I want that. Christianity is a pox on the human mind and must be purged for our continued survival.
>> ^VoodooV:

I feel as though there is a faction of atheists out there that don't simply want equal rights and separation of church and state. They seem to want revenge on Christianity. Christianity is definitely guilty of being the cause of a lot of atrocities and making life harder on people because of discrimination and such. Because of that, there are certainly a lot of angry people out there who aren't going to be satisfied with equal representation and separation of church and state.
We've got to keep a reign on that type of behavior.

You've done your homework like a good little boy. Yea, I always thought of a real satanist as somebody that is their own god and that one should live as one wishes as long as they're willing to deal with the consequences involved.

You even used the word "myriad" correctly.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Can't speak for all "denominations", but I can tell you with authority that the COS is made up of atheists who do not believe in a literal Devil or Hell. Satan is a symbol and representative of man's animal nature. Where it might differ from non-Satanic atheists is the idea that "magic" aka force of will, exists. A spell or 'destruction ritual' serves mainly as a psychological purging for the "magician". Obviously the targeted "victim" doesn't always fall prey to destruction a la The Omen.

Anton LaVey (plagiarist extraordinaire) realized that man has an eternal need for ritual and spectacle and capitalized on it. His observations about human nature are spot on, though many of them are lifted without credit from myriad sources.
No, I am not a Satanist, despite my dark and arcane knowledge. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileopen.gif"> The irony of the Church of Satan and Satanists in general is that one obviously need not believe in anything to feel lust, rage, envy, hate, etc. Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury among all humans.
>> ^Sagemind:
It's not the opposite of Christianity, it's more of the same - based on the same mythology and dogma that encompasses the christian faith. These are people who believe in God and the Devil and are picking a side.
People who call themselves atheists believe in neither - that they are just figments of the imagination and creations of man for use in control over the masses - and apparently it works very well on the weak minded.

As Luke said in ESB: "You'll find I'm full of surprises." Then he got his hand cut off...

Thanks!

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Can't speak for all "denominations", but I can tell you with authority that the COS is made up of atheists who do not believe in a literal Devil or Hell. Satan is a symbol and representative of man's animal nature. Where it might differ from non-Satanic atheists is the idea that "magic" aka force of will, exists. A spell or 'destruction ritual' serves mainly as a psychological purging for the "magician". Obviously the targeted "victim" doesn't always fall prey to destruction a la The Omen.

Anton LaVey (plagiarist extraordinaire) realized that man has an eternal need for ritual and spectacle and capitalized on it. His observations about human nature are spot on, though many of them are lifted without credit from myriad sources.
No, I am not a Satanist, despite my dark and arcane knowledge. The irony of the Church of Satan and Satanists in general is that one obviously need not believe in anything to feel lust, rage, envy, hate, etc. Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury among all humans.

>> ^Sagemind:
It's not the opposite of Christianity, it's more of the same - based on the same mythology and dogma that encompasses the christian faith. These are people who believe in God and the Devil and are picking a side.
People who call themselves atheists believe in neither - that they are just figments of the imagination and creations of man for use in control over the masses - and apparently it works very well on the weak minded.


Every once in a while you surprise me Q. Well said.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Can't speak for all "denominations", but I can tell you with authority that the COS is made up of atheists who do not believe in a literal Devil or Hell. Satan is a symbol and representative of man's animal nature. Where it might differ from non-Satanic atheists is the idea that "magic" aka force of will, exists. A spell or 'destruction ritual' serves mainly as a psychological purging for the "magician". Obviously the targeted "victim" doesn't always fall prey to destruction a la The Omen.

Anton LaVey (plagiarist extraordinaire) realized that man has an eternal need for ritual and spectacle and capitalized on it. His observations about human nature are spot on, though many of them are lifted without credit from myriad sources.
No, I am not a Satanist, despite my dark and arcane knowledge. The irony of the Church of Satan and Satanists in general is that one obviously need not believe in anything to feel lust, rage, envy, hate, etc. Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury among all humans.

>> ^Sagemind:
It's not the opposite of Christianity, it's more of the same - based on the same mythology and dogma that encompasses the christian faith. These are people who believe in God and the Devil and are picking a side.
People who call themselves atheists believe in neither - that they are just figments of the imagination and creations of man for use in control over the masses - and apparently it works very well on the weak minded.



Every once in a while you surprise me Q. Well said.

Can't speak for all "denominations", but I can tell you with authority that the COS is made up of atheists who do not believe in a literal Devil or Hell. Satan is a symbol and representative of man's animal nature. Where it might differ from non-Satanic atheists is the idea that "magic" aka force of will, exists. A spell or 'destruction ritual' serves mainly as a psychological purging for the "magician". Obviously the targeted "victim" doesn't always fall prey to destruction a la The Omen.

Anton LaVey (plagiarist extraordinaire) realized that man has an eternal need for ritual and spectacle and capitalized on it. His observations about human nature are spot on, though many of them are lifted without credit from myriad sources.

No, I am not a Satanist, despite my dark and arcane knowledge. The irony of the Church of Satan and Satanists in general is that one obviously need not believe in anything to feel lust, rage, envy, hate, etc. Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury among all humans.


>> ^Sagemind:

It's not the opposite of Christianity, it's more of the same - based on the same mythology and dogma that encompasses the christian faith. These are people who believe in God and the Devil and are picking a side.
People who call themselves atheists believe in neither - that they are just figments of the imagination and creations of man for use in control over the masses - and apparently it works very well on the weak minded.

>> ^HugeJerk:

I'm pretty sure they take all the guys off the boats, then destroy the boat and drop the jerks off on land.
I certainly hope not. Purge them all permanently, I say.

Thank you for your forthrightness.

Please, what is your connection to the video?

The reason I ask pertains to the fact that Self-linking is a bannable offense on the Sift. Please refer to the FAQs to familiarize yourself with the policy but PLEASS DO NOT JUST DISAPPEAR if you wish to remain here.

PLEASE, whether or not it was unintentional it has been demonstrated that the community of members here much prefer forgiveness. I am not determinant or even completely conversant in the remedial actions. Perhaps the offending video(s) would need to be purged. There are those more expert upon which to rely.

I believe strongly that you as a member can and will be preserved with your continued forthright response(s) to this situation. Sans your cooperation...in the past I have resorted to banning to promote dialog but instead the account was banned out of hand. I, and the Sift in general would prefer a more equitable and mutually advantageous outcome.

So, please, I implore you to participate.

Thank you.
In reply to this comment by sweet2:
....yes...

@chilaxe, that's what I was afraid you'd say.

Claims like those require information, not hear-say and the absurd purging of a peculiarly biased and emotional Gawker writer. I refer specifically to the supposed rape case. I mean, the not-rape case. The bad touching accusation.

I'm not opposed to the idea that Mr. Assange is a douchebag, nor am I allied against the notion that he puts his dick in women who don't want him to - although this second claim requires far, far more evidence, and it would be insane and morally bankrupt to assume a position either way, considering the lack of that evidence. There's certainly nothing reliable in the public domain.

However, even if he immolated kittens, it would have no reflection whatsoever on the value, or lack thereof, of the leak of the Iraq reports and the information within. For the journalist to pursue him specifically on the point of those accusations is an attempt to obfuscate what is actually going on and is shoddy, stupid and disgusting.

His demeanor is secondary to the event of this leak, and she should not be insisting on rumour and bad publicity in the current situation. By all means, investigate the claims made against Assange, but the quotes you provided - and Chen in particular - is insufficient evidence and, further, irrelevant.

>> ^blankfist:

First, I don't know the optimal market cost for driving on roads. No one does except the government

Then why are you questioning it? My point is, how do you know it's "too much"? Yeah, there's only one end-user provider, but private companies do all the actual work of building and maintaining roads.

Why not go ask some of them how much it costs to maintain a road?

California publishes how much they spend on it, if the two costs are wildly different, you've got the makings of a huge story to go to the press with.

>> ^blankfist:
When the gasoline tax was proposed that's what it was said to be for. Of course government changed its mind and dumped all that money into a general fund, but that's what it was designed for: to pay for roads.

Actually, in googling I saw that California is still playing by your rules on this one. Sure, if they pass a law they can waive the earmarking of those funds, but like I said, it's not a Constitutional thing that keeps the firewall in place.

If it falls short of what the cost is to maintain the roads, would you support a tax increase to close the budget gap?

>> ^blankfist:
Imagine how many people drive on the roads every day. Do the numbers. That's a helluva lotta revenue. Surely that could cover costs of laying asphalt. That aside, the roads out here are crap by and large. Potholes everywhere. It must be that the billions the government receives isn't enough. Go figure.
Ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, some of that money is being siphoned off or spent inefficiently or spent on inflated costs or used to pay inflated salaries or any number of other things than efficiently on the maintenance of roads?

How many miles of roadways are there in California? How many square feet of surface that the DOT has responsibility for? Have you ever considered that maybe you're getting an awesome deal?

And of course, it's quite likely that someone, somewhere in the government is stealing from it. But the same is true of any organization.

If you have some universal fix for purging all corruption from humanity, please, enlighten us.

>> ^blankfist:
Lastly, I don't think I should have to start an advocacy group to lessen the tax or fines levied against me.

Of course you don't, it's the same story with you every time. You think everything government does should be perfect and free, and you shouldn't have to lift a finger -- even to complain -- to fix it when it fails to live up to your impossible expectations.

It's your government. If you don't want to participate in making it better, don't expect the rest of society to cry for you because your mail gets bent.

I have purged myself of all credit cards but I want the SiftShirt
I'll have to see what I can do...

BY FIRE BE PURGED!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I agree with you and Glenn Beck.

I just thought it was funny that he was making essentially the same point. Of course he thought it was all an orchestrated conspiracy by space Nazis to distract people from the financial reform bill.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^dag:
I just saw Glenn Beck make the same point about this being a distraction from the financial reform bill. You guys are kindred spirits. Still though, Vilsack taking the fall for this and claiming no White House involvement smells like rich bullshit.
Geeze, everyone's going nuts lately. Ok, so I'm Glenn Beck for saying that the media isn't focusing on what's important.
Also, Obama is both prone to making rash decisions without all the facts, and a coward who'd hang out a member of his cabinet to keep from having to take his lumps in front of the American people. Not to mention, his political team is naive enough to think that throwing us a scapegoat will insulate him from the political fallout.
If I had a blackboard I'd draw an org chart of the US government, and try to guess at how many reporting levels separate Shirley Sherrod from Barack Obama (I'm thinking ten would be a safe minimum number), and point out that Vilsack is only the next rung down from Obama...and then I'd just slap a Hitler moustache on them all, and say "they're just purging the racists, the way the Nazis purged the Jews!"

>> ^dag:

I just saw Glenn Beck make the same point about this being a distraction from the financial reform bill. You guys are kindred spirits. Still though, Vilsack taking the fall for this and claiming no White House involvement smells like rich bullshit.

Geeze, everyone's going nuts lately. Ok, so I'm Glenn Beck for saying that the media isn't focusing on what's important.

Also, Obama is both prone to making rash decisions without all the facts, and a coward who'd hang out a member of his cabinet to keep from having to take his lumps in front of the American people. Not to mention, his political team is naive enough to think that throwing us a scapegoat will insulate him from the political fallout.

If I had a blackboard I'd draw an org chart of the US government, and try to guess at how many reporting levels separate Shirley Sherrod from Barack Obama (I'm thinking ten would be a safe minimum number), and point out that Vilsack is only the next rung down from Obama...and then I'd just slap a Hitler moustache on them all, and say "they're just purging the racists, the way the Nazis purged the Jews!"

>> ^gorillaman:

Wait, Dan Abnett's writing this? My enthusiasm just quadrupled.


Yup, if he's writing then this might end up with dodgy animation but the story will be solid. UM's aren't my favourite (Dark Angel's all the way baby) but what the hell, at least they aren't doing those prissy Imperial Fist wankers...

CLEANSE... PURGE... KILL!!!

Here's something Lee Atwater, the architect of the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush campaigns and mentor to Karl Rove, said in 1981:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can't say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

The idea is to package conservative ideas in such a way to attract racists, and provide them with a cover story so they have plausible deniability. In other words, so people like Southern Avenger here can claim "all they're doing is taking a principled stand based on their well-reasoned philosophy", even if they seem to be tolerating outrageously racist commentary and signage within their midst, and espousing a policy set that is generally condoned by racists due to its negative impact on non-whites.

These days it's less about racism per se, and more of a generalized form of xenophobia. It's the fear of people you don't know, don't understand, and who you don't want to have to care about or feel responsible for. It's why attempts to formally establish a legal responsibility to others (strangers!) are seen as intolerably intrusive.

Personally I think a lot of the rhetoric today is about dehumanizing the poor. It's often an expression of the belief that people who're poor have individually made some sort of choice that directly warrants things like losing their house, not having money for food, being unable to pay for medical care, etc. People who want on the government dime are all lazy leeches who're dragging all of society down, and if we give them help, they'll just stop trying to be productive, and try to leech more.

That started with racism, but I think just like the rhetoric, the emotional core got a lot more abstract -- it's not about demonizing black and brown people anymore, it's more about demonizing anyone who's different, so that the idea of having to take responsibility for them seems tyrannical.

I know that there's a huge percentage of moderately conservative people who don't buy into that emotional core, and want conservative-ish things done for pragmatic reasons. There's also a group of people who are True Believers, and think that the conservative ideology is morally superior to the alternatives, or that a libertarian policy set would benefit everyone greatly, even (especially?) the poor.

Those guys I like, and truly hope they find a way to purge the racists from their political organizations (i.e. the Tea Parties and the Republican party). That is, assuming they cool off on the calls for political violence (but that's a whole other conversation).

Building on what dft said, charges of racism wouldn't really stick if you guys stopped responded to it by saying "we condemn what you're talking about, and we'll take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again because racism won't be tolerated in our movement", instead of always saying "there's no racism here, and you're a racist for calling me a racist, racist!"