The real problem is college dorms. What music other people like never bothered me before, and doesn't now, no matter how terrible I personally considered it to be. The two years of my life I spent living in a college dorm was a different story though. I can take bad music for a few minutes here and there in public, or at a party where the music isn't really important, but when it's in your home, on repeat, 16 hours a day--that's different. I started to hate the people playing it too. Since "they have bad taste in music" isn't really a good reason to self-justify actually *hating* someone (who I knew, really, were okay folk), I naturally had to invent some complex, sociological explanation for it.

Of course, I grew up, left the dorms, and this isn't a problem anymore, but there are still many millions of 18-21 year-olds, living in dorms, with only three hours of classes a day, spending the rest of their ample free time sitting at their computers with Nickelback blasting through the walls on repeat. Maybe it builds character or something.

To be really fair, though, I haven't had to hear Trey Anastasio playing a guitar since then, and I can't be sure what I'd do if I did.

It's a clever rationalization of hypocrisy. If it's going to be taboo to observe patterns in groups of people demarcated by visible characteristics they were born with, be consistent about it. But I'd argue against that taboo.

What makes racism bad is treating people as specimens of a group rather than unique individuals. Group averages may differ slightly but there's tons of overlap. Common usage of the word "racism" unfortunately conflates a moral aspect (how to treat people) with an epistemological aspect (dogma that all groups are created exactly equal in every way). Epistemology shouldn't be moralized. I could give you lots of examples of sociological and psychological research getting muddled on account of an inflexible dogma that there couldn't be any heritable differences between groups other than the obvious superficial ones. I'd rather conceive of the word racism as a verb describing harmful actions towards people due to their group membership, not a noun denoting a thoughtcrime or speechcrime. Like church and state, or science and religion, epistemology and morality don't go together.

A priori based on generation times and mutation rates you should expect there could be 1/10 as much variation between historically isolated groups of humans as there is between breeds of dogs, since the most recent common ancestor of all domestic dogs is half as far back as humans' most recent common ancestor is (or rather was before 16th and 17th century explorers spread their sperm across the globe) but dogs breed a lot faster. Breeds of dogs demonstrably vary in many behavioral and psychological traits. It's not far fetched to suppose that a variety of environments over the past 100,000 years of humanity pushed population means of behavioral traits in various directions.

That's the spirit!
This technique, the silent, 'don't give a fuck' approach in the kitchen??-An adaptation which manifest itself after a series of experimental sociological screaming incidents.

precisely the point I've been arguing for a while now: the hypocrisy of being giving up our personal and private data at the drop of a hat, yet being outraged when government uses it.

privacy as most people think of it is an outdated concept.

we give out that data freely all the time. we share what we're thinking and doing with Facebook and Twitter all the time.

Even when we're at home and not online, we still share private information freely with our friends and loved ones and that info gets shared with other friends and loved ones.

face it, the human being is not a private creature.

There is always going to be a risk of someone mis-using that collected information, but that doesn't mean the genie is put back in the bottle. All you can do is put safeguards in place and quite frankly, the human race needs to grow up a little so that the temptation to use it maliciously is easier to ignore.

they said the same shit about the nuclear bomb and we're still have yet to blow ourselves to kingdom come. In addition, when we master nuclear fusion it's going to leap us forward tremendously.

someone's eventually going to figure out a tremendously positive use for all of that sociological data that will benefit us greatly. That's typically the nature of all these military and space projects. The tech gets spun off into medical and other positive ventures.

I think it's also just that we're in the midst of great technological and sociological change.and it's due to the internet mostly.

if you lived in a small conservative town pre-internet, It was far more likely that you'd either never say anything, or succumb to peer pressure when it comes to voicing any dissent. Any views of alternative thinking always came from someone outside that town, so it was easier to dismiss or ignore. But when the internet puts you in touch with everyone else on the planet and it's far harder to deny thinking that runs contrary to how you think or at the very least, harder to drown it out.

We're also on the verge of some huge changes like medical technology getting better and better. Instead of relying "old wives tales" to cure what ails you. We're on the verge of massive transportation changes...the slow death of the internal combustion engine, we're not that far away from cars that will drive themselves. We also have to think more about the environment.

It's a time of HUGE change, and the people who are in power don't always like change. Even people who are not in power can often get distraught and upset at change.

Sorry for the delayed response. I got a bit busy this week, and didn't have the time/energy to dedicate that a response of this sort deserves. Thanks for your patience.

Your response suggests an adoption to Marxism which, in my opinion, is unmatched in the level of suffering it has caused, but leaving that aside...
In response to your bullet points:

#1. "ever wonder why there is an economics course and a business admin course? there is a reason for that.one is theory the other practical application. and economists get it wrong...and often."

This is the kind of thing Paul Krugman often says, and it's flat wrong. To the extent we have a free market, we have a successful exchange of goods and services at a fair and competitive price. To the extent to which we have socialism, with central planners, and governmental regulation, we have cronyism, plutocratic kleptocracy, and failure. The Austrian school of economics does a very good job of explaining -- step by step in a manner in which you can follow along using deductive logic, how such contradictions come about. Entrepreneurs are to Austrian economists as artists are to the best of art/literary critics. There's no discrepancy between theory and practice. They can clearly and accurately describe what entrepreneurs are doing. Unless you have studied Mises, you'll probably have little to no good idea as to what economics is or what it can or cannot do.

#2: fascism is, in fact, a type of socialism because it follows a socialist economic model.

#3: Yes, I've thought it through. Explain to me specifically how you arrived at your conclusions. Otherwise, you're just making assertions.

> "france is a democracy. they have capitalism AND
> socialism."

France has a mix of capitalism and socialism, not unlike the U.S. Again, to the degree that France has a free market, things work and to the degree that they have socialism, the problems arise and get worse, as they/we are seeing now. To the degree that they are socialist, they are a failure. Socialism is unsustainable because you have no economic calculation. (And the European Union, which includes France, is failing -- in case you haven't noticed. This video can provide you with the data you need to understand this.)

Socialism is planned chaos because the issue of economic calculation (and its absence) gets glossed over. The EU is partially socialist -- it's a mix -- so it can somewhat slow down the effects of socialist chaos, unlike full-blown socialist systems. But it is increasingly more socialist and the chaos increases.
To deal with this planned chaos, these mixed systems rely on Lord Keynes' theories and policies of credit expansion, which equates to basically "throwing money" at the problem.
But, (as the Keynes/Hayek rap video says) "there's a boom and bust cycle and good reason to fear it!"

(Quite honestly, I'm surprised that you're not for establishing stable rules for the banks. You know, so that they're no longer able to extend money/credit that they don't have without being charged with fraud.
Because if you were for such banking rules, then you would no longer support the Keynesian approaches upon which your ideology is resting. Personally, I think money and credit needs rules and, for this reason, I don't support socialism or central planning in the absence of economic calculation, which is only possible within a free market system.)

The credit expansion expands the circumference of the boom and bust cycle, slowing it down, extending the boom period, but setting things up for a worse bust. It's all very predictable. If some are still not convinced about Europe's failure, it is because even as bad as things are, the bust has not really hit. Yet, it will. Eventually.

Unlike the Dollar, the Euro is not the world's reserve currency, and there is no petro-euro like there is a petro-dollar. So Europe cannot delay the bust in the manner that the U.S. can. On the other hand, thanks to German objections, the credit expansion in Europe has not gone as high as in the U.S. so their bust may not be as disastrous as it can be for the U.S.

The boom and bust cycle cannot occur in an anarchy because you need a central bank with powers of credit expansion to make it happen.
The alternative explanation, the "animal spirits" (a la Lord Keynes) posits that all businesses suddenly make mistakes at the same time, and/or all consumers at the same time decide to stop buying, causing the bust. I doubt it. That's no explanation at all.

> "my point is that health care should be a collective project
> but i believe i also entertained a free market solution as well."

I think you need to define what you mean by "collective" because the free market is as collective as it gets. I don't think you grasp what the free market means (i.e., voluntary interactions that allow for economic calculation and involve zero violence, allowing for better service and cheaper prices). Unless you understand this, no further discussion will lead to very much.

You say some things should be done collectively. I say many things must be done collectively. That's the basic premise of Austrian economics, the division of labor. You cannot do everything yourself. That's one reason I say that the free market economy is as collective as it gets.

> "i am a dissident. an anarchist."

If you're an anarchist, then you don't believe in government, by definition. So you can't be a socialist, as socialism requires a government to manage things. Without government, the only thing left is voluntary exchanges, which is the definition of a free market, economic capitalism (not to be confused with sociological capitalism).

You shouldn't rely on economists to tell you how things are. See for yourself. Again, only the Austrian school (that I know of) enables you to follow deductively on your own and make rational sense of the market activity.

You say economists are "probably wrong." How do you know? Economics isn't mysterious heuristics and sociological prophesy. It's like mathematics. You don't need to "believe" me that 2 + 2 = 4. You can deduce it for yourself.

I think that if you can learn a few basic economic lessons (which you can easily verify for yourself), you'll understand better where I'm coming from. (Then you'll be a coherent anarchist and not sound so confused ).

If you are an "anarchist," then who do you want administering things if not the government?

Hayek was much more of an anarchist (again, the rap video:
"The question is who plans for whom? Do I plan for myself, or leave it to you? I want plans by the many, not by the few.")

An anarchist who thinks otherwise is not much of an anarchist, is he?

"but won't people be less inclined to be responsible if they have less freedom?"

You're making a claim that people will be less responsible. *you* need to prove that. I don't need to disprove it, however I have given plenty examples of how existing requirements on existing freedoms don't seem to lead to increased irresponsibility. Burden is on you.

"With gun control, you want to take people's freedom away to stop them from screwing up in the first place."

Again, I asked how people are less free by requiring something prior to exercising that freedom. You failed to answer that.

"How is making it harder to acquire or own a gun going to make people more responsible using them? That's all I was asking."

No, you're changing your argument. But I'll go ahead and pretend that you weren't attempting to dodge and answer it anyway. There is never any guarantee that anyone will be magically safer by taking a magic class or spending time with an instructor. It's a strawman argument to say that it would. There has never been any guarantee that any law will make anyone safer. We do it anyway because the public demands it. Will of the people and all that. Over 50 percent of the nation were in favor of SOME form of increased gun control post-sandy hook.

You're right, not all of those things I mentioned are necessarily rights, or at the very least, could be argued. But I also noticed you conveniently ignored the part about voting...which is a right. And even if an ID is never required to vote. You still have to register in order to vote.

There is no guarantee that requiring a test makes someone a safer driver. There is no guarantee that I'm going to survive the day if I get out of bed.
We don't legalize murder because some people ignore laws. We make it illegal anyway and incarcerate/execute those that break those laws and hope it provides an example of why not to do it. It's kind of what civilization is based on. If you've got a better answer, then you should publish some papers and get recognized as someone who revolutionizes sociology and criminal justice.

I'm going to play the odds and guess that you won't though.

It's hearing stuff like this that makes me ok with the recent determination that obesity is a disease.

There's a definite line between obesity like this and simply being overweight. Lots of people are overweight, but this guy is insanely obese and apparently has no self control..his wife apparently has no self control either.

I have to admit, part of me shares Yogi's sentiment. Part of me wants to simply let people like this die. But they're going to be a massive burden on the health care system no matter which way you look at it so we might as well try to learn something from the guy. sociologically and medically, then maybe we can prevent this shit in the long term.

Obesity is our next national concern. As much as I want to blame people like the guy in the video. They don't deserve 100 percent of the blame.

Shitty food keeps getting cheaper and cheaper and healthy food keeps getting more and more expensive. We have a health care system that is designed around covering up symptoms instead of solving the root causes.

It's not impossible to live a healthy lifestyle in spite of these factors, but it certainly isn't getting easier.

There is clearly some psychological issues at play here, not just purely eating too much and not exercising.

Yeah I have to admit. The whole voice thing is like the one thing that still kinda nags at me about homosexuality.

go nuts with the same sex thing... but WTF does the pitch of your voice have to do with homosexuality?

anyone know if what savage says is true or is he just speculating? I always assumed it was a sociological thing and a manifestation of counterculture and that it would eventually go away as gays are accepted and treated like everyone else

>> ^charliem:

Eugene Mirmin - Astrological waste of space (in this video...).
The science they spoke of was really only that of psychology / sociology, which lets be honest.....they aint real sciences
I was hoping they would have talked way more about how graphics engines simulate real world phenomena, or how the next big thing bound by processing power currently is A.I in NPC's.
Instead we got mumbo jumbo interspersed with interruptions from a halfwit. Wasted time slot


They're real sciences when they use hard evidence to back themselves up. For good reason the "Soft" sciences haven't had a scientific revolution like physics and chemistry has, and it desperately needs one. It's why people get away with such bullshit in the soft sciences that it's hard to take them at all seriously. But there are people who treat them very much like hard sciences and they're making real developments and progress within them, actually proving and testing theorems rather than throwing stuff and seeing what sticks.

Eugene Mirmin - Astrological waste of space (in this video...).

The science they spoke of was really only that of psychology / sociology, which lets be honest.....they aint real sciences

I was hoping they would have talked way more about how graphics engines simulate real world phenomena, or how the next big thing bound by processing power currently is A.I in NPC's.

Instead we got mumbo jumbo interspersed with interruptions from a halfwit. Wasted time slot

And NOW, with the current situation in play and we now know how Mitt feels for a vast swath of America. He most likely ALSO hated this person in a wheelchair for being disabled too.

Really there isn't a way to defend him unless you have truly given up your intelligence and given fully into opinion and ignorance, because it makes your stomach more "fuzzy".

Too many people now in America need to wake up to the reality of what this world REALLY IS! There isn't a unicorn. There isn't a mystical force stopping rape pregnancies. There isn't a magical non-person free-market that just regulates itself into pure equality and use for all. There is no Gods, which leaves you with a SERIOUS question NO MATTER WHAT FAITH you belong to, is there a God at all? The two-party setup is a mere cultural and sociological play of what is essentially a difference in people's fundamental psychology. Though we like to pretend conservative or liberal values are MORE than they really are, they are illusions created by our minds--as fake as any religion other than YOURS... That last word, really, really should mean something to somebody that doesn't quite get psychology and the absolute BLANKET and hallucinatory world it can proceed to give to our brains that is just as real as reality--so if you understand psychology is a POTENT little thing that runs our lives...

Mitt is just as lost as everyone else. Not only does he do what his idiotic psychology tells him to do, completely being an ass. But, he is fully unaware that he is FULLY inside the grip of ignorance and his own self-created ego trip. That is why it is so utterly hard to reach any of these people and talk to them about a TRUE compromise or negotiation. They just say the words and nod their heads, but you never truly got through to a person that understands themselves OR more importantly reality, even to the smallest extent.

This is why education is so vitally important, because we MUST give our kids the tools necessary to be able to make the final leap in self-consciousness that for some reason so many seem to never get there and get sidelined in the various vices of life--or more precisely the mind and your psyche.

Some people are just a record, playing in a loop. The rest are playlists, with thousands, or perhaps hundreds of songs. BUT, the people that UNDERSTAND are the people that can design the program that makes the playlists and moreover they make the music that those with the playlists or the record listen to. THAT is the difference.

They are the ones beckoning to you to LEARN, not to CHANGE, but to LEARN! Change will come when you see like they do...
----

Mitt had no reason to be like that. Something tells me if Mitt truly ever talked a mental health professional he would be diagnosed with something... Just my guess (like narcissistic personality disorder--but, I'd have to see even more of Mitt to be certain).

When he said "dumbhole" I thought he was going to switch from physics to sociology...

Joking aside, really great vulgarisation and illustrations of such complex science.

Feeling better now and thank you for clearing up the motivation.
Please don't take a personal disdain for giddy while mindless, so-called news reporting to heart.

"Gay" and "marriage" are hard terms to coalesce for most into substance considering the sociological and traditional connotations. Not my point. my point would resemble a world where people get real news from the organizations with the funds and apparatus to catalyze tangible "change". Not spare change or chump change or square change or anything that brings society to some illusory statuesque quo.

Get this out of your system perhaps by embedding videos from lolcats.com??

It's a shame the presidential office isn't actually all that important in Irish politics, Higgins is a genuinely intelligent guy who seems to realise the value of reason.He had some interesting commentary on Scheper-Hughes' fairly damning sociological text on Ireland a few decades back.

...
But he still didn't inspire me to register to vote, which makes me a little ashamed. I am going to register just so I can tell Sherlock to go fuck himself though, the scene needs to be made aware thatthere are negative consequences to that kind of kowtowing.