>> ^Boise_Lib:

While I'm certain that drugs were involved in the creation of this animation --it doesn't contain any. I'm not sure about channels yet. Does it fit?


http://drugs.videosift.com/talk/Drugs-Channel-Manifesto

What this doesn't include:
- Just stuff that is strange that you think "oh this person must've been on DRUGS when he/she made it"...if you can't name the specific drug the person was on, you don't have the authority to call it to the drug channel.

@dystopianfuturetoday, you know I'm in your camp, but that reads like a tea-party manifesto. It emphasizes deconstruction without worrying about our lack of agreement on the subsequent reconstruction. In some ways, I'm with @raverman. We need to sort out the ideological differences we've laid bare particularly over these past few years. That's why I think publicized presidential debates between Ron Paul and Barack Obama could be good for the country. IMO, you'd get some good, honest, civil discussion. It would give Paul the opportunity to bring Obama to task on some of the issues where he even loses the left; and it would give Obama an opportunity to talk to the rightwing frankly about the mapping between economics and reality.

Plus, I don't think Paul can win the general anyway. I'll concede that it would be disastrous if he did. Who could he take as a running mate?

Ultimately, I think the crux of the ideological issue is the absoluteness of private property "rights," and the mechanism of common ownership.

I won't deny the other two examples. I said already Obama isn't a hardcore progressive. I wouldn't even label him on a scale as progressive. Those are examples of where he isn't. If that's the indictment, no one is disagreeing with you.

Dude, how are you not getting this. Obama hasn't justified a single policy with Christianity. This guy sited directly his warped Christian beliefs in his manifesto. It's pretty clear as day the difference. Obama refutes the notion of the US as a "Christian Nation", etc. He's ridiculed by the Religious Right in fact for this. Isn't this pretty obvious?

Yes, it is accepted as collateral damage. Thank you for making my point. Were the attacks launched with the purpose of killing these civilians? NO! Was it the intention of Osama bin Laden to kill as many civilians as possible in the 9/11 attacks on purpose? YES! THAT is the difference. If Obama could conduct these attacks without killing innocent civilians, he'd do it in a heartbeat. If bin Laden could have killed 1 million American civilians instead of the number he did, he'd do it in a heartbeat. That's the difference. You're assuming that because civilian deaths occur, that how many people are killed in collateral damage never influences decision making. That's simply not true. You'll rarely ever achieve objectives without accepting some collateral damage, unfortunately. This is unfortunately part of being the President.

So we're gonna terrorize the population of Libya why exactly?! What would that possibly achieve in and of itself? That's utterly ridiculous.

It's against international law how exactly to be intervening in Libya? It was approved by the UN Security Council. Are you speaking to military strategy? So you're saying we should just put ground troops in there and go door to door, which will cause even higher casualties and more terrorizing of the civilian population? I don't pretend to know all the difficulties the military is facing when coming up with the best plan to achieve objectives.

It's silly to believe part of why we're in Libya is to help establish a democratic gov't there? Look, I was a big critic of the second Iraq war, but I don't doubt for a second part of why the Bush administration wanted to go in was to establish democracy in the region. It was a stated goal. You can call it silly all you want, but it is even within the US's self interests to have as Libya be a democracy. Why wouldn't we want them to be democratic?!

It is progressive to intervene in a country to help protect human rights. Schools of geopolitical realism would have determined intervening in Libya to not benefit the US enough to justify involvement. Again, I'm not suggesting the entire reason we went in was to help the Libyan people. There are many reasons why. But one of them was to help the Libyan people. I fully accept there were geopolitical calculations as well. All of those things have to contribute to the decision making.

Was it progressive to partner with Stalin to defeat Hitler? If no, then FDR wasn't a progressive?! We did it because Hitler was a bigger threat than Stalin at the time. Once Hitler was out of the equation, we became enemies of Stalin. To think you can just make international policy based exclusively on progressive ideas is fantasy.

On this site, I've defended progressivism when under attack from people who think progressivism is Communist, doesn't work, blah blah blah. Progressivism, like other ideologies, provides a lot of answers and ideas to solving problems, but it is also imperfect, just like every other ideology.

So Obama isn't progressive in the slightest?

Are the following progressive in nature?

Ending "don't ask, don't tell."
Advocating raising taxes on the rich
Increasing availability of Medicaid
Preventing health insurance companies denying based on pre-existing conditions

He's a moderate. Yes, I fully accept you could give a big long list of things that aren't progressive he's done, too. He's a moderate, who leans left. That's why I get really irritated when QM and WP call him a socialist or communist because it's simply not true.

>> ^dgandhi:
When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you. Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority. And instead of addressing the concept directly, you hide behind vapid arrogance and resort to personal attacks. Bravo!
>> ^dgandhi:
Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit. I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.
>> ^dgandhi:
Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.
I never said it was an object. Actually, I've previously said objects are only representations of property.

production
–noun
1.the act of producing; creation; manufacture.
2.something that is produced; a product.
3.Economics . the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.

So where does production come from again?
>> ^dgandhi:
Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact? I did just clearly demonstrate it. Care to prove it false?
>> ^dgandhi:
So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that. And I’m the one that’s six? One argument you ignore the literal meaning, the next you cling to it. Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?
>> ^dgandhi:

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case. I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract? I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.
>> ^dgandhi:
Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true. And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

Here's another insightful article about the madman's motivations:

http://essays.bearstrong.net/2011/07/25/manifesto-for-a-european-civil-war/

>> ^marbles:
Then you wouldn’t need to quote other ideologies to make that point.

When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you.

>> ^marbles:

Don’t feign ignorance. Marxism is based on the collective's right to the individual.


Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit.

>> ^dgandhi:
Production does not come from anywhere, you might as well ask where blue comes from.

>> ^marbles:

Production comes from nowhere. Thanks for clearing that up.


Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.

>> ^marbles:

There’s no test needed, it’s inherent to human life. If I build a net, then I rightfully own it. If I catch fish with my net, then I rightfully own the fish.

Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact?

>> ^marbles:

Liberty is self-ownership. If you believe someone else can own you (e.g. selling yourself), then you don’t believe in liberty. Nice try though.

So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that.

>> ^marbles:

No, I said you were wrong regardless of whether or not you accepted my property claims. And your current social contract is meaningless if you decide to violate my liberty.

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case.

Of course I know that your case, clearly stated, falls in on itself, I'm beginning to think that you know it too.

>> ^marbles:

Production doesn’t come from anywhere, remember? How about you prove this is true: If I steal something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.


Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true.

Also, this is a great opportunity to mention Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine

The New Road to Serfdom
Christopher Hayes, In These Times, November 9, 2007

In the early ’80s, as Margaret Thatcher attempted to hack away at England’s substantial public sector, she found a frustrating degree of public resistance. The closer she got to the bone, the more the patient wriggled and withdrew. Thatcher doggedly persisted, yet her pace wasn’t fast enough for right-wing Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek, her idol and ideological mentor. You see, in 1981, Hayek had traveled to Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, where, under the barbed restraints of dictatorship and with the guidance of University of Chicago-trained economists, Pinochet had gouged out nearly every vestige of the public sector, privatizing everything from utilities to the Chilean state pension program. Hayek returned gushing, and wrote Thatcher, urging her to follow Chile’s aggressive model more faithfully.

In her reply, Thatcher explained tersely that “in Britain, with our democratic institutions and the need for a higher degree of consent, some of the measures adopted in Chile are quite unacceptable. Our reform must be in line with our traditions and our Constitution. At times, the process may seem painfully slow.”

The Hayek/Thatcher exchange is one of many revealing historical nuggets unearthed in The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein’s ambitious history of neoliberalism. Hayek isn’t the star of The Shock Doctrine—that dubious honor goes to his protegé and fellow Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman. But Klein’s totemic, capacious and brilliant alternate history of the last three decades of global political economy can best be understood as a latter-day response to Hayek’s classic right-wing manifesto, The Road to Serfdom.

More of this review here: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/reviews/new-road-serfdom

>> ^Ornthoron:

@rottenseed: Well, as a physicist, I definitely encounter the factor 2 pi much more often than pi. I conjecture that this is true in mathematics as a whole as well, since 2 pi = tau is one full turn of a circle, and one full period of a (co)sine wave. Tau is as such a more convenient choice, if you have the luxury to choose.


Meet me at my lair, we will discuss in detail on how this girl and whomever wrote that shite manifesto are shortsighted and why...

Will include orgasmic information that will melt these mortal's minds. We'll make it private so no buddy stumbles in by accident a turns to stone.

>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^Ornthoroneriously, read the manifesto. Area = (tau/2) r^2 actually makes more sense, too.

Dude that manifesto is fucking hilarious...all of this math knowledge spouted and all for what? All because he doesn't like doing fractions??? Really??? Yea let's rewrite all the math texts since before Princia Mathematica just so you can use tau/6 instead of pi/12. That's useless knowledge wasted on somebody with no common sense. Furthermore, it adds unnecessary fractions in things like Euler's identity and like what you just pointed out, the area of a circle.

Well, it's certainly unrealistic to expect that we can get rid of pi in favour of tau after over two millenia of pi's monopoly. But one can dream, can't one?


What I'm saying is that there's no reason to get rid of it...why's it worth trading 2*pi here for tau/2 over there?

>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^Ornthoroneriously, read the manifesto. Area = (tau/2) r^2 actually makes more sense, too.

Dude that manifesto is fucking hilarious...all of this math knowledge spouted and all for what? All because he doesn't like doing fractions??? Really??? Yea let's rewrite all the math texts since before Princia Mathematica just so you can use tau/6 instead of pi/12. That's useless knowledge wasted on somebody with no common sense. Furthermore, it adds unnecessary fractions in things like Euler's identity and like what you just pointed out, the area of a circle.

Well, it's certainly unrealistic to expect that we can get rid of pi in favour of tau after over two millenia of pi's monopoly. But one can dream, can't one?

>> ^Ornthoron:

Seriously, read the manifesto. Area = (tau/2) r^2 actually makes more sense, too.


Dude that manifesto is fucking hilarious...all of this math knowledge spouted and all for what? All because he doesn't like doing fractions??? Really??? Yea let's rewrite all the math texts since before Princia Mathematica just so you can use tau/6 instead of pi/12. That's useless knowledge wasted on somebody with no common sense. Furthermore, it adds unnecessary fractions in things like Euler's identity and like what you just pointed out, the area of a circle.

>> ^rottenseed:

There are a lot of discrete mathematical (series) implications to pi as well. I believe that's what standardized the use of pi being pi and not being 2 pi.
In fact, geometrically, beyond trig, if you look at areas and circumferences your options would be looking at the alternative function of area=(pi/2) r^2 instead of just (pi) r^2. Now would it be easier to have 2 variables, tau and pi and remember when to switch between the 2? No. Really, learning basic trig would be the only advantage of this...which is a minute part of the math world.

Seriously, read the manifesto. Area = (tau/2) r^2 actually makes more sense, too.

The Tau Manifesto
Michael Hartl
http://tauday.com


Vi Hart — Blog
http://vihart.com/

I am a recreational mathemusician currently living on Long Island, NY.

I like most creative activities that involve making a lot of noise, mess, or both. Aside from composing, I love improvising on various instruments, drawing, sculpting, and other methods of making things. My main hobby is mathematics, with special interests in symmetry, polyhedra, and surreal complexity. This usually manifests as collaborative research in computational geometry and other areas of theoretical computer science, or as mathematical art. I think the human brain is incredible and strange, so I have developed a great interest in dreaming and consciousness. As a result, I am a trained hypnotist and a lucid dreamer. The human body is pretty neat as well, so I enjoy dancing and judo. I always love to learn new things—variety is the food of creativity!
You can email me at vi (at) vihart.com.
If you'd like to leave me voicemail or send me an SMS, call or text (+1) 530‑7VI‑HART [530‑784‑4278].

Agreed. I read the Fountainhead in my impressionable college years and thought it was the best thing ever. I read it twice and bought extra copies to give to people. Then I read Anthem and realized 2 things: 1) These books are shallow political manifestos (duh!) and 2) Ayn Rand is horrible at sci-fi. Then I started Atlas Shrugged, and it was the exact same book as the Fountainhead and Anthem, just with different characters.... then I got to the John Galt Speech, which is a needless reiteration of the politics of the Fountainhead, Anthem and all of the narrative in Atlas Shrugged leading up to the speech. It's also some of the most dead boring text ever committed to print. I think I got about 20 pages into the 60+ page speech when I decided: fuck this book and fuck Ayn Rand.

Set aside the goofball politics and Fountainhead is a decent trashy romance novel. Sadly, the greatest lesson I took from the Fountainhead is that indifference can be a powerful tool for manipulating people. Evil, but true. Yes, I was an asshole in my Ayn Rand phase, even more of an asshole than I am now.

Why do liberals hate Ayn Rand so much? I can't speak for all liberals, but for me, the fact that I was sucked into it - and felt actual euphoria as Ayn Rand's selfish darkness pulsed through my veins - gave me firsthand knowledge of how evil people are able to glorify themselves and justify their actions.

>> ^PHJF:

Well, this isn't Hollywood. It's a small-budget movie made by a "studio" formed FOR the movie.
And I don't see why Atlas Shrugged gets so much attention. Fountainhead is thematically very similar but a far better read (mostly because of the length).

The majority of the American people aren't buying the leftmedia's BS spin about this lone vermin, whose heinous act was apolitical.

When the spotlight shone on the vermin, it was discovered those around him considered him to be a left-wing crank, who listed the communist manifesto as one of his inspirations.

Leftmedia MADE this political to preserve democrat power, aid ratings-crippled obama and denounce Palin (who, if she wasn't a real threat to the left's power, would be ignored).

Why attack Palin? Oh, that's right.....Rule 11 from Scum Alinksy's Rules for Radicals

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.



What's this?

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DLC-Targeting-map.gif

Violent imagery!

But those aren't crosshairs! you say. Are these?


Compared to (paraphrased from memory):
Don't retreat, reload
First to the ballot box, if that doesn't work, then to the bullet box
The recent news story of the gun manufacturer who was offering a limited edition run of a automatic weapon gun part inscribed with "you lie"
Water the tree of liberty with blood

Metaphors all, like when liberals accuse conservatives of trying to "kill children" for suggesting cutbacks to government programs.


Water the tree quote? Democrat T. Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

I think you have to give it up, Q. That, or find some better examples. These don't make it.

“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength." ---Scum Alinksy. Again.

I'm on VS for fun. It is not necessary for me to provide examples to counter a leftmedia fabrication, and the stupid quotes from liberals are their own monument, whether or not they exactly fit the occasion.

The real required response to recent rampant liberalism was delivered November 2nd.