asshole....


This banter both boring, and tired, bees well-fucking played-the-fuck-out.

Economic analysis from a marxist perspective can be dangerous to your health. You might develop an untamable urge to urinate on any Tories you might run across in the streets, after which you'll have your spinal curvature readjusted by a bunch of rozzers with nightsticks.

Imagine what it's like over here: a leading figure of our opposition is an outspoken communist of Iranian heritage, who also happens to be just about the only macroeconomist in parliament. You can literally see the cognitive dissonance in peoples' heads when she's presenting her case.

@JiggaJonson, you're not very good at trolling. But I like that you're putting in the effort. A solid C+.

Honestly though, I believe there's a flaw in your premise. Whether or not someone engages in every form of civil disobedience is irrelevant to their convictions or dedication to a movement. Take Alan Moore for instance. Outspoken Anarchist. Believed government should be nothing more than an administrative role at best. Big supporters of the Occupy movement. The man behind the Guy Fawkes mask. Yet wrote some of his best work for major corporations. And pays taxes.

Religion is just a tool to justify the mistreatment of others. The problem is the idea that women are worth less than men, their inferior. This isn't a problem specific to islamic countries. You see it in indian gang rapes, chinese gender selected abortion, israeli orthodox jews spitting on little girls and legitimate rape experts in US politics.
This problem exists worldwide and you can see it on a daily basis, even in the comfort of your own home. In some places it's just less obvious.
Personally, I hope this outspoken girl will help to change something in her part of the world and get away with it.

What was brave about this? Can you be arrested for ranting? Moving to a different state certainly isn't exactly brave either.

You can applaud her for being outspoken and passionate (or just sharing your opinion) but you shouldn't mistake that with bravery. That's a disservice to those who put their lives on the line for what they believe in.

Robeson was an outspoken advocate of communism before the model was vilified as the antithesis of freedom everywhere-He spent too much of his life as an activist and sacrificed a much more rewarding career as an actor and singer.

*promote the outspoken, jokin', sometimes tokin', Mayor of London, whatever that monniker the fuck entitles ya to!

Radcliffe actually seems a bit repressed, if you ask me... like, he's so careful not to offend anyone that he hardly has anything to say... and while I don't follow him that closely, I know he's been outspoken in a few (relatively safe) political positions (antidiscrimination of homosexuals, I think?) and, even then, he seems reticent and ambivalent. I give him a few years until his breakdown and subsequent reinvention.

>> ^Unsung_Hero:

>> ^Unsung_Hero:
The title should have read, "3.5 Minutes of Nothing + Liquid nitrogen + 1500 ping pong balls"

Shut up you outspoken A.D.D. science hating tool bag!


Nice self shout down

And yeah, I quite enjoyed the introduction and explanation. Even though the science of it is pretty simple and I already understood how it was going to work, his manner made it fun to watch.

>> ^Unsung_Hero:

The title should have read, "3.5 Minutes of Nothing + Liquid nitrogen + 1500 ping pong balls"


Shut up you outspoken A.D.D. science hating tool bag!

Oh, and, "Vagina Power" is an Atlanta based Public-access television show hosted by Alexyss K. Tylor, an African American woman. Aimed primarily for a female African American audience, the show mainly consists of Tylor speaking frankly and openly about various love and relationship issues in the African American community. Tylor is known for her very outspoken and in-your-face way of speaking, colorful vocabulary, and off-the-wall analogies. Alexyss also has a significant presence on YouTube, although a non-trivial portion of videos in this channel contain product endorsements or other material not entirely germane to her ideology.

Not a Christian TV show.

Thanks for the post. What a freak-show that family is. Fred always reminds me of the creepy guy from Phantasm. One of their kids lives in my town and is very outspoken about human rights issues, it is kind of cool.

@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.

>> ^Trancecoach:

It's a nice use of rhetoric, @NetRunner, but my use of the word if in this case was not to postulate that the stem of the sentence (A) is or could be untrue. I'm using a more syllogistic style suggesting that given that the stem (A) is true, then why not B?

Logic, not rhetoric. There's a difference.

The way I see that argument is as an attempt to prove A is false by contradiction. The way that works is you start with the assumption that your conclusion is false (what if A were true...), and then based on that assumption try to reach a conclusion that's impossible (why would anyone hire men if women are willing to do the same job for less?).

>> ^Trancecoach:
And my response to that, again, (and let me make this clear, because you seem to think that we're in disagreement on this point) is to accept that there is, in fact, a wage disparity on the basis of gender. What I am suggesting, which I believe Rachel doesn't appreciate in this clip, is that there are other, deeper, societal reasons underlying this wage disparity and, thus, there are other, deeper, societal ways to address these reasons which do not include legislation in the manner in which it's being proposed.

Actually I think we're talking about separate propositions. When I say "Women get paid less for equal work", I'm talking about the intersection of these two sets of women:

PL = Women who get paid less than men
EW = Women who provide equal work (i.e. is as productive as a man who works in the same industry, with the same job title, education, experience, hours, etc.)

So what I'm talking about in proposition A is the intersection of PL and EW. In other words women who are being paid less than men for doing the same job. As far as I can tell, you seem to accept the existence of PL, but deny that both PL and EW are happening simultaneously to any significant degree.

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.
>> ^Trancecoach:

While I do not side with conservatives or corporatists on this issue (because I do not deny that the wage disparity exists nor do believe that it's the way it should or ought to be), I do believe there are other underlying factors which include both misogyny and misandry that have fostered the problem to its current state.


That's good, but as I said above, the "other factors" you've presented so far are to suggest that the members of PL are not members of EW. You're suggesting women aren't providing equal work, and this at least partly explains pay disparity.

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.

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.

>> ^lantern53:

The mention of God is all over the writings of the founding fathers, so...
if you have a problem with that you're simply not understanding.
The founding fathers were interested in prohibiting gov't from establishing a state religion, as they did in England.
They wanted to keep the gov't out of religion. They did not want the gov't sponsoring or imposing a religion as that would be a restriction on freedom.
What Santorum said here was that people of faith should be able to influence public policy, which is another way of saying that we have freedom of religion.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand this? Why take a soundbite and interpret it in such a way that the meaning is turned totally backwards?


I think you are missing Santorum's point, as he is missing the point of the Establishment clause.

You are correct in so far as what the founding fathers intended with the separation of church and state. Where I think you are mistaken is Santorum's intent. He is interpreting valid criticism of religion's role in government as potential limitation of free speech.

It's a matter of degrees. He can say he believes in god and thinks we should all follow god's teachings until the cows come home (or until Jesus returns, whatever). But, when he states, as an elected official, that government should create and enforce policy based on specific religious ideas, that's where he's wrong. And, I don't think I'm stretching too much when I say this is a common Republican (at least during campaign season) tactic. Look at how they are running to the far right with the contraception/healthcare issue. This time around, Santorum is the most outspokenly religious of the bunch.

Santorum has said "sex is supposed to be within marriage."
He has stated that his views on why homosexual marriage are informed by the bible.

Like it or not, not many Americans can justify a pro-life stance, anti-homosexual policy or even war in the middle east without invoking the Christian god. Politicians still do it and are successful but that doesn't mean it's how our government is supposed to run.

Oh, and a side point on the founders' god. It's a generic god, a deist god, not necessarily Christian. While some may have been what we consider "normal" Christians, in the Constitution they invoked god in such a way that it wasn't connected to any one dogma. I think if you understand the intent of the Establishment clause, that's the only way those references make sense.