It's mostly a semantic quibble, I don't really disagree with you about this lady's credibility.

It just seems like American culture has been under a sustained attack by Orwellian wordsmiths who are trying to achieve through manipulations of language what they can't achieve by just making an open and straightforward case for their ideas.

We've seen a decades-long project to destroy the credibility of the press, which started with them claiming it's got a liberal bias (under the old meaning of the word, where this is assumed to be both unintentional and mild), while simultaneously saying all day on talk radio that "liberal bias" is a nefarious plot to brainwash people.

A decade or two down the road, you wind up with this whole counterculture of angry old white guys simply apoplectic about a series of supposed injustices committed against them (that never actually happened) by people who are prejudiced against them (who aren't actually prejudiced).

It is more than a little bit of a tangent, but I definitely get why calling her "biased" provoked this reaction from dft.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I get the impression that these true believers would love nothing better than to be killed, martyred and sent off to their father in heaven. I think the only chance you might have at discouraging them for being douchenozzles would be complete indifference. Throwing a tantrum is no fun if no one cares. >> ^Yogi:
You know, the reason these people feel that they are invincible is that no one has bothered to murder any of them yet. People say that's not the way to deal with them, but I can guarantee if they worried about their safety they wouldn't protest as much at all. The heads of that church are just barely keeping those people enthrall, if you make their adventures personally too costly, they will no longer protest and we will be free of them. Take one of these guys into an alley, and blow their brains out of the back of their head, and you will see a dramatic change in behavior.



Then lets be very kind and give them what they want. This isn't a movement with thousands of people behind them, they aren't fighting an injustice or standing for something people can get behind. They're annoying, they're just stupid and annoying and they can be shut up easily and no one will care.

Just kill them. Do what we do around the world. Kill them in a horrific way. This reminds me of the Jokers speech in the Dark Knight about everything going according to plan. If some Palestinians and Israelis get blown up or a Drone takes out a few children, it's not a problem because it's all according to plan. Let's bring that terror home.

GREAT POINTS! HOW CAN I SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR NEWSLETTER? THX!

>> ^shinyblurry:

I agree that religion isn't necessary for someone to be moral. What the scripture actually says is that everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong. So, even if you've never read the bible you should understand that it's wrong to lie, cheat, steal, rape, or murder, etc.
When I speak of fearing the Lord, I am speaking of a reverence and awe towards Him. A filial fear that a child would have towards his father, which includes an appreciation of the consequences of disobedience.
You say at no point does God need to be involved, and you are seeing the fruit that attitude is bearing in American society today. God is involved in everything, from beginning to end, but the choice given to us is whether we want to be involved with His purpose for our lives, or if you want to reject God and go your own way. It's your choice, and there are consequences for what you choose.
The problem with children, and society in general, is that everyone is pointing the finger at conditions. They believe man is inherently noble (although this makes no sense in an evolutionary worldwide) and with the right conditions, he will eventually create a utopia. The problem with this theory is that it has no reflection in reality, be it now or at any time in history. Even when conditions are good, even optimal, corruption is always making swiss cheese of the foundations. Eventually the structure will collapse without divine intervention.
Today, there is more sin, more injustice, more hate, and more senseless destruction than at any other time in our history. The world is reflection of the evil heart of man, which comes not from conditions but his fallen nature. Modern man has an advantage with knowledge, but no improvement in wisdom; he is still as base as he always has been since the fall. This is because the only true wisdom comes from God. Sin and death are the problems in this world and God has ordained the perfect solution: faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. It is the hand of God in a childs life which will keep him on the straight and narrow. Is it impossible for someone to be moral without God: no. Ultimately, though, this person is working against Gods purposes, both for him and this world. This will only ever lead to what we are seeing today.



>> ^Selektaa:
Fear is fear, whether it's of Hell or of prison, it's still fear. You need to teach with positive reinforcement, empathy, to instill in the kids a proper sense or right and wrong. The Bible has some good lessons, the Golden Rule is one of the best, Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I think just that act of projecting yourself unto others can give you the perspective to not be a dick all the time. At no point does God need to be involved, just an understanding and appreciation of your fellow man. Good and responsible behavior doesn't start and stop with religion, and I can't stand it when religions try and claim a monopoly on morality, because it just isn't true.

I agree that religion isn't necessary for someone to be moral. What the scripture actually says is that everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong. So, even if you've never read the bible you should understand that it's wrong to lie, cheat, steal, rape, or murder, etc.

When I speak of fearing the Lord, I am speaking of a reverence and awe towards Him. A filial fear that a child would have towards his father, which includes an appreciation of the consequences of disobedience.

You say at no point does God need to be involved, and you are seeing the fruit that attitude is bearing in American society today. God is involved in everything, from beginning to end, but the choice given to us is whether we want to be involved with His purpose for our lives, or if you want to reject God and go your own way. It's your choice, and there are consequences for what you choose.

The problem with children, and society in general, is that everyone is pointing the finger at conditions. They believe man is inherently noble (although this makes no sense in an evolutionary worldwide) and with the right conditions, he will eventually create a utopia. The problem with this theory is that it has no reflection in reality, be it now or at any time in history. Even when conditions are good, even optimal, corruption is always making swiss cheese of the foundations. Eventually the structure will collapse without divine intervention.

Today, there is more sin, more injustice, more hate, and more senseless destruction than at any other time in our history. The world is reflection of the evil heart of man, which comes not from conditions but his fallen nature. Modern man has an advantage with knowledge, but no improvement in wisdom; he is still as base as he always has been since the fall. This is because the only true wisdom comes from God. Sin and death are the problems in this world and God has ordained the perfect solution: faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. It is the hand of God in a childs life which will keep him on the straight and narrow. Is it impossible for someone to be moral without God: no. Ultimately, though, this person is working against Gods purposes, both for him and this world. This will only ever lead to what we are seeing today.






>> ^Selektaa:

Fear is fear, whether it's of Hell or of prison, it's still fear. You need to teach with positive reinforcement, empathy, to instill in the kids a proper sense or right and wrong. The Bible has some good lessons, the Golden Rule is one of the best, Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I think just that act of projecting yourself unto others can give you the perspective to not be a dick all the time. At no point does God need to be involved, just an understanding and appreciation of your fellow man. Good and responsible behavior doesn't start and stop with religion, and I can't stand it when religions try and claim a monopoly on morality, because it just isn't true.

Oops, got sidetracked. Two bands stood out from KEXP's Bumbershoot videos, the first one was Posse, and I quite liked the whole performance but couldn't decide on any one song to post... so did them a slight injustice and didn't post any.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

@rbar have these thousands of philosophers, lawyers and activists ever considered that, if people have material needs, they may or may not be satisfied in exchange for money, money that may or may not be provided through a job? What about other ways of making money, like being self-employed, a businessman, an investor, or a beggar? What if I can satisfy those needs without money, as a farmer?

Should the self-employed have a right to customers? Should a businessman or an investor have a right to profits, or a beggar to handouts? Should farmers also be entitled to good crops? If there's no direct and necessary link between job->survival, what, then, would justify it being declared an unalienable human right?

Your objection about government causing social injustice, sounds to me like asking, "if government outlaws drinking, how is it wrong to stop people from drinking if it's against the law?". If government outlaws something that doesn't use force, it inevitably uses force to outlaw it, thus increasing the overall use of force in society and diminishing our condition as a civilization. On the other hand, any force used to repress wanton shooters is a good deterrent to their use of force, no?

About laziness, your characterization of capitalism as "more and more efficiency", with no regard to human hapiness is very typical of a socialist's portrayal of capitalism as a social order of relentless profit-seeking and competition. When in fact, capitalism is the most cooperative of any social system ever devised. Markets thrive in capitalism, and markets are a bunch of people trading and making agreements with each another. There's nothing more cooperative than trades and handshakes. You get more cooperation in capitalism than in feudalism, mercantilism, corporatism, socialism or any other "ism". In the end, you're allowed more choices, including that of softer lifestyles in capitalism, than anywhere else.

The Libor and derivatives markets scandals, are not examples of free markets at all, they're abuses where the bad behavior was encouraged by policy. What you and I argued about making the weak complacent, also applies to bad rules encouraging excessive greediness and risk-taking that went unpunished, bad behavior that would, otherwise, be "regulated" in a free market by the very real prospect of bankruptcy, and being sued for fraud instead of a get-out-of-jail-free card and juicy bailouts granted by a secretive central bank (which wouldn't exist in a free market!).

Things are not necessarily less regulated when you have economic freedom, and anything resulting from deregulation is not an automatic example of free markets at work. Regulation just happens to come from the bottom-up, from forces in the market itself, instead of by force from the top-down, by well-intentioned bureaucrats who fancy writing human rights declarations in their spare time.

@renatojj So you are saying you cant be threatened economically? Off course you can be. Damage can be economical or mental too. There is no reason to exclude those. Far from it, you can argue these are in the end physical too.
Force is not required to be physical in this process.
What you need is leverage, ie something that the other needs. If you are the giver of a job that that other person needs and it is difficult for him to find it elsewhere, you are in a position of power without any other need of force. If you own a well in a desert you are the most powerful man without any force. And you can coerce people to do your bidding for them to receive water. No force required, just threat.

On right to have a job. The thousands of philosophers, lawyers, human rights activists, politicians, etc that worked on the UDHR just believe that without the job, people will starve, ie will die, ie will get a right offended. Hence, they need a job. And thats is were coercion comes in. The NEED (not the right) to have a job to survive (or at least live on a "decent" level in your society) Coercion isnt about having or not having a job. Its about the threat of not getting it / losing it and accepting things you would otherwise not. Discussing whether or not someone is suitable for a job is besides the point, as we are all unsuitable for the job we have in some form or other. So unskilled, incompetent, dispensable, these are all point of view based. In a world of geniuses you and me would be unsuitable for anything. But are we really? Off course not, just like every tree, flower, bacteria and animal has a role, so does every person.

On coercion: by a child's psychological manipulation? For sure. (Check with any parent and they will readily agree ) What about a person you're in love with? Yes off course. What about a guy who is more qualified for a job than you are, is he coercing you out of that position? No. He nor you has the job to give. The coercion comes when your boss says to work 12 hours a day and get paid for 8 because someone else might be better and he might give that person the job.

On justifying anything government does: you make assumptions I dont follow. Punish coercion -> using force -> more social injustice.
If it is coercion and we define coercion is something bad, isnt it justified to do something against it? You can do something against it with or without force, but even if it is done with force (meaning someone somewhere gets his freedoms lessened) again, isnt that justified to stop him or her being able to coerce someone as that is bad? Its like saying government cant stop someone from shooting someone because that would lessen the freedom of the shooter. I would define social injustice not as the max rights of that individual but of the max rights of the whole population. So not "using force" would lead to social injustice.

On laziness: You are right. If you are not careful, setting up rules that protect the weak can make them complacent. Its a balancing act. If you set no rules, ie free market, you open them up to abuse. If you set too many rules, they can become less eager to be the best they can be. BTW I dont call that lazy. There is a larger argument to make here, about the goals of capitalism (More and more efficiency, ever growing and ever improving) or about more soft lifestyles that would not be as efficient but might in the end bring more happiness. A topic for another time.

On the UDHR: I guess we want to achieve the same, we just disagree on the way to get there. I structurally dont believe free markets will get us there, as in every real case free markets have proven to be unreliable because people will abuse their powers and create too much inequality. There are so many examples (LIBOR, the entire financial derivatives markets, basically all unregulated markets) that I can ask this:
can you give me 1 example of a market that is run truly free that worked for a longer period of time?

@rbar Welcome back. You present a good definition of coercion, but how did you deduce that it applies to any situation where one has a "higher degree of power"? Did you miss the word "force" in there? Also, "threats" usually refer to "threats of force", the Oxford dictionary defines threat as a "a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage...", which sounds pretty violent to me. I don't think it was referring to threats like, "I'm not talking to you anymore!" or even, "I will fire you!". However harsh it may be to get fired, it doesn't involve violence.

Even if your idea of coercion has nothing to do with violence, I'm sure if you look hard enough though, you will find broader and more convenient definitions, but they won't escape the notion of denying rights.

Now, apparently you think an employee has a right to a job or is "entitled to something". What if no one needs what an employee has to offer, what then? Are the unskilled, the incompetent, and the dispensable, therefore, automatic victims of coercion?

If anyone with "power" can coerce, can you be coerced by a child's psychological manipulation? What about a person you're in love with, can they *coerce* you by leveraging your feelings towards them? What about a guy who is more qualified for a job than you are, is he coercing you out of that position?

If we just throw the word "coercion" around willy-nilly, we can pretty much justify anything a government can do to punish those perceived as coercive, and this punishment usually involves the use of force. So, instead of correcting social injustice, we'll likely end up causing more of it if more force is being used.

I need to refresh your memory on this talk of laziness, it was in objection to your statement that "all people always want to improve themselves", which you used to dismiss my concern about incentives and moral hazards in society.

I'm sure people give up laziness when their survival is threatened, but that's not the point of laziness. Rising above the petty needs of survival doesn't compel one to reach for the utmost excellence, that's where laziness comes in, people don't "always want to improve themselves", specially if they can live on a comfortable level by using force to solve their problems, imposing their costs on others. It's the lazy way out, get it?

Instead of increasing their power by becoming more competent, more useful, more productive, employees could argue that they are being coerced and use laws to forcefully remove the choices of employers as a way of giving them, the employees, more power. Having the choice of using force to solve their problems, would harm the incentive to improve themselves and that would establish a moral hazard: trying to do the hard thing, like becoming more productive (it's not easy!) would be punished by its very cost, while doing the easy thing, which is to rely on force to solve your problems, would be rewarded.

I always thought that rapists, paedophiles etc. not being named and shamed was a good thing. Not for them, fuck them. But to stop good and decent people exacting revenge and landing themselves in prison. That seems to be the definition of injustice.

>> ^smooman:

injustice does not a police state make.


No, but having more of your citizens under police supervision than any other nation in the world damned well should. It's not even debatable, it's a matter of public record, our own and international as was sourced from both our own records and international above. How in the world do we figure that the nation with more of its citizens under police supervision than any other in the world isn't a police state?

The term Orwellian comes to mind. It's built slowly over the years so we didn't notice, it's us so we don't want to admit it about ourselves, but that doesn't change the fact that those are the facts.

injustice does not a police state make.

>> ^drattus:

We're the most imprisoned nation in the world, both per capita and in raw terms and that's been a fact since the Clinton administration. If the more than a decade long title holder for most imprisoned nation in the world isn't a police state, then exactly what is it?
International Centre for Prison Studies
http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php


I agree that the US has a stupidly high imprisonment rate, mostly due to your insane and useless "war on drugs", but at least there is a process. The laws behind it may be retarded, but as a general rule, you aren't living in fear of being snatched off the street by uniformed goons. Hyperbole doesn't really help anyone, and frankly, calling the US a police state is trivialising the struggles of those who live in real oppression (i.e. North Korea, sharia law, etc).

That's not to say you shouldn't complain about injustice in your country, simply that you should call it what it is.

Holy fuck, please get away from your computer and interact with real flesh and blood human persons.

I refuse to believe you can't comprehend how disgusting and illogical this comment is.

"Sure prison rape is awful. But why make prisoners safer? We should really be focusing on making sure no one ever breaks the law, ever. Then there wouldn't be any prisoners to rape in the first place. Duuurrr."

It's simple Pennypacker.
You're a human. Immigrants are humans. Prisoners are humans.

If it's unjust to treat WinstonField AssholePacker like this.
It's clearly unjust to treat immigrants and prisoners like this. Full stop.

Who the fuck cares what law these people broke.
You break the law all the goddamn time and no one humiliates and degrades you for it.

These immigrants are trying to live "the american dream".
Shouldn't you admire them for that.
Shouldn't you stand up and protect them from these injustices.
Shouldn't you recognize their determination and hardwork to achieve that dream by any means necessary?!

You should. But you can't.
Cause you're too wrapped up in your "conservative" moralfaggotry to stop and examine the reality of things.

I.E. - The problem here is that the Border Patrol abuse EVERYONE. Fully legal citizens included.

Yet your moralfaggotry conveniently allows you to gloss over that fact and the root of the injustice.
All in favor of tooting the - "Illegal immigration is the real problem" horn.

TL;DR

The problem isn't illegal immigration.
The problem is the systemic abuse, degradation and misconduct by people trusted with authority.

Pennypacker can't empathize. Needs to be tortured next time he gets a speeding/parking ticket.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Nothing new here. Such things have plagued the system for decades. Only message I get is that the US needs a better, better, higher, deeper wall so that only legal immigration can take place.

If you were looking for sympathy, look elsewhither. Illegals get no sympathy from me. No one approves of abuses.

If you want to eliminate these abuses, the solution is clear. Eliminate illegal immigration by slamming the south border shut.

And yet should we not arrest them? Should we give them 'amnesty'? Should we just get rid of prisons and go to some sort of hippie liberal honor system? Pht. So what's your point?

I'm sure you have your own point of view that sees things a bit differently. From my personal experience as an immigrant minority, I feel that cops treat everyone fairly and only use force when they are called upon to stop people from violating the law.

I also do not live my life assuming that cops attack a group of 'peaceful' protesters for no apparent reason. You may have personally experienced or second-handedly heard of cops mistreating civilians for no apparent reason. I have never been unfairly treated by the police during my lifetime and I believe that the second-hand reports of mistreatment often depend on the context of the situation. Sometimes we are right to claim injustice, sometimes we are not. We are right to punish those who practice injustice, but those rare cases of injustice should not overshadow all of the police force that consists of good officers who have done their job well.

Personally I do not worry about police officers cracking my head open when I go outside to watch the Olympic torch runners pass by, because I feel safe to be with a crowd of people who are cheery and supportive. But I will definitely be afraid of being near a group of rioters engaging a riot squad.

I believe that everything has a reason and just cause. You may hold a different belief about our society and authority figures, and that's your way of seeing the world. I would not argue that your way of living is the wrong way to live just because it is different from mine. We each have different life experiences to example our view about the police and authority figures, and it is unfortunate that we do not see every matter the same way.