Current Politics & History Only Thread

[|iR|Focalor]

When ethical behavior has an associated cost, profit margins favor the least ethical actors.

We're big pharma. We're here to help.


http://havidol.com/index.php

[quadz]

Apple 1984–2018


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0S-3mI8aAo
<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/V0S-3mI8aAo/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V0S-3mI8aAo"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/V0S-3mI8aAo" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/V0S-3mI8aAo</a>

Seen in the comments:

"Introducing the iDealogue"

[|iR|Focalor]

"Those who seek to push hate, division, and violence: You have have no place on our platforms. You have no home here."

One particular comment:

In that case they reeeeally need to delete most of the rap songs on iTunes.....

Burnt.

On one hand, I don't really give a TRUE shit about the rights of some racist dingleberries. It's an ideology that just needs to go the fuck away already. And one might say, "Well if you censor that, it sets a precedent for yada yada yada..." But what you may not realize is that the precedent has ALREADY been set. The legal definition for what constitutes a "hate crime" in some places is very broad and ambiguous, usually saying something about "evidence of prejudice while committing an offense". In a way, you could prosecute MOST interpersonal offenses under that.

I can't say I feel these people do these kinds of things because their heart isn't in the right place. They mean well. And a well-meaning idiot can do as much damage as an ill-meaning enemy. I'd wait to see how they enforce that policy before drawing conclusions that they will be some kind of Ayn Rand-ish collectivist dictators repressing freedom of speech. I suspect they have a few bad actors in mind who they want to eliminate from their world. And as part of the terms of service no one is guaranteed a fucking thing ever, right? You pay for it, but if they want to, they can wave a magic wand and make it obsolete to-fucking-morrow, just to be dicks, just to fuck with ONE person, just because. I bought an Xbox, but they can update the shit and change it and fuck it up at will. I can bitch about it... that's really ALL I can do, though.

Society is reaching a tipping point obviously. People are tired of the bullshit in every form. I'm a gun owner, I love guns,... but I also own eyeballs and a brain. I see the shit on the news. Shootings happening all over the fucking place, ridiculous murder rates, robbery with guns. People are getting sick and fucking tired of living like this, always worrying about their safety, wondering when they send their kids off to school in the morning if they'll come home alive. Our track record as a society proves that statistically we are not capable of being responsible gun owners. And yeah, the statistics may prove that it's a very very very small number of fucked up individuals committing these acts, but... that small number is still enough on it's own to warrant deep concern. And it's not even a number. It's PEOPLE. Dead people. People like you. People like me. They had families and friends and shit to do tomorrow. And then someone killed them. To those few people affected by it, it changed their entire world. Is it any wonder they push so hard to do something to change things?

I'd vote against it, and I'd be sad to lose my guns, but if it actually happened... I can't say I couldn't understand the WHY of it.

[Golgo13]

That's pretty much what people do right now, but from what you've said, it seems to me that you've only skimmed over the brief synopsis of what those philosophies entail. I'd urge you and anyone else to learn about it EXTENSIVELY before claiming to espouse such a position.


Anarchy is bullshit unless you live alone on an island. Governing and committees are necessary. Even prison gangs govern by committee, and they care less about "law and order" than anyone else. Humans are animals, no different from the other hundreds of animals that we watch on nature shows narrated by David Attenborough. The simplest of insects organize. Even the more complex and intelligent animals like wolves hunt in collective packs in order to be more successful and survive. Anarchy simply isn't in our nature. We are a social animal. If that were not true, riots would be far more prevalent and prolonged than they are. Then again, sometimes riot are fairly organized events. Organized protests have the potential to become riots, and those rioters attack property and uniformed police, not each other. Further proof we are an animal with social instincts.

well i'm no guru when it comes to anarchism. however i do know  substantially more than the average joe about it. i engage lots of anarchists on social media. what we all have in common is the disdain for modern policing. the laws are written by criminal politicians. the people end up paying the price because the other sizeable portion of "statists" follow all the laws regardless if they're good or bad. i could give many examples but  i dont' really want to argue what is good or bad. i like agorism as a political philosophy.  i'm not claiming to be a hardcore anarchist myself. i do believe there should be rules, however we don't need a government to frame those rules. i believe in a more decentralized approach. "saloon rules" if you will.

there are many different typ[es of anarchists anarcho-capitalist anarcho-socialist etc etc.,  i sure would liek a good ol' minarchist republic however more often than not we are right back to a macron owned france with yellow vests besieging the city, "storming the bastille". only a few hundred years ago ppl wore different garments, with more aged technology. humanity has been going through revolutions for as long as we been here. instead of immune police having authority over  people, others have proposed security officers and insurance firms where there can be no monopoly, hence almost eliminating almost all corruption. no mandate to buy protection, you can defend your own property. no taxes, no bullshit. you decide your level of comfort. of course there is always the question of land ownership disputes but no system is perfect.

basically anarchy is leaving people the fuck alone. we have the technology to do it. without listening to some money grubbing dictator to buy up all the assets and politicians to go with it. there are a couple of anarchists who have very sound logical and rational arguments and solutions advocating an anarchy structure. larkin & rose. lysander spooner is also a good book i hear that has been named alot.  it makes the constitution look like an outdated document when you consider the freedoms they talk about.,

[|iR|Focalor]

Dear Anarchobabe,

I'd like to address your points.

#1, Public education is indoctrination. Eh, yes and no. If you wanna get really technical, ALL education is indoctrination. But when it's fairly widely agreed upon that a private school education is better quality in every measurable way than a public school education... then just how reliable and thorough is your indoctrination really going to be? Perhaps it depends a little more on the naiveté of the average student. And can a natural born idiot really be anything else? Probably not.

#3 and #6, Voting is an act of violence; Authority is an illusion. Maybe these are backwards. It might be more accurate to say that "Voting is an illusion." You see, our system of government is based on the ages old Roman one. Back then, senators were not elected by the people. They were high born folks with wealth, almost always with fathers or grandfathers who were senators. It was a lordship in everything but name. And these select people voted for the chancellor or president. "The Roman senate represents the people!" Uhkay... HOW? And fast-forward 2000 years... shit hasn't changed at all. YOU... are a lowly fuckin' bum. We don't allow YOU PEOPLE to vote for someone as important and prestigious as the president. You vote for a faceless nameless "electorate".... meh, bullshit, let's call it what it really is. Your vote is thrown away, it's a waste of a day, it's a wasted effort, it DOES NOT MATTER.

Furthermore, "Authority is an act of violence." The threat of force and violence is what motivates anyone. We're taught that peaceful protest is the way to get things done. We're shown examples of it like Martin Luther King Jr. But what you're not shown at the same time is all the OTHER race riots where he wasn't there. If you really want the government to notice you and take pause with the crooked shit they're doing... threaten to fucking kill them. Burn their shit down. Kick and beat on their doors with huge crowds holding torches. Violence is not the solution? Bullshit. Violence is the ONLY thing these people understand.

#7 Cops are gang members. Very true. But consider the whole system to be part of that gang as well. Consider the system of doing things in Italy for many centuries. Machiavelli, la cosa nostra. Is it any different from what a formal official government does? A rhetorical question... NO, there is no difference. The only difference between the mobster and the mayor is... circumstance. Both have equal opportunity to be benevolent or corrupt. The real difference is only ONE of them is unfortunate enough to get charged under the RICO statute when they get caught. And that really is a fucking shame if you ask me. With mobsters, you know where they stand. They'll put you in the trunk, drive you to the middle of nowhere, kneel you down, and blow the back of your head off. They're wolves. With mayors and government officials,... they pretend they don't ever cross over into that territory with their actions, you BELIEVE they don't and won't. They are wolves in sheeps clothing. Which is worse? At least the mobster is honest about what he does.

[Golgo13]

Dear Anarchobabe,

I'd like to address your points.

Furthermore, "Authority is an act of violence. If you really want the government to notice you and take pause with the crooked shit they're doing... threaten to fucking kill them. Burn their shit down. Kick and beat on their doors with huge crowds holding torches. Violence is not the solution? Bullshit. Violence is the ONLY thing these people understand.

well, it looks like you are in agreement with her basic points for the most part. believe me , this woman is a warrior, she had run ins with the police and she is fierce. sometimes she needs ppl to calm her down because she gets so passionate ( or emotional) she really wants everyone to have maximum freedom. you could debate her on her facebook page but be warned.  i'm sure she would not be like martin luther king for very long if the Shtf.

[|iR|Focalor]

"...if you want to date an anarchist woman."

Who the fuck would want to do that? Everything would be her looking for a reason to get offended about a situation so she could blame the state. She'd be in a perpetual bitchy mood. No thanks. Regular women are already bitchy enough.

[Golgo13]

"...if you want to date an anarchist woman."
 Regular women are already bitchy enough.

i don't disagree, you'd have to be right to break up with a piece of ass like that.

https://people.com/tv/pete-davidson-blocked-ariana-grande/

[quadz]

Stanford University Institutional Review Board:

[|iR|Focalor]

Okay. Alright. Now... I'm starting to wonder if this like a big elaborate reality show comedy sketch. There's no way "educated" people can be this stupid.

[Punk_FAS]

Stanford University Institutional Review Board:

WOW...

What is the exact context of this? Who are the people being shielded from having to debate someone else that has an opposing political view to theirs?

[haunted]

It's almost not surprising anymore.

[Sgt. Dick]

Snowflakes melt when the heat is turned on. 

[quadz]

What is the exact context of this? Who are the people being shielded from having to debate someone else that has an opposing political view to theirs?

In this particular case, it's feedback from the review board who are at this stage determining how much scrutiny a proposed academic study must at a minimum undergo before it has a chance of being approved.



But in the era of 'microaggressions' all the sensitivity dials of the bureaucratic machinery have been turned up past eleven for maximum ass-covering.

As one commenter in the thread puts it: The IRB concept was created to avoid people being used as guinea pigs for drugs etc. as a response to Nazi experiments. It wasn’t created to protect people from the “risks of solving puzzles or playing online games”.

[|iR|Focalor]

The IRB concept was created to avoid people being used as guinea pigs for drugs...

They still do that though. Opt-in AIDS and cancer patients. And... pretty much everyone else taking a prescription compound that's been on the market less than 15 years. Clinical trials aren't as thorough as they should be. And these companies argue that while they wait for testing, people are dying. But that's because they don't wanna come right out and say, WE'RE MISSING OUT ON PROFITS! They've already assumed the drug will kill people... or maybe they KNOW it will. They've done the math and figured out that their profits will exceed their liability.

Kinda scares me about getting old. Used to, I had to worry about my family history of heart disease. My old man had a heart attack years ago, and some blood thinner or cholesterol pill they prescribed came closer to killing him with permanent liver damage than the 90% blockage he had that required a 3 or 4 different bypasses, angioplasty and stints. Even now, if he eats certain kinds of food that requires heavy liver processing, his liver hurts him for hours at a time like someone is stabbing him. Pretty sure there's a class action suit against that drug now. He's not in on it because... nobody is gonna get paid jack shit unless they're dead. He's not. He's just feels like he's GONNA BE every time eats too much cheese.