patrick.net

Ahh..the very definition of an oxymoron.

indigenous says

how the modern liberal thinks.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Does he open people's minds on the apocalyptic consequences of the CRA?

once again projecting

Liberals today are only interested in "diversity", at a cost to anything else. Diversity for the sake of diversity, really dumb.

He's another U Chicago Straussian dickhead.

I know tons of conservatives who believe they don't discriminate, so they're against affirmative action. They're okay with racial profiling, though.

Both "liberals" and "conservatives" suck. They all sell stories about making this world a so-called "better place."

I will join whichever "camp" that considers me the "greatest good."

HydroCabron says

I know tons of conservatives who believe they don't discriminate, so they're against affirmative action. They're okay with racial profiling, though.

That's not the same though, with AA one gender/race/orientation has more or preferred rights, with profiling certain groups are just scrutinized more, yet everybody still has the same rights. Like if cops come to a scene of a violent crime, they will likely scrutinize many more males than females as possible suspects as females simply commit less violent crimes. It makes their work more effective. You are comparing apples and oranges although I am not saying that racial profiling doesn't have its problems.

mell says

Like if cops come to a scene of a violent crime, they will likely scrutinize many more males than females as possible suspects as females simply commit less violent crimes. It makes their work more effective.

Yep. Bayesian thinking. To reduce discrimination the police will need more information. I propose universal surveillance.

already implemented.
u just gotta get everybody to keep their cameras on...

Peter P says

I propose universal surveillance.

why do you hate skinny people?

HydroCabron says

I know tons of conservatives

indigenous says

In a nutshell, he is saying that the main fallacy of the modern liberal is that there main goal is to not discriminate.

That's not my main goal as a liberal. I don't have a main goal. I hold the following principles:

1. All people are equal under law.
2. All citizens have the exact same set of rights.
3. Transparency and accountability in government is critical to prevent injustices and to enforce the law, which can be broken by people working for the government.

Now, exactly which of the above do you disagree with?

As for your video, just in the first two minutes the speaker has bullshitted everything. Liberals don't hate America. The very statement is meaningless. Once cannot hate an abstraction. One can hate a particular person. One can hate an action. One cannot hate an imaginary line on a map.

Second, America is not the freest nation by far. Anyone who claims so is a complete fucking idiot. Things like freedom can actually be measured and verified. And guess what, moron, there are people who actually spend their lives doing just that.

Reporters without Borders ranks America as 46th. Holy fucking shit! 46th. There's no excuse for that. And there's no excuse for calling America the freest nation in the world when it's fucking 46th. Romania beat us. Yes, that Romania. Home of Vlad the Impaler, a.k.a. Count Dracula.

And by the way, hating corrupt politicians who commit crimes against humanity and load their pockets at the expense of the American people, isn't hating America. Hating criminal cops who murder more Americans than all terrorists in all of history put together, isn't hating America. Demanding the change necessary to ensure that the American middle class remains intact, isn't hating America. Demanding that our military be used to defend our country rather than kill foreigners so our large corporations can steal their natural resources, isn't hating America.

Watching Fox News and spreading the destructive lies of conservative media is hating America. Spreading bullshit on Patrick.net to further agendas that cannot be justified by their intent or their result is hating America. Preventing our nation from taking action to mitigate the devastating effects of climate change is hating America. Using the police as a military to wage a war of terrorism on poor Americans is hating America. Voting Republican, the party that deliberately sabotaged our economy for political gain, is hating America.

SoftShell says

Ahh..the very definition of an oxymoron.

indigenous says

how the modern liberal thinks.

And then, of course, there is verifiable, scientific fact reported by reputable journals including Psychology Today

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

[A]s the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals...

Incidentally, this finding substantiates one of the persistent complaints among conservatives. Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.

Or, to put it in graph form,

Yep, science has shown time and time again that conservatives are cowards and morons.

Peering inside the brain with MRI scans, researchers at University College London found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals. The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety. Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity.

But hey, at least conservatives can make snide lies about who is smarter than whom. Too bad they can't back it up with scientific evidence like we liberals can.

When you get right down to it, it is in the best interest of our great nation to sterilize the less intelligent conservatives so that they may no longer pollute our gene pool with their hereditary mental disorders. Anyone who "loves America" will, of course, support this since it's best for our great nation. Reproduction is a conservative's way of hating America.

indigenous says

This is Brilliant, a talk titled understanding how the modern liberal thinks.

P.S.

Anyone else notice the utter hypocrisy of Call It Crazy not bitching and moaning about this YouTube video. It's a clear example of a person making a Straw Man speech.

Maybe I should put on a fake hat, call myself a born again Christian, and then promote raping babies in a video. That's essentially what the speaker of the original post's video is doing. It's disingenuous and transparent.

Dan8267 says

1. All people are equal under law.

2. All citizens have the exact same set of rights.

3. Transparency and accountability in government is critical to prevent injustices and to enforce the law, which can be broken by people working for the government.

none of this is discrimination

Dan8267 says

As for your video, just in the first two minutes the speaker has bullshitted everything. Liberals don't hate America. The very statement is meaningless. Once cannot hate an abstraction. One can hate a particular person. One can hate an action. One cannot hate an imaginary line on a map.

This does not even meet the most perfunctory definition of a country.

Dan8267 says

Second, America is not the freest nation by far. Anyone who claims so is a complete fucking idiot. Things like freedom can actually be measured and verified. And guess what, moron, there are people who actually spend their lives doing just that.

America has raised the standard of living (freedom) for more people than any other country in history. The way they did this is through a free economy.

Dan8267 says

And by the way, hating corrupt politicians who commit crimes against humanity and load their pockets at the expense of the American people, isn't hating America. Hating criminal cops who murder more Americans than all terrorists in all of history put together, isn't hating America. Demanding the change necessary to ensure that the American middle class remains intact, isn't hating America. Demanding that our military be used to defend our country rather than kill foreigners so our large corporations can steal their natural resources, isn't hating America.

This has nothing to do with discrimination.

Dan8267 says

Watching Fox News and spreading the destructive lies of conservative media is hating America. Spreading bullshit on Patrick.net to further agendas that cannot be justified by their intent or their result is hating America. Preventing our nation from taking action to mitigate the devastating effects of climate change is hating America. Using the police as a military to wage a war of terrorism on poor Americans is hating America. Voting Republican, the party that deliberately sabotaged our economy for political gain, is hating America.

This also has nothing to do with discrimination. You are conflating everything with everything.

Dan8267 says

And then, of course, there is verifiable, scientific fact reported by reputable journals including Psychology Today

This is conjecture who poison Americans with anti depressants and collect residuals from their handiwork, these are the same individuals who came up with eugenics and were the very army Hitler used to get rid of the "undesirables". Nope fuck their conjecture.

Dan8267 says

But hey, at least conservatives can make snide lies about who is smarter than whom. Too bad they can't back it up with scientific evidence like we liberals can.

Again this has fuck all to do with discrimination.

Dan8267 says

When you get right down to it, it is in the best interest of our great nation to sterilize the less intelligent conservatives so that they may no longer pollute our gene pool with their hereditary mental disorders. Anyone who "loves America" will, of course, support this since it's best for our great nation. Reproduction is a conservative's way of hating America.

Here we see eugenics again which is core part of the modern liberal's religion.

You have very poor critical thinking skills, you are the very type of individual Evan Sayet is talking about.

You have been brainwashed with the meme "don't have an viewpoint or else you are discriminating".

You should consider this possibility in your self.

When I was a kid the school psychologist said I had "learning disabilities", ever since I considered that I could not learn. Only recently did I realize that "holy shit" the school psychologist had brainwashed me with this meme. Ever since I have been a sponge for knowledge and learning.

I'm just saying?

It would be a very light thing where they would tacitly infer that you should be very very careful about your thinking or you should not have a viewpoint as it would cause you to discriminate.

Something like this may be affecting your ability to think critically?

Do yourself a favor and consider what Dan Dennett is saying here:

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_dangerous_memes

Call it Crazy says

You're the only one on Patnet that spends everyday sitting in his apartment jerking off to Youtube videos, thinking they are the basis for reality in the world!

If you got a problem with YouTube -- what did they molest your wife/sheep? -- take it up with them or with Patrick. Video evidence is the best evidence and Patrick.net only allows embedding of videos from YouTube. And why? Because it's the most popular video hosting site. It is literally the Google of video as Google owns it.

And if you hate YouTube/Google so much, get of the Internet because just about everything is going to be owned by Google eventually.

indigenous says

none of this is discrimination

Hence, my point?

Dan8267 says

Hence, my point?

Cept that avoids the point of the speaker.

No actually it only shows that discrimination is one form of evil. What really drives liberalism is the idea that every person owns his or her own life and should be free to do what pleases him or her the most as long as he or she isn't infringing upon someone else's rights. Every injustice I've condemned has involved the violation of that principle.

Dan8267 says

What really drives liberalism is the idea that every person owns his or her own life and should be free to do what pleases him or her the most as long as he or she isn't infringing upon someone else's rights.

That is classic liberalism. It is NOT what the speaker is talking about.

You should look at that video on memes

indigenous says

That is classic liberalism. It is NOT what the speaker is talking about.

The speaker is making Straw Man arguments. And there is only one true liberal philosophy. Don't think you get to redefine a word just to mean something despicable so you than can ridicule people based on the new, lamer definition. I could redefine conservative to mean the same thing as pedophile and then go on a tirade about how awful conservatives are. Would you accept that as a legitimate debate tactic?

So you are saying there is no difference between a Democrat and a Libertarian?

Wow your critical thinking skills are worse than I thought...

SoftShell says

why not? libbys did....

Good point

Why not? Libbys did....

Dan8267 says

Don't think you get to redefine a word just to mean something

indigenous says

So you are saying there is no difference between a Democrat and a Libertarian?

Wow your critical thinking skills are worse than I thought...

I said nothing even remotely like that. Again, you are preferring to make your opponent's argument rather than listening to what he says. You conservatives are always arguing with your imaginary friends rather than real people, just like Clint Eastwood and his chair.

There are damn few Democrats that are even remotely liberal today. We have two wings of essentially conservative dumb asses, moderate (D) and extreme (R).

People like you wouldn't know a liberal if he bit you in the ass.

Splain please

SoftShell says

Why not? Libbys did....

Dan8267 says

Don't think you get to redefine a word just to mean something

Marriage equality is about equal rights under law for all people. It has nothing to do with redefining a word. The word marriage, as defined in secular law, is a legal entity not a religious or social institution.

The alternative to applying that legal entity to include same sex couples is to immediately repeal hundreds of thousands of laws that use the word "marriage" and that would be extremely disruptive to society.

If you want the word "marriage" to be defined as "one man and one woman" then that word should not appear in any law (federal, state, or local) or any government or business form. Create a new term if you want, but then that new term must used exclusively in all laws and all forms. To base ANY law or policy on the genders of persons is Unconstitutional and an affront to the very concept of equality under law.

It is the fault of you dumb ass conservatives for using the word marriage in law in the first place. A religious or social institution should have no place in secular law. Now either solve the problem by changing the wording of hundreds of thousands of laws and forms, or define the secular, legal definition to include same sex couples.

Also, you are missing the point. Redefining a legal term to refine its borders is a common and legitimate practice. It is the legal industry's equivalent of refactoring. Redefining a word in colloquial language for the purpose of preventing clear communication and discussion of a topic, which is what the idiot in the op video is doing, is nothing more than Newspeak.

Renaming a thing does not change it's essence. Expanding the scope of secular marriage to include same-sex couples ends the current system's violations of the 14th Amendment. And what possible legal justification can there be for taxing same-sex couples more than heterosexual couples? Or denying them spousal benefits like survival benefits?

You do realize that you are hurting our troops by opposing marriage equality? There are gay soldiers who give their lives for your country and then their spouses don't get survival benefits simply because they have the same genitals as their spouse. That's fucking Unamerican. Why do you want to hurt our troops?

ah sez bullllllsheeeet!

The word 'marriage' has been redefined to have different meanings over the centuries....

http://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html

implying that Indig by virtue of precedent, has the right to redefine any word he wants...

Don't think you get to redefine a word just to mean something

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Why not? Libbys did....

Dan8267 says

Don't think you get to redefine a word just to mean something

Marriage equality is about equal rights under law for all people. It has nothing to do with redefining a word.

more precedent to back Indigineous God given right to change word meanings:

say goodbye to the meaning of "sexual relations"...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/15-years-ago-bill-clintons-historic-denial/

say goodbye to the meaning of "is"

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

And Dan response

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk_-XWpUFmU

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't care.

That sums up all of your comments...

Certainly all responses to your posts.

I listened to about 3.5 minutes of that guys video. He's a black and white thinker.

According to him, if you're willing to even consider 2 sides of an issue, you're evil and wrong.

If you think it's even worth questioning whether we give terrorists reasons to hate America you're evil and you're wrong.

If you are willing to even consider the history of what has happened to Palestinians in Isreal, and the possibility that they have legitimate grievances against Isreal, you're evil and you're wrong. He's the one who is surely willing to lie about that history.

If you're willing to even consider the possibility that Iraq might have been better off leaving Saddam in power, you're evil and you're wrong.

I listened to enough to hear him very clearly making the opposite of the case he wants to make about how liberals think.

He's right actually. Liberals think.

Dan8267 says

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very
least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify
as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the
contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs
of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources
with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that
is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be
evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent
individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse
liberalism as a value.

In the earlier stages of human evolution one of the main dangers facing people was to be kicked out of the group/herd and hence become vulnerable to being mauled by a predator or be destroyed by warriors of other tribes. Acting in a self centered manner increased the odds that people would be banished from the group and therefore face these risks.

Currently the risk of being abandoned and mauled by a predator does not really exist in our society. In fact the likeliest of predators that we face are other humans. Hence sharing resources actually increases the risk of adverse effects as it opens up the possibility of manipulators/schemers to take advantage of the altruistic target.

dublin hillz says

Hence sharing resources actually increases the risk of adverse effects as it opens up the possibility of manipulators/schemers to take advantage of the altruistic target.

Social safety nets hardly create a life of luxury and ease. Your analysis applies far more readily to the parasites at the top of the food chain:
- bailed out bankers and executives
- financial industry professionals committing white-collar crimes without the fear of legal reprisal
- giving tax breaks to corporations and/or letting corporations "relocate" to avoid taxes
- allowing lobbyists to openly bribe politicians
- granting corporations the same rights as people

marcus says

According to him, if you're willing to even consider 2 sides of an issue, you're evil and wrong.

If you think it's even worth questioning whether we give terrorists reasons to hate America you're evil and you're wrong.

If you are willing to even consider the history of what has happened to Palestinians in Isreal, and the possibility that they have legitimate grievances against Isreal, you're evil and you're wrong. He's the one who is surely willing to lie about that history.

If you're willing to even consider the possibility that Iraq might have been better off leaving Saddam in power, you're evil and you're wrong.

I listened to enough to hear him very clearly making the opposite of the case he wants to make about how liberals think.

He's right actually. Liberals think.

After 3.5 minutes...

Dan8267 says

- bailed out bankers and executives

- financial industry professionals committing white-collar crimes without the fear of legal reprisal

- giving tax breaks to corporations and/or letting corporations "relocate" to avoid taxes

- allowing lobbyists to openly bribe politicians

- granting corporations the same rights as people

And not once will it occur to Dan that this is all done through the government.

The guy is just claiming sour grapes because liberals have taken over the social and governmental apparatus. He wishes the neo cons controlled it so they could indoctrinate and make people do what they want.
Two sides of the same coin- battle over control of institutions and govt to force people to do what you want

smaulgld says

He wishes the neo cons controlled it so they could indoctrinate and make people do what they want.

What is the neo con agenda? Or blind spot?

"loss of critical thinking"

Iraq has WMD.

I wouldn't want "to have an opinion" so I'll just believe the Fucking Lie.

I think I'm turning Conservative.