That's a great question. The area is semi affluent and known for being pretty conservative.

My guess is that along with people feeling like they are personally successful they are being fed media that describes the progression of scientific understanding as "proof" that scientists who are forming recommendations don't know what they are talking about.

With this type of narrative clouding the purpose and reasons behind the recommendations these people feel like their own success makes them a better judge of what they should be doing for everyone's health and safety.

Add in a little talk about freedom and stigma of being a nerd and you have large social groups that deny the need to follow scientific recommendations that are meant to statistically reduce the broad impact of the virus' affects.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick at some points, so let me just clear that up first:

"Woah, woah, woah! There's a pretty big difference between saying it's not ok to assault someone and expressing support for them."
-- I referred to the modern nazi who supports them, not you for thinking it is wrong to punch. You are not a nazi supporter because of your stance. A nazi of course supports hitler, etc.

So hopefully this clears up:
"The law has nothing to do with it. It is unethical to assault someone simply for stating their beliefs."
-- My point was that they are stating their support for genocide and harming other people. It's not just a belief, it's a desire to exterminate, alienate and persecute an ethnic group. They aren't shy about their template for society, they fly the swastika flag clearly and sieg heil and whatnot.

"Here we are, 70 years after the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen.... and yet we still have Nazis."
-- This implies that you think being 'nicer to Hitler' (i.e. not solved it with violence) would have gotten rid of them yet you contradict this later on. Otherwise you must accept that violence was the most successful solution, and you are equivocating over semantics with this point. In as far as any ideology (which only really latches itself on generic human mindsets like xenophobia, and is therefore inalienable, a form of nazism will occur by some other name in any social group*) may be "defeated", it was defeated.

I accept that you think it is unethical to punch them. I'm not saying i want chaos in the streets where mobs go around tearing suspected nazis to bits; that's why i'm not asking for a law change and why i won't be opening with violence towards nazis. I'm just saying if a nazi happens to get punched, on balance, it's probably ok.

* - just expanding on this. It's a bit like trying to 'defeat' religion. If you stamped out any sign of all religions in the world, all the imagery and documents and let's say memories too. Before long, religions would form because the human brain is drawn to those ideologies; that's why so many diverse ones formed and still do. And as you originally said defeatable, if it isn't defeatable (because it's inalienable) then you're saying your own point is wrong.

TL;DR sorry for the wall of text, ignore me

Cute, but I recall reading an article in National Geographic about exotic pets that said capybaras kept out of their normal social groups have shorter lifespans.

And of course Obama is going to step down peacefully. I mean, you can say whatever you want about the state of American politics, and it's obvious to anyone with at least half a brain that Obama hasn't lived up to the hype he and his people managed to create during his campaign (which makes sense since he's, y'know, A POLITICIAN), but this idea that he's somehow going to organize "urban gangs" (and I think we all know which social group Orson Scott Card's really referring to here) and take over America is just... well, it's just...

It's just completely fucking INSANE.

And it shows us poor Orson Scott Card's connection to reality really is.

Good points all around. I consider myself to be a part of that minority, which seems to be the smallest minority of them all, and frankly, the loneliness of it kills. I meet others, here and there, but they are few and far between. I don't think society can be defined by them.

I also very much enjoy, and agree with, the example you added. It's the natural consequence of the inherently clannish structure of police forces, and it's exacerbated by many completely needless factors, such as a cultural leaning towards paranoia (considering modern, post-9/11 America in this case) and the fact that most cops are uneducated schmucks. Because of the constant climate of fear and the fact that its members just don't know any better, the group becomes close-knit, but antagonistic against outsiders, and extremely inflexible in its dealings with them.

Even worse, morals become highly relative as those who are outside the group are automatically dehumanized and thus do not become worthy of the groups regard. Especially when one of its members is perceived to be in danger. This is why it's so ridiculous to let the police police themselves. Put a cop on the stand and he's extremely unlikely to tell the truth if he thinks the truth might be against the interests of the police department because at this point him and the group he is a part of is functioning at a very primitive level, and at this level, the truth is perceived to be highly relative.

But then again, this is more or less true for all social groups. Human beings are a lot less advanced than we give ourselves credit for, and we constantly have to keep ourselves from slipping back into more primitive mindsets.

A few inputs for consideration, largely to do with making this site more inviting:

- Re the quoted point - this is true if someone is heavily motivated to do so, and has the right habits (routinely visiting video sites, knows what the community will like, understands how to position and title a sift for best attention, knows how to efficiently do the complicated process of sifting, is motivated), but might not be for occasional users like myself that do a fair bit of browsing and only a little contributing.

- The term "probationary" is a little negative in connotation and not really welcoming. From an online dictionary, the definition that best applies is "A process or period in which a person's fitness, as for work or membership in a social group, is tested.". Feels like applying for a job, and is not exactly welcoming new members with open arms. It's easy to understand why new members need a special differentiating status to prevent people from creating lots of vote-spamming accounts and the like, but that word and the accompanying big red stamp sends the wrong signal to those that are first checking out how this site works.

- All that being said, getting rid of the P isn't really the point. It's being given the privileges that most membership-oriented on-line communities offer for being a member in good standing, even if that member has a low interaction count. That includes doing more self-care on one's own videos (as already mentioned), reducing the thresholds at which increased privileges are opened up, and - dare I say it - having the ability to contribute a dissenting opinion (i.e. a downvote) more readily.

- Conversational threads like this getting promoted to the front page are an excellent sign of a healthy attitude in this community.

Absolutely agree.

I would class myself as being introvert. I like my Shell time. I work better in a vacuum and enjoy either the silence or my music without the need for people talking. I operate better locked in my head.

That being said, I can be very extroverted. Not because I am, but because I have to be. I just decided one day that there is no reason to fear being forward. I can operate well in big groups, social groups or with public speaking. I just choose not to care what people think of me and do what ever I want. But this doesn't come naturally, I philosophically "bite the bullet" and dive in. No regrets and life has been good.

But I NEED to go back to my cave where it's comfortable and "enjoy the silence". Often when I do, I have flashbacks of embarrassment for things I've done and said in the heat of the moment. Nothing crazy, just little things like some Infinitesimal part of something that meant nothing to someone else but my conscience pushes forwards and makes a big deal. I spoke without thinking it through and forming my sentences carefully and now I'm kicking myself for it. Meanwhile, no one else even knows (or cares).

So I'm Introverted, but I'm not shy.

>> ^raverman:

Humans are evolved to be social animals. I think they are also evolved to be religious animals. It doesn't make any of it true, and it doesn't matter what religion it is. It makes sense: hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and belief in magic, witch doctors, animal spirits, priests, gods and angels, - all of which binding the rules of the social group, rejecting or killing those who don't believe... is bound to reinforce some biological traits. It's even proven that these traits can be artificially triggered through strong magnetic fields or even drugs.
So... a diet of religion is good for you... has a biochemical effect creating a sense of well-being and belonging.
@shinyblurry 's personal relationship God is no different than that of a Hindu, Buddist, Tao or Mormon... i'm sure it feels good.
I think people get too obsessed with being intolerant of religion just to hurt others and feel superior. But it's like telling a child there's no santa or magic... why ruin something nice just because facts get in the way?
Reality is all subjective. If you like your's please enjoy but keep it to yourself.


It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but another standpoint is that we were all created to worship. Even people who do not subscribe to any particular belief have something in their lives that they pay homage to, be it money, power, celebrity, their hobbies, or even themselves.

I also appreciate your sentiment about trying to be superior but I think your point is somewhat undermined when you contrast disputing with people who are religious to taking candy away from children who don't understand what facts are.

Humans are evolved to be social animals. I think they are also evolved to be religious animals. It doesn't make any of it true, and it doesn't matter what religion it is. It makes sense: hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and belief in magic, witch doctors, animal spirits, priests, gods and angels, - all of which binding the rules of the social group, rejecting or killing those who don't believe... is bound to reinforce some biological traits. It's even proven that these traits can be artificially triggered through strong magnetic fields or even drugs.

So... a diet of religion is good for you... has a biochemical effect creating a sense of well-being and belonging.

@shinyblurry 's personal relationship God is no different than that of a Hindu, Buddist, Tao or Mormon... i'm sure it feels good.

I think people get too obsessed with being intolerant of religion just to hurt others and feel superior. But it's like telling a child there's no santa or magic... why ruin something nice just because facts get in the way?

Reality is all subjective. If you like your's please enjoy but keep it to yourself.

#1 is true "on videosift" as I asserted. I stand behind that statement. Nothing wrong with it, just the way it is. Do you disagree?

#2 The reason why this stereotype exists is because lower-income voters (those with a household income of fewer than $30,000 per year) lean HEAVILY to the left and favor the democrat party by a margin of 17 points.

My original comment was completely tongue-in-cheek, playing on the stereotypes about a liberal bias and lazy welfare loafers but you looked right past it and accused me of being shortsighted myself. You obviously don't have a sense of humor when it comes to politics. I'll be more careful in the future.
>> ^NetRunner:

Oh, I agree, they're not completely uniform, but most of the time it's just a difference in intensity, rather than some substantively unique outlook on the world.
In the narrow scope of my earlier comment, I was defining conservative as believing in one or more of the fairytales the social group known as "conservatives" like to tell themselves. You espoused two:

1. That "liberal bias" exists.
   
2. That liberals are lazy lieabouts who don't work for a living.
   

Oh, I agree, they're not completely uniform, but most of the time it's just a difference in intensity, rather than some substantively unique outlook on the world.

In the narrow scope of my earlier comment, I was defining conservative as believing in one or more of the fairytales the social group known as "conservatives" like to tell themselves. You espoused two:

1. That "liberal bias" exists.
   
2. That liberals are lazy lieabouts who don't work for a living.
   

The single greatest accomplishment of Fox News is they've managed to convince a large number of people that the "facts" and "information" being presented by the mainstream media are just as biased as they are, so you have your liberal facts, and I have my conservative facts. My conservative facts are better because they're conservative, not because they're more truthful.

Facts are facts though. And that's the issue. There is such a thing as the country going too far to the left, and too far to the right. But with an ever increasing number of media outlets and Americans becoming recalcitrant in their respective camps, and media outlets, social groups, etc. are becoming more monolithic to reinforce already held beliefs, the true loser here is objective truth.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
To those on this site that like to throw around 'fag' and 'gay' in a derogatory manner, maybe it's time to grow up a little. Even if you don't mean any harm, you still contribute to the kind of ignorant American culture that causes things like this to happen. Stop it.

Horseshit. Maybe don't exploit the death of a child to push your suppressive ideology.



>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
To those on this site that like to throw around 'fag' and 'gay' in a derogatory manner, maybe it's time to grow up a little. Even if you don't mean any harm, you still contribute to the kind of ignorant American culture that causes things like this to happen. Stop it.

Horseshit. Maybe don't exploit the death of a child to push your suppressive ideology.


WOW HAHAHAHA I point at you and laugh. Yes because telling people to stop casually spewing out hate words is 'suppressive ideology'. Yes I suppose if this is OPPOSITE WORLD, and wanting to make the planet a little more accepting and tolerant is 'suppressive ideology'. hahahha There is no exploiting the child's death here, which is a hilarious deflection tactic to divert attention from a very VALID and pertinent point about stopping the use of hate words.

Those that can't give up on calling people 'fag' and 'gay' or 'pussy', or similar words are perpetuating suppression against those groups. Those are suppressive words and used in a negative manner. The people telling you to stop being ignorant and become a little more socially aware aren't 'suppressing' you, they are informing you of your ignorance that you need to do something about. That isn't fun to be told, so it is understandable that people lash back, wanting to defend their use of such words. Those words are used to imply that being a 'fag' or 'gay' or a 'pussy' is a bad thing. Fag is used as a hate word. And there is nothing wrong with being gay, and pussies, as in vaginas, are great. I love them. I never insult the pussy. mmmmm pussy. There isn't anything wrong with having a pussy, and nothing wrong with being female.

I always laugh at the completely average, run of the mill, scared to think 'outside the box' of their ignorant social groups/unbringing, people I've met who simply can't NOT say those words. It is laughable. And even when they are informed what these worlds do, how hurtful they can be, how ignorant and stupid they appear/are for using such words, they STILL insist on saying them because it makes them neurologically comfortable.

Go call a bunch of black guys 'nigger' and tell us how they suppressed you when told you to shut your ignorant face. Or of course you could always continue to parade your ignorance to the world rather then do something about it.

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

To those on this site that like to throw around 'fag' and 'gay' in a derogatory manner, maybe it's time to grow up a little. Even if you don't mean any harm, you still contribute to the kind of ignorant American culture that causes things like this to happen. Stop it.

Horseshit. Maybe don't exploit the death of a child to push your suppressive ideology.



WOW HAHAHAHA I point at you and laugh. Yes because telling people to stop casually spewing out hate words is 'suppressive ideology'. Yes I suppose if this is OPPOSITE WORLD, and wanting to make the planet a little more accepting and tolerant is 'suppressive ideology'. hahahha There is no exploiting the child's death here, which is a hilarious deflection tactic to divert attention from a very VALID and pertinent point about stopping the use of hate words.

Those that can't give up on calling people 'fag' and 'gay' or 'pussy', or similar words are perpetuating suppression against those groups. Those are suppressive words and used in a negative manner. The people telling you to stop being ignorant and become a little more socially aware aren't 'suppressing' you, they are informing you of your ignorance that you need to do something about. That isn't fun to be told, so it is understandable that people lash back, wanting to defend their use of such words. Those words are used to imply that being a 'fag' or 'gay' or a 'pussy' is a bad thing. Fag is used as a hate word. And there is nothing wrong with being gay, and pussies, as in vaginas, are great. I love them. I never insult the pussy. mmmmm pussy. There isn't anything wrong with having a pussy, and nothing wrong with being female.

I always laugh at the completely average, run of the mill, scared to think 'outside the box' of their ignorant social groups/unbringing, people I've met who simply can't NOT say those words. It is laughable. And even when they are informed what these worlds do, how hurtful they can be, how ignorant and stupid they appear/are for using such words, they STILL insist on saying them because it makes them neurologically comfortable.

Go call a bunch of black guys 'nigger' and tell us how they suppressed you when told you to shut your ignorant face. Or of course you could always continue to parade your ignorance to the world rather then do something about it.

Umm...

Okay, so lets take this apart.

Premise: Evo-Devo can't explain early human brain growth.
I'll leave this be, there are a number of theories, which while none is clearly true, make an effort, but he doesn't mention any of them so lets look at his.

1) mushrooms add visual acuity in small doses +survival
2) mushrooms make males horny in small doses +reproduce
3) mushrooms make you catatonic in large doses ---survival and creative/intelligent +?

This seems at best a wash for mushrooms->survival, and still does not address brain growth.

If mushrooms give us extra creativity, then why would we build extra brain matter that does the same thing? I don't see how this, in any way, addresses the issue of brain growth in humans, as he claims to at the outset, whereas "language", "throwing stuff" and "complex social groups" all constitute gradual advantages provided by brain growth that provide evolutionary advantage in a planes environment.