Not really a dick move at all. He didn't say this is the only way you can validate a marriage. He basically just said, if you get through a hyper stressful situation with your partner, don't worry about the trivial stuff you'll deal with day to day.

I think a lot of people getting married have already experienced something like this and it's likely one of many reasons they're getting married. So the advise is pretty lightweight, really saying something like that I actually think is pandering to the couple.

Sure there's always a chance you're going to offend some one but you know, in this case, if this scenario seems dreadful to you, it might be worth thinking about your choices a little longer.

I love this video for not pandering or trying to be pop-science.
Just good detailed information, well organized and well presented.

Ugh, no.

Of course you should enjoy music at a visceral level, but that doesn't mean you can't appreciate it on an intellectual level too.
Being educated about music is not a bad thing

Oh yeah, and heavy metal is not just music for idiots either. You know those "weird time signatures that smart people love"? Metal is full of them, and they'll frequently change throughout a song.

In short, fuck idiots and fuck this pandering tripe.

The american newsmedia's businessmodel is to pander to select audiences. As much as Fox does it, other do it too. MSNBC panders to the left, as does TYT, and CNN panders to whoever is in percieved by them to be power/important which is why they are so awkward/useless in general.
24/7 news channels are simply the worst thing that ever happened to the US when it comes to media in general. It made journalism a jerk-off contest.

Seems lame and pandering, since female+female relationships are so hyper-sexualized in a male-dominated world. I was really hoping/waiting for it to be a dude (and not as a joke).

This is just complete pandering and there is no way he doesn't know it. It's an absolutely absurd argument except to whoever is in that room he's speaking to.

1st. The state is us, the citizens.
2nd. The government is the state government, an employee of the state, established by the state and for the state. The state government owns no property and has no authority, it only manages our public assets, and acts in our authority.

Those things you mention were changed by protest.
People exercising their 1st amendment right to assemble and petition the government, assembled, and were a royal PITA to a lot of other people.
In time, that forced the hand of those who had been elected to placate those that protested, to get rid of the nuisance.

Since then, the right to assemble has been 'interpreted' as a secondary right, and the right to petition the government is the primary.
This empowered the government to require permits for protests, and subsequently just remove protesters.
Now you can only write a letter asking for change. The right to petition has basically been neutered, by removing the one effective method of coercion that the state [common man] had over the government.

Elections are not democracy.
How you come up with your representative is irrelevant.
Elected, appointed, born, whatever. It's absolutely irrelevant.

Democracy = People's rule.
Representative democracy = People's rule by a representative 3rd party.

The representative is not a leader.
He is an agent obligated to represent (i.e. listen to and obey) his constituents.

So long as a representative is actively representing, then he is executing his office, then the state has democracy.

If the representative goes off and does what he wants, and ignores what the state wants, then the state has no democracy.

We in the U.S. have no "leaders".
We the people are the leaders.
The people we elect are employed by us to represent us, in a government of our creation.

Whether or not the people in government care to do their jobs or not, is a separate issue.

Right now, someone will get elected. Even if they only voted for themselves.
There is no requirement to have a positive rating from the people, in order to get elected.
Regardless who gets elected, they all get paid by the same lobbyists, and pander to the same financial interests.
The only way you get change for the common man, is when it incidentally aligns with what's good for the entrenched interests.

eg. If Obamacare works out in the end. Great. If not, oh well, another 'meh' program that in the end just provides state unemployment labor. Whatever.
Either way, it didn't happen for a love of the common man and his health. It happened because insurance companies were lobbying for it.





I would like to add that "the other" is generally a really poor propaganda based impression.
Every country on earth, it's not as great their media says it is, and it's not as bad as other's media says it is.

Here a cop will shoot a little old lady half a dozen times for picking a fight with a random other person (this just happened locally).
In a crap ton of ex-soviet countries that people love to grimace about 'how bad it is', you can argue with the cops till they let you go. And you don't have to assume they will beat you to a pulp for it.

People's impression of "police state" is what they imagine from movies. A 1984 caricature. But that's not what a police state look like in reality.
It's a place that's generally normal, unimposing, and only time to time when you step on the wrong person's toes, you end up 'going away for a while'.

Here in the U.S., 1 in 18 men is in jail or on parole.
Good luck finding another country that even comes close.
The policing is out of control. Way too much 'getting tough' on irrelevant things that shouldn't even be a bother, let alone be considered crimes.

-scheherazade

sigh..... I don't. Not really.

It's just frustrating and infuriating, but violence is never the answer.

But it sure feels like it is. The whole democratic process is corrupted and warped into a cesspool of personal interests, lobbies, and moronic pandering.

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.

The implication is that an American politician would instead pander to the religious lobby. It's really more of a difference between America and the rest of the developed world.

And you're right, it's not related to the video.

Isn't this kit and kaboodle routine all standard fare by now?

Right wing talk show hosts have an incentive to make controversial comments because they're preaching to a curated audience and any mainstream outrage they receive just boosts their ratings.

Similarly, some congressional seats are so safely white and right wing because of jerry-mandering that their only real competition are other Republicans in primaries so making the odd pandering to your base comment is a great way to get some free publicity and stave off competition.

I'm more interested in how voir dire didn't result in a jury racial balance more representational of wider US demographics at large. That's not to suggest that these kinds of decisions necessarily occur on the basis of racial lines but if there's any credibility to the comments they discuss that the white juror made, then there's a clear need for representational relatability.

Yeah, the "they hate us because of our freedom" line was the sort insultingly stupid pandering thing that George Bush favored. It didn't surprise me that he said it, what was disappointing was that the media was spineless enough to just go along with it.

What never got expressed is that our actions against other nations were still atrocious, even if the aggrieved peoples include a small number of suicidal zealots. We pissed off entire nations; good people, bad people, all of them had an adequate reason to hate us.

As someone who grew up with games, to the point that the medium has become the driving force for my life and career, I was turned off by the previews of the film. I can't describe why. I definitely felt... like Pixar had no "right" to touch on the medium. Like they wouldn't get it. Like it was pandering to fans of the, as I like to call it jokingly, "superior medium", simply because we've had a solid 40+ years of gaming culture, and a solid 10-15 years of it in the mainstream.
I watched the film for the first time today, and I fucking loved it. It was classic Pixar storytelling, with just the right nods to the subtleties and eccentricities of video games to be really endearing, while avoiding pandering to the audience.
Given the sheer variety of worlds that video games have to offer, I was a little disappointed (on the nit-picky scale) that they didn't explore more settings, but other than that, it's definitely in my book for being on par with all other Pixar films.
If it failed for any identifiable reason, I'd guess that either A) the film-going public is still not in touch with the medium, B) film-going public are turned off by the medium, or C), there were still a few too many gaming in-jokes for the general populace to enjoy (of which there were quite a few, at least in the first half).

Either way, this post got me to finally watch the film.

Also: did the post change? I could swear it had different dialogue when I watched it earlier...

1. Overuse of CGI - check
2. Pandering to the teenage demographic - check
3. Heavy-handed presentation dripping with dread, seriousness and desperation - check

And now it's leeched out into everyone else's films. Iron Man 3, the new Superman movie, the latest Dark Knight movie.

Roddenberry must be spinning in his space canister. Can't wait for the next reboot - maybe someone will be smart and return Star Trek to its roots - the exploration of space.

@cosmovitelli he can't have understood Marx if he can't tell the difference between Communism and Socialism, and he shouldn't bother either since Marx rarely makes any goddamned sense. He's better off learning socialism from anybody else.

You make statements loudly, but you don't make a point. Yes, we need governments, but like you said, they're not agents of the people, they're corrupt and selfish power hungry institutions. I agree with you. If that's the case, doesn't it logically follow that having LESS government is the way to reduce the amount of damage the "powerful" can do to us?

@aaronfr I won't argue whether you were pandering, just that the points you made were awfully cheap, had nothing to do with libertarianism, but with the obvious and laziest misinterpretation one can make of it. Starting your reply with "Libertarian nonsense" is the easiest way to get upvotes from the videosift scum of mindless socialists that can't be bothered to read a full post worth of innacurate statements.

@dag it makes me even sadder that you seem to believe government has your best interests at heart. The government is the agent of that very wealth inequality that makes you so angry. I see limiting government as the way to limit that blatant social injustice, the very institution that tricks suckers into thinking it is "redistributing wealth", when in fact it's been acting as an inverse Robin Hood all this time, taking from everybody, and wasting or giving to the disgustingly rich 1%. Don't dehumanize me, don't dismiss me as some shill for the wealthy, as a brainwashed second-handed thinker. Can't you seriously consider the possibility that government is not part of the solution, but part of the problem? Is that too unbelievable for you?