Right-Wing German Extremists Tricked By Trojan Shirts

gzipped_tar writes "Fans at a recent right-wing extremist rock festival in Germany thought they were getting free T-shirts that reflected their nationalistic worldview. But after the garment's first wash they discovered otherwise. The original image rinsed away to reveal a hidden message from an activist group. It reads: 'If your T-shirt can do it, so can you. We'll help to free you from right-wing extremism.'"

Comments

Make all the t-shirts you want

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't going to work.

Re:Make all the t-shirts you want

[AvitarX]

The only violence in that video was done by swedes, I find that interesting.

Re:Make all the t-shirts you want

[Hognoxious]

It wasn't Swedes rioting and attacking ambulance and fire crews. You're either stupid or a liar.

Re:Make all the t-shirts you want

[AvitarX]

As a white american I'm a white invader. I don't self hate though.

I was pointing out the video was a bunch of hearsay by angry swedes, then a burning mosque.

Genius.

[mirix]

Too bad they didn't have cameras to record the nazi-rage reaction face.

Actually, since they're probably children, it would end up being their mom's reaction face when she is doing the laundry. Ah well.

Re:Genius.

[Q-Hack!]

Too bad they didn't have cameras to record the nazi-rage reaction face.

Actually, since they're probably children, it would end up being their mom's reaction face when she is doing the laundry. Ah well.

While this is probably the most probable scenario, It does give the parents an eye on what their kids are doing and will thus cause them to consider intervening in their development. If it causes at least one parent to positively change a kids direction in life, then it was well worth the money spent.

Re:Genius.

[artor3]

While some neo-Nazis are self-radicalized, most are raised that way. That's the point of these shirts. To try to sneak a message through to the kids and get them to reconsider whether they really want to follow in their parents' footsteps. With the adults, it's likely too late -- they're too set in their ways. Kids can still change.

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

Actually, since they're probably children

How do you know this?

Re:Genius.

[phantomfive]

Becoming a neo-nazi is considered a negative thing by everyone, except neo-nazis and morally impaired monkeys. Really, there are some things in life that are unambiguously, morally good.

Re:Genius.

[Your.Master]

Yes, that's what positively means. Although also ideally it would change the direction of their life in the way they like -- changing your mind doesn't mean permanent unhappiness.

I don't mean to be glib, but is there some problem with viewing changing kids' lives from neo-nazism as a good thing? It's not like this is a government fiat where they hold a gun to your head and tell you to believe; it's a charity advertising campaign.

I'm unclear what your position is. My guesses:

- A philosophical stance of non-interventionism under any circumstances? That seems to contradict you posting any argument.
- Neo-nazism sympathy?
- An irrelevant philosophical point that boils down to how morality cannot be derived from provable facts?
- Trolling?

Re:Genius.

[martin-boundary]

Let me get this straight: you're arguing that when a mom washes her kid's T-shirts that happen to have extremist slogans on them, she's totally oblivious. But if she washes one T-shirt that has the message "We'll help to free you from right-wing extremism.", then suddenly she's going to wonder what her kid is up to these days?

Have you thought any of this through?

Re:Genius.

[Belial6]

That isn't even close to true. Whether you are talking about slavery in the past, the destruction of entire cultures, refusing groups the right to vote, or letting murders walk free just because they have vaginas, ethical behavior is heavily in the eye of the beholder. In fact, hating people for being different has only been considered bad very recently in history. Just a couple of generations ago, it was just a given, and it was a given to virtually every culture on the planet.

Re:Genius.

[antifoidulus]

Its really hard to pinpoint an exact cause, but it should be noted that neo-nazism is much more prevalent in the former East Germany, with its much higher unemployment, than west, which is considerably richer. Furthermore its quite popular among young men without university educations, who get royally fucked over in Germany(not as bad as in the states, but still). All the strikes work out great for the older people who have jobs, but they make it much more unlikely the companies are going to hire any more people, which sucks hard for the young Germans.....

I also guess it really depends on what you define neo-nazism as, to some Germans doing anything that vaguely takes pride in some sort of German cultural identity is neo-nazisism, and to an extent I think the whole movement is just a response to that.....

But ultimately the extremists in Germany are largely comprised of the same types of people, those who cannot get meaningful jobs/work, as it is anywhere else in the rich world. You arent likely to see a lot of engineers in the hard core Japanese right wing socities, but you do see people who 30 years ago probably would have ended up in a factor with a decent middle class lifestyle. Likewise you arent going to see a lot of scientists in the religious right, but what you will see are people whose best hope in life is to get a job working at Wal-Mart for low pay and no benefits, people who again 30 years ago probably would have had a comfortable middle class lifestyle with a job that actually had at least some, maybe not a lot, but some significance. People need meaning in their lives, if they cannot find it at work, they are going to find some other cause to get behind, and the results are rarely pretty.

Re:Genius.

[mjwx]

Becoming a neo-nazi is considered a negative thing by everyone, except neo-nazis and morally impaired monkeys. Really, there are some things in life that are unambiguously, morally good.

Surely you mean "unambiguously, morally bad" as I think it's pretty clear that Neo-Nazism is not a good thing(TM).

Re:Genius.

[Pieroxy]

Have you thought any of this through?

First posts rarely think their post through.

Re:Genius.

[phantomfive]

oh, come on, don't be a hater! My sentence was clear!

Re:Genius.

[Joce640k]

Why would a hardcore extremist be living with mommy?

Are hardcore extremists actually washing their t-shirts...?

Re:Genius.

[Barsteward]

"morally impaired monkeys. "

don't slander the monkeys as they have more intelligence than a neo-nazi and look a lot cuter

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

Becoming a neo-nazi is considered a negative thing by everyone

That doesn't mean that it is negative.

Really, there are some things in life that are unambiguously, morally good.

To know that, you'd probably have to be able to prove the existence of absolute morals.

Re:Genius.

[Alex Belits]

30 years ago probably would have ended up in a factor with a decent middle class lifestyle.

Why? If they are poor now, there is no reason to expect that they would fare any better in 80's (or at any other point in history). You are trying to make parallels with post-WWI Germany where EVERYONE was worse off than before the war, but this just isn't the case. Poor and ignorant people are likely to blame other races and ethnicities for their misfortune regardless of any facts.

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

but is there some problem with viewing changing kids' lives from neo-nazism as a good thing?

That would depend on who you ask. If you're asking me, then I'd say no.

- An irrelevant philosophical point that boils down to how morality cannot be derived from provable facts?

Well, there's no evidence of absolute morals (that I know of). It appeared as though he stated something subjective (or, at least, I believe it to be subjective) as a fact, so I replied to it.

Re:Genius.

[artor3]

I'll tell you what. I'll waste time arguing with Nazis and proving them wrong just as soon as you prove that the moon is not made of cheese.

Re:Genius.

[phantomfive]

See, once upon a time, there was a guy named Zenos who proved that an arrow would never hit its target. And yet he would have been an idiot to stand in front of a flying arrow, because back in the real world, arrows hit their targets.

You can philosophize, write your nihilistic volumes showing whatever you want about morals, and yet back in the real world, neo-nazism will still be bad. Trying to argue otherwise makes you look silly. Or gets you modded down.

Re:Genius.

[sg_oneill]

You cant prove the existance of moral laws (they dont exist), but you can derive them via solid logic if you accept a couple of limited precepts. Kant for instance more or less derived an entire moral code from logically mapping the implications of the idea that the law of non-contradiction should apply to morals by arguing that it meant roughly "If you think its good for others then its good for yourself since a good thing cant be an evil thing and an evil thing cant be a good thing". And thats just one code. Benthem derived a compltely different set of moral laws by starting from "your actions ought maximise utility and not decrease it" more or less.

This is where people get confused. There are actually many moral codes, and many can be "proved". But sometimes those moral codes contradict each other and you have to evaluate them on their merits or argumentation to see who's moral claim seems most able to withstand scrutiny. Very few except those of the religionists are just plucked out of the air.

Re:Genius.

[Anonymous Coward]

... that washed out and advertised for gay something, i'd just use the free t-shirt to wipe my ass...

So the moral is that when you get gay propaganda you stick it up your arse?

Re:Genius.

[antifoidulus]

You might want to revisit your history before commenting. I wasnt trying to draw parallels to right after the war, I was trying to draw parallels to peak factory employment. Hell through the 50s and 60s Germany had so few young male workers that they had to import them "temporarily" from abroad. Thats part of how the whole immigration mess got started, at least there. From pretty much the early 50s to about 30 years ago factory jobs were plentiful, pretty much any (male) that wanted one could get one and could enter the middle class. Not to mention they were a hell of a lot more meaningful then walking around in a smock all day listening to people bitch you out.

Now unless you have an education, and sometimes even then, the # of jobs that are open to you that will provide a middle class lifestyle are almost non-existant if you dont already have one. Germanys GINI coefficient is rising, especially among the young.

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

I guess I just expect some degree of evidence before I'm willing to accept some things. And what "real world"? I'm fairly confident that moral relativism exists (I really don't understand what you meant by that comment).

Trying to argue otherwise makes you look silly.

To some people, perhaps.

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

I'll waste time arguing with Nazis and proving them wrong

I don't think I said anything about trying to prove Nazis wrong.

Re:Genius.

[JordanL]

Observe:

1. Assume logic exists.
2. Assume logic provides a way to eliminate falsehood.
3. Assume that this elimination is a incremental increase in truth.
4. Logic would then provide for us the most likely conclusion in any situation that we have 100% of the relevant information for.
5. The subjective point of view of other self-aware beings is relevant information to any interaction that you have with them.
6. To understand that half of the information for any exchange, (which is necessary for logic to work better by combining #3 and #4), is their subjective view-point and experience which requires the ability by definition to empathize.
7. Empathy requires emotional understand of another self-aware being.
8. Emotional understanding of a person and emotional destruction of a person are mutually exclusive actions.
9. Thus emotional understanding of a person is necessary for the most objectively truthful, and in many was the most objectively real interaction with any self-aware being.

This is not a proof, but I'm sure someone more learned than I could clean it up.

There are certain morals, such as the moral of doing unto others as you would have done to you, that are inherent to the state of self-aware beings forming societies and structures. The fact that no one has ever tried to prove it to you does not mean they can't. It is in fact much more likely that anyone who can is far too apathetic about the choices being made in society today to try and save it directly, and in that way, many people who could explain it just exemplify it when they can.

I understand that this is not a moral that you disagree with, or that you were disputing directly. You seem to have concluded that it was subjectively true for you, so I am not trying to "correct" you or "teach" you. Instead I am trying to give you a basis for the imperative of the reality surrounding your own consciousness. Trusting that it is true for you, and trusting that it is true, are very different things, and I encourage you to look within yourself in order to find greater subjective and objective truth.

Our own self-awareness is where knowledge leads to self-direction and organization, and it simply makes sense to turn over the organization and direction of our species to that thought process.

Re:Genius.

[Sique]

Kant's categorical imperative has a big problem, it leds to cattle cycles. If it is good for you to sell all your cattle now, it will be good for everyone, and everyone is selling cattle like crazy, bringing the price of cattle down etc.pp.

There is a similar problem with navigaton gear that tries to find automatic routes around a traffic jam. If every navigation device is using the same algorithm to determine the new route, those will be immediately be jammed too, because everyone is leaving the road and trying the same diversion.

Kant's categorical imperative, as fair as it might be in treating everyone equally, leads to a very unbalanced usage of ressources.

Re:Genius.

[Hognoxious]

There are certain morals, such as the moral of doing unto others as you would have done to you, that are inherent to the state of self-aware beings forming societies and structures.

Patently false, as any peasant who struck the king would soon find out.

You need to clarify to yourself whether you're describing the facts as they are or whether you're designing an ideal state.

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

6. To understand that half of the information for any exchange, (which is necessary for logic to work better by combining #3 and #4), is their subjective view-point and experience which requires the ability by definition to empathize.

Are you saying that in order to understand someone's point of view, you need to empathize with them? I don't think that's true. You can understand how they came to their conclusion without actually empathizing with them, as far as I know.

The fact that no one has ever tried to prove it to you does not mean they can't.

I didn't say otherwise. But I don't believe that someone can.

and it simply makes sense to turn over the organization and direction of our species to that thought process.

Wouldn't that depend on who you ask?

Re:Genius.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kant's categorical imperative has a big problem, it leds to cattle cycles. If it is good for you to sell all your cattle now, it will be good for everyone, and everyone is selling cattle like crazy, bringing the price of cattle down etc.pp.

I'd call that sophistry. While I see your point, you're also assuming a) that Kant's imperative applies equally well to moral as to financial decisions, that b) any moral decision has a 1:1 mapping to a person's actions and c) that the correct course of action is absolute, i.e. devoid of context or circumstance.

Re:Genius.

[maxume]

Well, no reason other than the robot invasion.

CNC machines took over a whole lot of medium skill jobs.

Re:Genius.

[silentcoder]

>8. Emotional understanding of a person and emotional destruction of a person are mutually exclusive actions.

This is just plain false. The very existence of psychological torture proves that you can understand somebodies emotions and then proceed to destroy them emotionally. If anything well-developed abilities at empathy makes those who would do so more effective.

Scientists largely believe now that empathy was developed as a defense mechanism. We evolved the ability to try and understand another person's thoughts and feelings primarily to allows us to better tell if we can trust that person, and recognize if they are lying. We turned it into a positive thing over time, that could build better social bonds, but it didn't start out that way and there is no reason it cannot be used in a negative way now (the new uses did not remove the originals - or prevent other more destructive new uses from developing).

The best generals are the ones who can predict the enemy's actions. The most destructive battles are fought by the leaders with the most empathy for the opponents.

Even then your entire rational is flawed as it fundamentally violates Aristotle's first law of logic. A thing cannot be other than itself.
Emotion by definition is not rational, logic by definition is rational.
Therefore emotion cannot be logical.

This is not entirely a bad thing. Human's are better off for having both.

If you want to make statements about logic I highly recomend you learn something about the subject first. For starters there are two major branches of logic. Inductive and Deductive logic. Only deductive logic results in necessary truth. And that comes with a caveat: deductive logic if properly followed means that if all the propositions are true, the conclusion MUST be true, if any of the propositions is false the conclusion MUST also be false.

More-over deductive logic cannot and never should be, directly applied to the real world. It doesn't work. It only applies to highly abstract constructs. Mathematics is built on deductive logic. Therefore it provides (within it's own framework) absolute truth. If I have an apple, and add another I will have two apples, and this will never change.
But in the real world - no two apples are the same size. So the weight of "apple mass" has changed by a different number. That's what I meant by (within it's own framework). The degree of truth is dependent on the level of abstraction.
To get the mass of apples, I must in the first case measure each apple's weight individually. That is to - get the truth in a more detailed abstraction my propositions must also be made more detailed.

Science mostly relies on inductive logic, and a fundamental part of the definition of inductive logic is that it NEVER gives you truth. It only gives you high probability.
A scientific experiment is a prime example of inductive logic. If I boil water, and it boils at the same temperature ten of 100 degrees celcius times- I can say with high probability that water at that temperature will boil. If I do it a million times the probability has gone up a lot. But it still isn't "truth". Just one out of a million times where it boils at a different temperature proves the theory false.
That's easy to do, just get higher above sea-level. On top of Mount Everest water boils at about 7 degrees celcius.
So we have to refine our theory - and now all we can say is "at sea-level, all other things being equal, water will boil at 100 degrees celcius".
That's science in a nutshell. Inductive logic, highly reliable (and increasingly moreso) results, but never truth. Because "all other things being equal" is an impossible suggestion. There will always be more to learn.

Don't try to analyze emotions with logic - it's as useless as the auditors in Terry Pratchett breaking down great works of art into component atoms in their fruitless search for "beauty" and being perplexed that the pigments of these beautiful works do not contain some special and previously unknown

Re:Genius.

[ultranova]

Why would a hardcore extremist be living with mommy?

Because living alone requires income, and I would imagine that wearing neo-nazi t-shirts would make it somewhat hard to find work, especially in Germany.

Re:Genius.

[ArsenneLupin]

The original T-Shirt had "Hardcore Rebellen, National und Frei" on it. Unless you already know who "Hardcore Rebellen" is, it's hard to figure out that this is a right-wing extremist group.

Well, maybe the word "National" may tip somebody off, but so many other things which have nothing to do with right-wing extremism have "national" in their name too, so you really have to already be looking for tell-tale signs to spot this. And the "tough" logo with skull and flags would look like generic rocker/biker wear to the uninitiated.

However, after the wash, the "We'll help to free you from right-wing extremism." is pretty obvious...

Re:Genius.

[jackbird]

Evidence? 8 million innocents butchered in the name of that ideology, plus tens of millions more (many of them civilians as well) killed in the struggle to defeat it.

If genocide occupies a hazy spot on your moral compass, I think it's safe to say you don't really have one, or at least haven't really thought at any length about what it means to take a life.

Re:Genius.

[Racemaniac]

nice argument

and what does that say about religion?

Re:Genius.

[HeckRuler]

That sir, is an awesome post. You should post more. It's important to remember that these crazy people have reasons that they're crazy. For all things a reason. The question then, is what the hell do we do about it? The factories have moved to third-worlds. There's a reason for that too, and they ain't coming back. What does an expensive first-world nation do with a glut of unskilled labor? And this problem is compounded by additional unskilled labor immigrating into the nation. I've nothing against immigrants. Know ye from whence ye came. But I think the racism and nationalism is just a convenient cover for the real antagonizing fact that they're facing additional competition for decent jobs. And there's a reason for the immigration too, shit sucks back in old country.

So how do we get everyone to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps?

Re:Genius.

[Machtyn]

You're not going to find a lot of scientists in the religious right? That's news to me. I would list a few tens of thousands scientists who also have a faith in God and practice that faith, but the exercise would be in vain.

Re:Genius.

[marnues]

Universal access to a Bachelor's degree. And I don't mean more college loans. Turn community colleges into free education centers with strong emphasis on communication AND technical training. I've met some amazing welders who still can't find work because they have no idea how to sell themselves or even get through an interview without being overwhelmed.

Re:Genius.

[gurps_npc]

Absolute morals DO exist.

Moral relativism is founded on contradictory ideas.

Everyone in the world knows what the word "good" means - even if they argue about what qualifies as good.

The fact that people disagree over what which ACTIONS are 'good', does not mean they disagree about what 'good' is.

Some people are wrong, some theories are wrong.

The mere fact that we can argue about what actions are good and what actions are evil is proof that we agree about the definitions of good and evil - we just disagree about who is good and who is evil.

It's kind of like an argument about how to make the best lemonade - the fact that we argue about the proper ingredients means we both agree about what lemonade is supposed to be.

Re:Genius.

[jahudabudy]

You need to clarify to yourself whether you're describing the facts as they are or whether you're designing an ideal state.

He was describing a moral code, which is pretty much by definition an ideal state (given the assumptions of that moral code as to what "ideal" means). To what degree this code correlates to the facts as they are, well, different people will have different perspectives. Just because you can demonstrate that certain behaviors exist does not demonstrate that they should. Unless you subscribe to Leibiniz's theory that this is the best of all possible worlds, of course.

Re:Genius.

[h4rr4r]

Because most of them are unemployed and often on welfare of some form.

Re:Genius.

[tehcyder]

If it causes at least one parent to positively change a kids direction in life, then it was well worth the money spent.

What does "positively" mean? Changing the direction of their life in a way that you or their parents like?

Yes.

There is no possible situation in which it would be good for a child to become a neo-nazi, any more than to become a serial killer or paedophile rapist. If you can stop them going down that road at an early age, all well and good.

Re:Genius.

[tehcyder]

I see there are some neo Nazi mods at work glorifying shit like this as insightful. You keep your oh-so-subltele philosophical musings to yourself while the rest of us try to nip this cancer in the bud.

Re:Genius.

[tehcyder]

You're either a troll or a retard. How is it not obvious that fascism/neo-Nazism is wrong? Because Mussolini got the fucking trains running on time, or whatever pathetic excuse people use? Grow up.

In the real world, fascism/nazism results in genocide, the crushing of individual liberty and freedom of expression, aggressive war-mongering, intellectual morbidity and bad art.

Re:Genius.

[tehcyder]

Well, there's no evidence of absolute morals (that I know of)

There is no evidence or proof of absolute love, kindness, generosity, helpfulness, or beauty either. That doesn't mean there is no such thing as love, kindness, generosity, helpfulness or beauty.

Your point is a trifling philosophical quibble.

Re:Genius.

[lahvak]

Even those.

Re:Genius.

[tehcyder]

Why would a hardcore extremist be living with mommy?

What, when he will obviously be working as a highly paid doctor or engineer?

Hint: most neo-nazis are unemployed morons.

Re:Genius.

[tehcyder]

Anders Behring Breivik(the Norway bomber/shooter) lived with his mom in Oslo on the weekends

He had to get laid somehow.

Re:Genius.

[Deus.1.01]

That even if it was to magically pop out of existence there would still be irrational fuckwads.

Re:Genius.

[tehcyder]

People need meaning in their lives, if they cannot find it at work, they are going to find some other cause to get behind, and the results are rarely pretty.

I don't want to sound nit-picky, but work does not give meaning to most people's lives: it gives them money.

Re:Genius.

[Mr. Slippery]

Everyone in the world knows what the word "good" means

Ok, then what does it mean? In the context of "good" and "evil", that is; good is the sense of "of superior quality" is clear.

It's kind of like an argument about how to make the best lemonade - the fact that we argue about the proper ingredients means we both agree about what lemonade is supposed to be.

That does not follow. There is a lot of crap out there being sold as "lemonade" that would not qualify as such at all under my definition. Is "lemonade" a beverage made with lemons, juice, and sugar? Or can other sweeteners be used and the product still be "lemonade"? What about some beverage made from powder? Using artificial lemon flavoring? There are many possible definitions of "lemonade".

Similarly, there are many possible definitions of "good". There are people out there who believe that "good" is exactly and only what their deity says is "good". There are utilitarians who believe that "good" is defined by the greatest benefit to the greatest number. There are Kantians who define "Good" by the categorical imperative. There are sensualists who say if it feels good, it is good. All have quite different definitions.

Re:Genius.

[phantomfive]

lol oh yeah? You have no problem with killing a billion people for no reason?

Re:Genius.

[c6gunner]

You're not going to find a lot of scientists in the religious right? That's news to me. I would list a few tens of thousands scientists who also have a faith in God and practice that faith, but the exercise would be in vain.

*sigh* Do you even know what a strawman is?

He said in the religious right. As in, the far-right fanatics who want to make every kid pray in school, and believe Jesus rode around on a Raptor. How many scientists do you suppose you'll find amongst those retards, hrm?

Scientists are less likely to be religious in general, but they are far less likely to be part of extremist religious organization. The more extreme/fundamentalist the christian group, the less likely it is to have any scientists in it. And the few scientists who happen to be members will be guys like Ken Ham - people with dubious educational backgrounds, who have made no significant contributions to their supposed "profession".

Re:Genius.

[HeckRuler]

Decent idea. 1) Some people cannot learn calculus. They simply don't have the background and/or mental capacity.
2) What's the point of having more English or Philosophy majors?
3) Teaching people how to sell themselves and how to interview isn't something that colleges usually do. I mean, it sounds like a good idea. My college had a career services department that could help with that if you asked, but they were pretty lonely there.
4) Who goes to what college. I mean, I would have loved to go to MIT, but that wasn't going to happen.
How about we start tracking people into different categories post-highschool: STEM colleges for the smart people that actually do stuff. Colleges with other bullshit degrees for future office drones. Trade schools for skilled laborers. And straight into the work force for the poor shmucks doing unskilled labor. Although I guess they could drop out any time.

Re:Genius.

[Machtyn]

Usually when I think of Religious Right, I'm not thinking the extremists. Particularly, because the people saying religious right as a derogatory term are so far un-religious that I would seem fanatical to them. So, we've suffered an issue of mis-communication in definitions.

Re:Genius.

[Alsee]

Proposition 1: This triangle is blue.
Proposition 2: All blue things have three corners.
Conclusion: This triangle therefore has three corners.

Proposition A: Proposition 2 is false.
Proposition B:

deductive logic if properly followed means that if all the propositions are true, the conclusion MUST be true, if any of the propositions is false the conclusion MUST also be false.

Conclusion: The triangle therefore does NOT have three corners. :D
-

Re:Genius.

[ShakaUVM]

Your assumptions are wrong. Engineers have a know bias toward conservative and uberconservative thinking. Look up the Salem Hypothesis for a particularly noxious explanation of this phenomenon.

Likewise, there's lots of Christian scientists. Don't let your blinders get in your way. Idiot Young Earth fundies are not equatable to Christianity in general, or even the "Religious Right".

The simple fact is, there tends to be a lot of latent anger in some marginalized groups. The recent riots in an otherwise peaceful and liberal London is a great example of that.

As long as European countries persist in amti-business policymaking, they're going to have these problems.

Re:Genius.

[JordanL]

Understanding how they came to their conclusion is not the same thing as understanding their subjective point of view.

Re:Genius.

[JordanL]

Even then your entire rational is flawed as it fundamentally violates Aristotle's first law of logic. A thing cannot be other than itself. Emotion by definition is not rational, logic by definition is rational.

Perhaps you misunderstand. I was not saying AT ALL that emotion was logical, I was saying that emotion was information, and information is necessary for logic to work upon.

Re:Genius.

[JordanL]

You should stop looking at what I posted with binary thinking. The statements I was making do not describes states, they describe scales. That is, greater degrees of "the golden rule" and empathy are present in more complex societies, perhaps simply because the part of our brain that empathizes is also the part that makes complex societies possible.

The more complex the society, the more likely it is to have moral values closer to a few core values, and the reverse is true as well. One is not dependent on the other, they are co-existent states, where the degree of one generally trends toward the degree of the other.

Re:Genius.

[gurps_npc]

You keep arguing about the SPECIFICS, but not the general factors, which is my point.

No one ever mistakes Coffee for Lemonade. No one ever mistakes Good for something else. We all know what the word means, the specific definition that you are trying to use is a problem with the LANGUAGE(s), not the concept. The fact that untrained people, who do not use the same technical terms, let alone the same language, is not a problem with the concept.

Yes, there are arguments about the edges, but the core concept is universal. Those examples that you gave prove my point.

The religious folk are using the same definition of good as the utilitarian - but they are using different words and means of figuring out what actions are good.

No one ever says "I thought good meant exhausting activities."

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

Those are emotions that can be (supposedly) felt by people. That's really all the "evidence" that there is. I'll choose to believe in them, though, because I have no reason not to.

However, when someone expects me to believe that there is a certain set of morals (which seem to be no different than opinions) that are correct (because the magical moral fairy said so), and they have no evidence to prove it, I will question them (just like if someone claimed that god exists).

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

How is it not obvious that fascism/neo-Nazism is wrong?

Because that's just an opinion (or so I believe).

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

I didn't say that you couldn't try to stop it if you believe that it is wrong. I just meant that there is absolutely no evidence (that I know of) for absolute morals, so I don't think that their existence should be stated as a fact.

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

Where did I say that? Not believing in absolute morals doesn't mean that you don't believe in morals at all. It just means that everyone has their own moral code, and none of them are inherently wrong. It also doesn't mean that you can't try to stop people who you deem as doing wrong.

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

There is no possible situation in which it would be good for a child to become a neo-nazi, any more than to become a serial killer or paedophile rapist.

That would depend on who you ask. I'm sure most would find it to be bad, though.

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

Moral relativism is founded on contradictory ideas.

I'm pretty sure it's founded on the ideas that morals are little more than opinions.

Everyone in the world knows what the word "good" means - even if they argue about what qualifies as good.

I don't know what it means until the person I'm asking explains what they think it means.

Some people are wrong, some theories are wrong.

How do you know that? How can you tell which ones are "wrong"?

The mere fact that we can argue about what actions are good and what actions are evil is proof that we agree about the definitions of good and evil

I really don't know what you mean. What does "good" mean? What does "evil" mean? Why are some people who claim that certain people are or aren't evil "wrong" while others aren't? How so? Too many unexplained things.

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

Evidence? 8 million innocents butchered in the name of that ideology, plus tens of millions more (many of them civilians as well) killed in the struggle to defeat it.

That sounds like more of an appeal to emotion than anything else. How is that factually "wrong"? How do you know? Who decided that it is? While I personally think that it is, that doesn't mean that it is universally "wrong."

Re:Genius.

[c6gunner]

Usually when I think of Religious Right, I'm not thinking the extremists. Particularly, because the people saying religious right as a derogatory term are so far un-religious that I would seem fanatical to them.

I'm about as un-religious as you can get, but, unless you buy into the YEC nonsense and want to repeal the abortion laws and "Un-Gay Dem Homo-Sexuals", I doubt I'd consider you a fanatic. I might think you're a silly bugger, but certainly not a fanatic :)

To be fair, "religious right" is a spectrum that goes from relatively rational individuals to complete lunatics. Bush would have been classed as part of the religious right, but I don't consider him a fanatic (even if he did like to make policy decisions based on talks with an invisible friend). The "Tea-Party" would be considered part of the religious right at this point (though it started off libertarian) but I wouldn't class all of them in the "crazy" category. Then again, Michelle Bachman seems to be their current darling, and she's definitely an extremist.

Sadly, the biggest problem the right-wing currently has in the US is the extremist religious component. Personally, I liked Bush. I liked McCain; I would have voted for him over Obama, if I were an American. But Obama vs. Bachmann? It's not even a contest. As long as the right wing continues to be controlled by religious fanatics, they're going to have a hell of a time trying to get their candidate elected.

Anyway, this is turning too political. The point was that the more religious a group is, the fewer scientists they tend to have amongst their ranks. So yeah, the religious community as a whole tends to have a lower ratio of scientists than the general population, the Republican-and-Christian subset has less than that, and the Republican-and-crazy-Christian subset has even less than that. How many are in your definition of "religious right" depends on where in the spectrum you take your sample.

Re:Genius.

[deesine]

"none of them are inherently wrong"

Is that true, in an absolute way?

Re:Genius.

[Cederic]

5 billion short, by my reckoning.

Or aren't you _serious_ about saving the planet?

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

I was just describing the belief that there are no absolute morals.

Re:Genius.

[Qzukk]

Is that true, in an absolute way?

Only sometimes.

Re:Genius.

[Musc]

While I haven't asked every person on earth, based on what I do know, most people on earth agree that it is wrong. If most people agree it is wrong, then wouldn't you call that universal, or close to it?

Re:Genius.

[cheekyjohnson]

If most people agree it is wrong, then wouldn't you call that universal, or close to it?

Calling it universal would be wrong. Because it wouldn't be.

And a lot of people believing something does not make it true. And by "universally wrong," I meant that some magical force whose opinions are absolute decides whether something is factually "right" or "wrong." Or however the people who believe in absolute morals believe the "correct" moral code is "decided."

Re:Genius.

[Tarsir]

How about we start tracking people into different categories post-highschool: STEM colleges for the smart people that actually do stuff. Colleges with other bullshit degrees for future office drones.

The mindless IT drone looks at the mindless office drone and congratulates himself on his superiority.

Re:Genius.

[Sique]

No, it is not. It states explicitly: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." Kant' categorical imperative seeks universality. It talks about maxims, not about context and circumstances. If something is right for one person, it has to be right for all people. If something is just for a situation, it has to be just in general.

Re:Genius.

[phantomfive]

Or aren't you _serious_ about saving the planet?

No, not at all. It is just one out of many.

Re:Genius.

[shutdown -p now]

Having faith in God != religious right. Most Christians in the world aren't extremists.

Re:Genius.

[silentcoder]

I did say "if you follow all the laws of logic properly"... you broke about three others with your example. To start with: you begged the question.

Re:Genius.

[Hognoxious]

You should stop looking at what I posted with binary thinking.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? You stated something as a fact, I provided a counterexample, which is sufficient to disproive it and show up your woolly wishful thinking.

That is, greater degrees of "the golden rule" and empathy are present in more complex societies

One, that's nothing like what you originally wrote.

Two, citation needed.

Three, wrong. Medieval China was certainly a more complex society than, say, a traditional tribe of Australian aborigines. Do you think a society in which the vast majority were essentially slaves demonstrates the golden rule and empathy?

Re:Genius.

[Alex Belits]

CNC machines were supposed to take a whole lot of medium skill jobs. Then everything got outsourced, and people were just thrown into pointless paper-pushing, retail and other jobs that paid about what factory worker would be paid -- they just don't produce anything.

Re:Genius.

[maxume]

Everything didn't get outsourced. Take a look at steel production; sure, U.S. production is a much smaller chunk of total global output than it was 30 years ago, but the absolute output numbers are about the same, or maybe a little higher. So two things happened, there were large production increases elsewhere and per worker productivity increases here.

Re:Genius.

[Alex Belits]

Take a look at steel production; sure, U.S. production is a much smaller chunk of total global output than it was 30 years ago, but the absolute output numbers are about the same, or maybe a little higher.

Steel production within US territory, or steel production by US-owned companies?

So two things happened, there were large production increases elsewhere and per worker productivity increases here.

Really?

At this point productivity of foreign worker is just counted as "productivity" of people who handle import, as from US-centric point of view they "created the value". In this (insane) model product can just as well grow on trees because foreigners' labor cost is negligible compared to "administrative cost" of dragging it through US and shoving it down consumer's throat. Americans are not paid much less, they just have unproductive jobs that they are constantly afraid of losing.

Re:Genius.

[maxume]

http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/
http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/ironsteel.pdf

Feel free to conflate and construe, but it is pretty clear that raw steel production and imports are treated differently.

My statement that production is maybe higher is incorrect, blame my memory, but U.S. steel production has only dropped off by about 20% from the peak (and prior to the recession, it was at higher levels than most of the 20th century), while global production has continued to grow and grow.

Re:Genius.

[Alex Belits]

Some of those numbers unrealistically change between years -- this suggests that some creative accounting was going on.

There is also a matter of US population growth (more than 10% per decade) over the whole period. Per capita production significantly dropped no matter how you look at it.

Re:Genius.

[maxume]

Stupid facts and their stupid existence.

My mistaken assertion that the industry may have grown was not my main point, my main point was that automation has very actively reduced the number of people employed in that industry, while maintaining significant levels of production.

Re:Genius.

[Alex Belits]

my main point was that automation has very actively reduced the number of people employed in that industry, while maintaining significant levels of production.

But is there any evidence of that? That each ton of steel produced in US requires less man-hours of steel workers now compared to, say, 80's? It probably would be the case for complex machined metal products. However those benefited from CNC mills and at the same time were largely replaced with foreign stamped sheet metal, thus still implementing the same outsourcing mechanism with no overall improvement in technology (from engineering point of view, and as far as flexibility is concerned, stamped metal is inferior technology, so it cancels few CNC mills and laser cutters).

Re:Genius.

[maxume]

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs014.htm

Re:Genius.

[Alex Belits]

Recent developments. Steel manufacturing is an intensely competitive global industry. By continually improving its manufacturing processes and consolidating businesses, the U.S. steel industry has increased productivity sufficiently to remain competitive in the global market for steel. Investment in modern equipment and worker training transformed the industry. Over the past 25-30 years, steel producers have, in some cases, reduced the number of work-hours required to produce a ton of steel by 90 percent.

To achieve these productivity improvements as well as product improvements, steel mills employ some of the most sophisticated technology available. Computers have been essential to many of these advancements, from production scheduling and machine control to metallurgical analysis. For workers, modernization of integrated, EAF, and finishing mills often has meant learning new skills to operate sophisticated equipment.

Those are not really usable numbers -- I am sure, a company that switched from local manufacturing to import or operating factories abroad can claim 90% of workforce reduction. And claims of "remain[ing] competitive in the global market for steel" don't exactly match with very small amount of export and increasing amount of import. The table describing expected employment is consistent with declining amount of production, and is not really related to history.

Re:Genius.

[maxume]

Right, because you say so, it is obvious that the BLS uses terms like 'manufacturing processes' and 'produce' to describe the importation of material.

Re:Genius.

[Mr. Slippery]

No one ever mistakes Good for something else.

I'm sorry, but that's not correct. The Nazis thought they were doing good. The Confederates thought they were doing good. The Unabomber thought he was doing good. Except for the occasional psychopath, no one who does what the rest of us call "evil" thinks to his or her self, "I'm going to go do evil."

Many horrors are perpetrated by people who, by their lights, are doing good -- they're defending their people against not-really-human barbarians, for example, or they're using harsh measures on somebody for that person's own benefit. It's the highest good to burn someone at the stake, it will save their immortal soul from eternal damnation. It's the highest good to slaughter that other tribe, they don't really have souls and we need to protect the True People. Et cetera, et cetera, for thousands of bloody years.

We all know what the word means, the specific definition that you are trying to use is a problem with the LANGUAGE(s), not the concept.

If you can't define it, you don't have a concept, you have an emotional state. It's fine to figure in emotion, but "the good is that to which I have a positive emotional reaction" is still not a universally accepted definition of good.

Re:Genius.

[Alex Belits]

Right, because you say so, it is obvious that the BLS uses terms like 'manufacturing processes' and 'produce' to describe the importation of material.

Companies do -- by outsourcing formerly local production. Then company can claim "90% reduction" while actually increasing administrative and sales overhead.

In any case, even consumption of steel is growing slower than population, what means that production of anything that uses steel (what includes everything where aforementioned CNC machinery is involved) is being shifted abroad.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Opportunist]

As long as there's one, there's at least one too many.

I guess it depends on what you'd count towards "Neo Nazis". Just those that actually believe the bull, or generally everyone who enjoys freezing their brains and beating up people who look different?

Re:how big is the movement?

[Penguinisto]

I'm guessing that, since NSDAP symbology and speech is illegal in Germany, it would be slightly hard to tell. They couch it into as many subtleties as they can for the most part. Aside from the occasional concert or march, you'd likely have an easier time finding neo-nazis in Idaho than you would in Germany.

That is awesome

[KingSkippus]

That is one of the most awesome ideas I've read about. I especially liked the part where they acknowledged that it probably won't do any good now, but it plants the name in their heads for when they're ready to get out of their extremist organization.

Say, anyone want to chip in for some t-shirts to give away at the next Tea Party convention?

Re:That is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, you could double a Tea Partyer's knowledge of economics with a message printed on a t-shirt.

Re:That is awesome

[rolfwind]

'government spending destroys jobs'

It can. The money has to come from somewhere. It all depends on how much. And it also depends what it is spent on. This all harkens back to the broken window fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

But it's not a hard and fast rule. But 3-second soundbites rule the day. But not all jobs are good either. Toll booths collectors are jobs. But they add nothing to anybody's standard of living (decrease it actually, except their own, and those above in the bureacratic structure they support) nor make anything of benefit to anybody.

Re:That is awesome

[rolfwind]

Say, anyone want to chip in for some t-shirts to give away at the next Tea Party convention?

I met a lot of ignorant Tea Partiers, but they seem to be at the bottom level. But many of the upper level people have a grasp.

The thing is, on the Democratic side, I have seen much of the same thing. The average voter is pretty ignorant, period.

Now, I know it went from a Ron Paul/Libertarian founded group to a Fox News/GOP overtaken "organization", but honestly, I find the heaps of scorn it recieves a bit ironic, as most Democrats (and the mainstream Democratic, and Republican Party) are just as bad.

Voodoo economics all around.

Re:That is awesome

[phantomfive]

In some places that might make sense, but when Boehner talked about Obama's "Job destroying spending" he was using a rhetorical trick, and he was completely wrong. The spending Obama did was in the present, and it most certainly created jobs, and the money to do so came from China and from the Federal Reserve. At some time in the future it might hurt, but right now it certainly did not.

Re:That is awesome

[artor3]

What a load of crap. A conservative, writing for a conservative paper, looks at some polls. He labels the answers he disagrees with as "unenlightened" and then feigns surprise when the people he disagrees with are most likely to choose the "unenlightened" answers. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with him is "dumber than a fifth grader". Ironically, a fifth grader could probably see the flaw in his logic.

And it's not like these questions have hard and fast answers. Let's look at some examples:

"Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree)"

Excuse me, but whose standard of living is he talking about? For the bottom sixty percent of Americans (also known as "the majority"), their inflation adjusted income has declined over the past thirty years. And meanwhile the safety nets meant to keep them out of the gutter have been systematically shredded. Welfare is gone, the current batch of Republicans already voted to end Medicare and will do so if they ever get a majority, and Social Security is undoubtedly next on the hit list. Of course, if you're talking about the looters in the top 1%, they're doing great.

"Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree)"

Are you fucking kidding me? I, personally, have see my overseas coworkers get exploited. The statement wasn't that every third world worker gets exploited. This guy's an absolute hack. But what else could one expect from a Murdoch-owned rag like the Wall Street Journal?

Re:That is awesome

[glodime]

That survey is bias and very uninformative. I would bet that your answer would be scored as incorrect even though you recognize that there is a conditional answer. You would be forced choose between 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure, you might be tempted to choose 3. I would argue that the correct answer to many of the survey questions is 5 due to lack of information or ambiguity in the questions.

For example:

5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).

So I'm supposed to agree that there are no such workers being exploited; there is no undocumented slavery connected to any American company? I'm supposed to agree on the surveyor's definition of exploitation?

This is not to say that self identified liberals aren't less knowledgeable of economic theory or data. I'm simply saying that the survey is poorly designed.

Re:That is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

The money has to come from somewhere.

Fiat currency is created ex nihlo.

Re:That is awesome

[pecosdave]

People think I'm stupid for being a Libertarian. I've never taken them seriously, because look at the source. I like the article, thanks.

Re:That is awesome

[glodime]

Also the survey was only given to actively enrolled college students. Without looking, I assume that the majority are freshmen and self identify as liberal.

Re:That is awesome

[dunkelfalke]

I don't know what Germany's Rightwingers are like, but I know ours have lost their minds.

The summary was somewhat misleading. In Germany, there is nothing similar to the tea party kind of right wing nutters, just more or less openly radical neo-nazis. And exactly that kind of people was tricked by that awesome t-shirt.

Re:That is awesome

[glodime]

You should read what Nate Silver had to say about that survey:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/are-you-smarter-than-george-mason.html

Re:That is awesome

[artor3]

You arrogant twit. I get my data directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, same as your graph. But unlike you, I restricted the query to wage earners, instead of letting executives and wall street looters pull up the average.

Stop repeating the drivel you heard from Lord Murdoch and get your own facts.

Re:That is awesome

[drolli]

Just sent one to everybody who owes more than one months salary to the the credit card companies.

Re:That is awesome

[rolfwind]

The spending Obama did was in the present, and it most certainly created jobs, and the money to do so came from China and from the Federal Reserve. At some time in the future it might hurt, but right now it certainly did not.

How can that be said when days ago we just had a downgrade in credit and the market is bleeding?

The stimulus may have cost $278k per job, some of that analysis though is handwaving and ignoring the value of the few infrastructure investments themselves (hardly hoover dam projects though, bunch of little meaningless crap), but there is some ugly truth to that. Maybe, as a nation, we should be asking "Did we gain productivity" or something.

We always use the wrong metrics to measure the health of the economy. In the mid-00s, it was all about rising home values. That was kinda ignoring the downside to that besides the craziness of the values themselves. Namely expensive homes = expensive housing. This hearken back to the 1920-30s where Government started tax benefits to make everyone a home owner and setting off the 1950s suburban craze... which is a f-ing inefficient model for an entire nation's use of various resources but I digress....

Or maybe forgo stimulus packages altogether. I think Japan had at least a dozen since it's slump in the early 90s, and all it got for its efforts is a massive debt. IIRC, Bush did 5 of them, 3 of them in his last two years, and it didn't do squat as far as warding off the economic slump near the end of his term.

Corrections have to happen. I would almost rather give welfare to out of work people for a year or two to tide them over until the bottom passes rather than make stimulus packages where some of that money goes to "jobs"/"wages" and the rest to Corps building worthless shit. From what I have seen, wages of the middle classe and lower have stagnated since the 1970s, and CEOs/VPs and the like certainly don't need the taxpayer's help.

Re:That is awesome

[artor3]

The difference is that the wacko left-winger Democrats are kept out in the fringe, whereas the wacko Tea Party types have essentially taken over the Republican party. This situation is made worse by the fact that those same nitwits who control the GOP are receiving their marching orders from Fox News, as you said. So nearly half the government of the United States is now directly controlled by a single corporation. If that doesn't terrify you, it should.

Re:That is awesome

[lexsird]

Wow, neo-nazis are still around? Openly at that? They are lucky someone just gave them a trick t-shirt and not a hail of pipe bombs into their crowd. That is the problem with being a radical, nature will provide a polar opposite to you just to even things out.

Re:That is awesome

[lavagolemking]

but check out this graph for one counterpoint.

Would have been nice to cite the full-size image, or the article in which it appears, rather than a badly resized Google image result, but whatever. The graph you cited compares hourly wages to productivity, and I'm not sure how that relates to standard of living rather than employee productivity. Within its context the graph pretty poorly done; the axis aren't labeled ($140 per hour in 2005?), the description is vague, nothing is said about what was actually measured (or how) and I'd be willing to bet any mention of standard of living doesn't even account for inflation over the 55 years it covers.

Any serious analysis (read: not partisan) of standard of living will show that for most people in the US in the last 30 years, it's gotten better.

Now go and enlighten yourself.

Forgive me for being blunt here, but based on your original post (with a questionable source), and your relatively hostile response to criticism of said post, it looks like the only person stuck on partisan analysis here is you.

Re:That is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah these 'terrorists' are completely wacko for wanting, Limited Government, Fiscal Responsibility, Free Markets and Government Accountability.

Re:That is awesome

[Chris Mattern]

Toll booths collectors are jobs. But they add nothing to anybody's standard of living

Not true. They make it possible to fund roads, which add to people's standard of living (if they didn't, people wouldn't be willing to pay to drive on them).

Re:That is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about, "kept out in the fringe"? A left-winger whacko democrat is in the whitehouse, for g-d's sake.

Re:That is awesome

[mcvos]

The spending Obama did was in the present, and it most certainly created jobs, and the money to do so came from China and from the Federal Reserve. At some time in the future it might hurt, but right now it certainly did not.

How can that be said when days ago we just had a downgrade in credit and the market is bleeding?

The stimulus is only a drop in the bucket compared to the scale of the US's financial problems. The two big ones are the Bush tax cuts and the increased military spending (Iraq and Afghanistan, mostly). These didn't benefit anyone except the millionaires and the military-industrial complex. I'm not claiming that the stimulus was money well-spent, but there are far, far bigger issues that need to be addressed, and the US government is refusing to do so. That is why the credit rating was downgraded.

Re:That is awesome

[Permutation Citizen]

"Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree)"

You can't reply to this question with inflation adjusted income. On many points our standard of living have progressed a lot.

Consider quality/price ratio of a recent car compared to one 30 years ago. Consider price of traveling. Consider price of telecommunications. Health has gotten more expensive, but quality has much improved.
About music, well, 30 years ago it was the 80s...

Of course on other important points, we have a regression.

Re:That is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Nancy Pelosi has been "kept out in the fringe"? News to me...

Re:That is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really extremist to insist that a government spend within it's means, and not to feed more cash to a government that can't control it's spending.

That's pretty much the point that Tea Party is trying to make, those goose-stepping Nazis.

Re:That is awesome

[kaizokuace]

you think music today is better than it was in the 80's?

Re:That is awesome

[The Master Control P]

In what universe is openly being giddy at the prospect of forcing the US into default (because if we don't get absolutely everything we demand we'll burn it all down instead) fiscally responsible? In what universe is wanting the government to dictate what consenting adult I can marry and place religious monuments in courts and government buildings a reflection of limited government?

Words Mean Things, and claiming to be whatever Fox News says Republicans are does not, in fact, make it so.

Re:That is awesome

[INT_QRK]

Speaking of "fringe," one example would be the Congressional Progressive Caucus, right? Occasionally amused, but never terrified. Then, again I avoid getting stirred up by MSNBC...by flipping away. (You started it.)

Re:That is awesome

[GospelHead821]

I've had that argument before, too. The counterargument could be that foreign workers enter into employment with American companies willingly because the American companies offer better wages/benefits than foreign companies. My bone with that line of thinking is that it doesn't account for the possibility that foreign companies exploit their workers a lot and American companies just exploit them less. Just because the poor guy caught in the middle has to choose between three evils (terrible work, bad work, and not putting food on the table) doesn't mean that he's NOT being exploited.

Re:That is awesome

[Solandri]

Both parties suffer from too much control by extremists. A two-party system combined with elections where you can vote for only one candidate results in political over-representation of the extremes. If you assume Americans' political affiliations form a normal distribution, the bulk of our representatives should be moderates in the center. But the two-party system eliminates those moderates in the primaries. Instead, the Democratic party ends up selecting on average candidates who are center in their party, meaning they fall about 1/3rd of the way from extreme left. And the Republican party does the same, resulting in their candidates being about 1/3rd of the way from extreme right.

So while the bulk of American voters may be moderates and centrists, the extremists are able to use the two-party system to get more extreme candidates into office. This is why both parties are unable to compromise on seemingly anything. Each representative dutifully carries out the political wishes of the ~55% of people who voted for them (either solidly right or solidly left), while completely disenfranchising the ~45% who voted against them. If the system were fair, the vast majority of elected officials would represent the ~60% in the middle who voted them in, while ignoring the ~20% on the extreme left and ~20% on the extreme right who voted against them.

Preferential voting systems (e.g. ranked votes with instant runoffs) and allowing everyone to vote in all primaries (not just party members) combats this and brings the distribution of elected officials' political beliefs back in-line with the distribution of voters political beliefs. But the extreme wings of both parties recognize this, and so fight against these changes since they would weaken their grip on power.

Re:That is awesome

[Billly Gates]

Funny

I just read your post after my own reply mentioning the Tea Party here. With my version including troll shirts of goatse.cx. Funny as hell but I admit not mature..

Unfortunately the saying goes you never argue with a crazy man. You can't change their opinion and if they were informed they would not be Tea. Sure, they can bring conservative arguments about lower taxes and creating jobs but with the recent temper trandrum and blackmailing of the president with the debt talks it shows they are not in touch with reality and blame Obama for the downgrade. I have even seen them support Gadhaffi on MSNBC forums saying he was not evil at all (forgetting Pan Am) and that the Libyan rebels were part of Al Quada. Why? Because Obama supported action agaisn't him. Thats why. They are crazy and now I would say dangerous too.

Re:That is awesome

[Billly Gates]

There is a difference between bad and incompentent to dangerous.

Why they have so much power is because of the way primaries work. Only the most extreme reactionary neo-conservatives vote in the primaries. Many are so fringe that independents vote democratic as what happened in Deleware.

In the 1970s the democratic party was turning socialists as many hippies become activists in the party and elected people like Jimmy Carter. The end resut was Reagan which ended that.

For the Tea Party to be irrelevant Obama has to go and be replaced by someone in the far right. As more and more Americans find the republican party too extreme they will elect a far left president. Trust me Obama is not far left socialist at all lol. I mean an anti Reagan with an angry voter base and a changing demographic. This is what ended the far left in America from the 60s and 70s and created the neoConservative republican party today and its Tea Party. In many ways Obama is like the left verssion of Nixon. Unpopular but very moderate. Nixon would have to run as a democrat today as he would be a very big Rino and liberal for the republican base indeed.

So if Mitt Romey ... actually more like Bachman comes in and goes insane with another recession we could see the end of the far right and a new democratic left arise.

Re:That is awesome

[Billly Gates]

Name one fringe left wing democrat? I mean one? Kucinich is the only one I know of. I laugh at those who say Obama is a radical socialist. He is far from it

Re:That is awesome

[xelah]

The provision of useful goods and services improves people's standards of living. Movements of money are part of the control system for the economy; they're overhead, not part of its useful output. If everyone could be counted on to somehow do the right thing without any movement of money (or any sort of alternative) we'd be able to do everything we do now and more. That's not possible, of course, but that doesn't mean that having to do those things is not a cost rather than a benefit.

Re:That is awesome

[ArsenneLupin]

And anybody wants to chip in for some t-shirts to give away at the next Micro$oft conference?

Re:That is awesome

[Dinghy]

If you judge based on variety, availability, and cost, then yes, it is. Especially since these days you can buy just the songs you like from an album rather than having to pay for the filler.

Re:That is awesome

[ultranova]

Seriously, the average American learned about economics in High School, and that's it. A good portion of people who THINK they know about economics learned about it from partisan blogs/TV/radio, and end up believing that 'government spending destroys jobs' or that 'the US has never defaulted.'

And precisely because economics is a subject of partisan politics, it can't be taught in school. After all, who (which party) gets to decide what is taught? Wouldn't you object to your children being brainwashed into believing vile, vicious falsehoods should the Other Team win?

Just look at the idiocy surrounding Creationism (or Intelligent Design or whatever it's called nowadays), and imagine the same thing, only with far more money and power riding on the outcome.

Re:That is awesome

[asylumx]

I laugh at those who say Obama is a radical socialist. He is far from it

No, but if they keep saying it, more people start believing it. Even moderate Republicans have been saying things like this.

Re:That is awesome

[mekkab]

What the questions show is BIAS. Restrictive questions were given, and humans seem to implicitly fill in with details from their life. In my example, with the "restrictions on housing development" question I immediately thought to a town in my county where houses couldn't be above a certain height. So I thought, "What's the harm?" My experience and bias came shining through. And in the example of #5, of course the plight of Foxconn workers comes to mind, but that's not in the question. Really, the correct answer is "5: Not Sure" because I need more details and more framing for all questions.

Re:That is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

In what universe is openly being giddy at the prospect of forcing the US into default (because if we don't get absolutely everything we demand we'll burn it all down instead) fiscally responsible?

Obviously, a much different universe than the one in which you can borrow trillions of dollars in fiat money to spend and waste on every manner of corporate welfare, military industrial complexes, buying loyalty from voters and dictators from all over the world, and still expect to have a functioning economy for very long.

In what universe is wanting the government to dictate what consenting adult I can marry and place religious monuments in courts and government buildings a reflection of limited government?

You've confused the social authoritarian factions on the right with the Tea Partiers, which is something the social authoritarians may like, and that the MSM perpetuates, but is entirely false.

Re:That is awesome

[Chris Mattern]

And if we all could have internal photosynthesis, we wouldn't need to eat, therefore food is a overhead, not useful output. The fact that money is needed as a control system makes its manipulation a service.

Re:That is awesome

[Jason Levine]

I think you misunderstood the term "limited government." Most people who use the term mean for the definition to be: "Government that is limited in the things I want it to be limited in and that limits people from doing things I don't want them to do."

Re:That is awesome

[sorak]

How can that be said when days ago we just had a downgrade in credit and the market is bleeding?

As for the downgrade, you should read or skim over the S&P report (warning: pdf). Here are a couple of excerpts:

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal
consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week
falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the
general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

and

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as
America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective,
and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt
ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in
the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our
view, the differences between political parties have proven to be
extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting
agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program
that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and
Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on
discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on
more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have
dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions
only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,
the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key
to long-term fiscal sustainability.

So, I'm sure I'm leaving things out, but they seem more worried about our inability to address medicare, the deficit in general, and the fact that we just finished a national argument about whether or not to default. Thanks, Tea party, your unwillingness to compromise is one of the reasons for the downgrade.

Re:That is awesome

[sorak]

For this survey, every question was a right-wing talking point and they only counted it wrong if you "strongly disagreed" with the GOP position. Mildly disagreeing with Republicans on whether third world workers are being exploited does not brand you "dumber than a fifth grader", but strongly disagreeing does.

Now, the bias in this is transparent, and you could create the opposite result by coming up with a survey consisting of 8 liberal talking points, however.

Re:That is awesome

[Politburo]

When that insistence (which is also immediate) would result in the collapse of the worldwide financial system, yes, it is extremist.

Re:That is awesome

[Politburo]

You could say Bernie Sanders, since he self-identifies as a socialist (which isn't really fringe in the grand scheme of things but is a dirty word in the US). However he technically isn't a Democrat.

Re:That is awesome

[DigiShaman]

I'm going to repost a few quotes from Alan Greenspan back in 1966. Basically, all our current societal problems are ancillary to our current fiat monetary system. The US Dollar has been the world reserve currency of choice. But any economist worth his/her salt knew the system was unstable and would eventually implode. And it did. We (the US) was a giant star that just imploded into a black hole. All other nations are getting drawn to the event horizon as a result. Really, the global depression is the fault of US fiscal policy and the vast debt we've accumulated.

It was only a matter of time before nations such as China, India, and Africa started producing and exporting products cheaper once their governments reformed. Now that they have, the US and the rest of the west is hemorrhaging wealth. We cannot fix our problem with trickle-up or trickle-down policies. That's because we are (and have been) facing a *trickle-out* of wealth. Both conservatives and liberals do not yet understand this. They're fighting over government concepts and policies that are now moot to the real issue at hand. It's also because of the fiat system in place that we have huge gaps in wealth between the rich and poor. The very policies used to answer class-warfare in fact are the very enablers of that behavior.

While I don't agree that we should be exclusively on the Gold Standard again, we do need to tie our system back to stuff more tangible. Until that happens, this perfect storm we are all in will only continue to leave a path of misery in its wake.

Gold and Economic Freedom 1966
“Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.” -Alan Greenspan

“Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. -Alan Geenspan

"under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth... The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation" -Alan Greenspan

Re:That is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Step away from the talking heads at foxnews. Obama is too damn nice to be a whacko. I mean, think about the latest kerfluffle. Who was pushing for compromise? That's right, that crazy crazy whacko.

Come on brother, breath deep and take a moment to think about it. We can help to free you from right-wing extremism.

Re:That is awesome

[operagost]

What would you put on it?

Re:That is awesome

[operagost]

These didn't benefit anyone except the millionaires and the military-industrial complex.

Well, that's just magical considering that those tax cuts were ACROSS THE BOARD.

Re:That is awesome

[operagost]

And meanwhile the safety nets meant to keep them out of the gutter have been systematically shredded. Welfare is gone,

What universe are you from? If anything, welfare is stronger. Welfare finally had reform in the 90's, thanks to cooperation between President Clinton and a GOP Congress. Limits on duration, and new requirements helped enable people to get off the program and weeded out the crooks and slackers. Welfare has actually gotten MORE lenient lately, and probably needs reform again (at least, to root out the fraud).

the current batch of Republicans already voted to end Medicare and will do so if they ever get a majority, and Social Security is undoubtedly next on the hit list.

No, it was the last Congress-- Dem controlled-- that voted to cut Medicare by passing the health care bill. Yes, there were cuts in there. Big ones. And if social security gets cut, it's because we have to. The fact is that there are more people going on the rolls and fewer people paying into it. People are also living longer. It's simply a fact, and saying "tax the rich" is going to fix it alone is just not doing simple math. We'll need to "tax the rich" a little by raising the cap for the tax, and push the full retirement age back a few years. That's compromise, not "tax the rich, then maybe we'll add a few of your cuts in."

Re:That is awesome

[operagost]

Excuse me, but your reading comprehension is terrible. Either that, or you have no idea what the tea parties stand for. I can tell you that they're definitely for Medicare reform and reducing the deficit, both of which were concerns of S&P.

Re:That is awesome

[operagost]

Please show me a quote from a Tea Party representative or press release claiming we should default. The average tea partier knows that the Constitution demands we honor our debt.

Re:That is awesome

[operagost]

Your statement falls flat, because it is impossible for a leftist to see himself as leftist. He sees himself and everyone like him as normal, and everyone who disagrees as a dangerous reactionary. This also happens to those on the far right, but at least they don't have the news media behind them.

Re:That is awesome

[operagost]

He said to "Joe the Plumber" that it's best to "spread the wealth around." Believing that is a function of government is socialist. He backed a cap-and-trade system that would cause "electricity prices to necessarily skyrocket." That's socialist. He appointed Van Jones as the "Green czar" (then quietly let him go). Van Jones is a clearly socialist. He imposed a heavy tobacco tax almost immediately upon entering office to fund CHIP. Modifying behavior is socialist. Socialized medicine is socialist. And funding it with the same behavior you're trying to stop is just plain dumb.

Re:That is awesome

[phantomfive]

If you say 'tax cuts for the rich' enough times, people start to believe it.

Re:That is awesome

[phantomfive]

How can that be said when days ago we just had a downgrade in credit and the market is bleeding?

Neither of these are a good measurement of economic health.

We always use the wrong metrics to measure the health of the economy.

Yeah, for example, you just used the stock market price and what some rating agency thinks as a metric.

Re:That is awesome

[phantomfive]

Oh, name calling eh? It's good you don't let emotion distort your judgement, it's bad enough already as it is. You didn't do very good research when you queried the Bureau of Labor Statistics, because if you had, you would have found that total compensation per hour has increased, even if you exclude the top wage earners.

You didn't say what numbers you used, but some partisan groups will show graphs that only show monetary income per year. They don't take into account vacation time, or other methods of compensation. If you look at total compensation, you will not say such stupid things.

Re:That is awesome

[phantomfive]

The questions ARE clearly designed in a way to trick people with liberal ideologies, but the answers are not particularly controversial.

The way I personally use this test is to measure how wall I am keeping my ideology separated from facts. If you have trouble with this test, it might help to reassess where you are getting information from.

Re:That is awesome

[scot4875]

You know, you really do love the name calling. It must lead to some really productive discussions when you come into contact with people who disagree with you IRL. I mean, when you toss a label on someone and summarily dismiss all of their arguments, it really makes it easy to just ignore anything they have to say.

Also, get over the persecution complex. It's utter bullshit.

--Jeremy

Re:That is awesome

[phantomfive]

I think they are good questions, because they can help you see if your ideology is getting in the way of your economics judgement. In some cases it might be ok to raise the minimum wage, for example if you want to increase the wages of the poor or something, but if you want to make good decisions you NEED to be aware that doing so will also likely raise unemployment.

Re:That is awesome

[scot4875]

socialist

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

--Jeremy

Re:That is awesome

[mike1210]

The difference is that the wacko left-winger Democrats are kept out in the fringe, whereas the wacko Tea Party types have essentially taken over the Republican party.

But yet, America continues to move further and further to the left. The Tea Party is well to the left of where 1980s Democrats were, let alone Ronald Reagan, as they only want a rollback on government to around 2002 levels.

Re:That is awesome

[suss]

You're going to have to get 6XL and up shirts for tea partiers...

Re:That is awesome

[modecx]

If you think the prospect of letting the US default ever existed in the slightest, then you simply don't understand politics.

Whoever is the weaker party any given time is always against increasing the deficit, at least publicly. Privately, they're always for increasing it, because both sides know that's the only way they can keep this scam going, at least in the short term. It doesn't matter if they're democrats or republicans, they're both painfully aware that more deficit spending is the only way to keep the ponzi scheme going. It's just like ol' Bernie Madoff's racket, only a billion times larger, and legal!

We have a Democrat Senate and President, and a Republican House, which means that (R)s get to yank the chain of everyone above, because he who has the chairman gets to establish parliamentary procedure, which is made worst that they have every political incentive to make the other guys look like fools.

However, that doesn't mean they aren't absolutely positively guaranteed reach some sort of "compromise" at the 11th hour, and also get to come away from this skirmish looking like heroes, because they got some kind of imaginary promise to reduce the deficit/taxes/whatever.

The one thing I don't think either side was counting on is this credit de-rating fiasco, despite choosing to honor our debts.

Re:That is awesome

[Creepy]

It says agree, not somewhat agree, but here are my two bits on the questions:

1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree).
If there was a way I could make "strongly agree" say "damn straight" I would - call _me_ biased on this one, but observation has yet to prove otherwise. Ever hire Electricians, Plumbers, or HVAC? They get incredibly high salaries even for trivial work. In addition, they are often required to pull permits to verify their work. I can't even legally do my own HVAC (nor can I even get replacement parts due to a monopoly that requires a license to even buy them - I had a vent hit with a sledgehammer during bathroom tear-down) work in my area. I can do plumbing and electricity with a $100+ permit - and something like a bathroom ceiling fan requires both an electrical and mechanical permit (to ensure proper venting) that costs 3x what the fan did - and it is a good fan. In addition, rental property owners are not allowed to do work on their rental properties for even trivial work, and for plumbing issues like snaking a drain are not allowed to call technicians due to laws pushed through by generally liberal unions they belong to (renters can, not owners). I don't understand why I can't, say, install a water softener or a dishwasher or a garbage disposal at my rental property if I already have to pay for a permit to get my work inspected (all of which I have done at that property before it was a rental property - I still replace the garbage disposals myself because renters keep destroying them without a permit - as long as I'm not caught in the act, the city will never know). Licensing costs money, and licensees will add that to costs.

Biased or not? Not biased.

2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Incomes are up, but not when adjusted for inflation, we have a higher jobless rate now, home ownership is higher, but so are foreclosures, and the rich and poor divide is greater. This is an easy one where disagree could be picked, so I consider the question loaded.

Biased or not? Biased.

3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree).
Rent control, if you don't know, is a ceiling price for rents. Most economists say disagree (I've heard that at least - I could probably easily dig up a link if I tried), and some places with rent control have had housing shortages because of it (*cough* Hanoi *cough*), but there are arguments for both sides so I can see either way.

Biased or not? Biased.

4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree).
A monopoly is unambiguously the only company in that line business in a particular area or the world, not the largest market share.

Biased or not? Not Biased, and shows how ignorant people are of what constitutes a monopoly.

5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).
American Businesses with employees overseas have to obey a certain code of conduct, so I could never see agree to this, but I could see somewhat agree (I'm sure it is possible to find cases of labor abuse).

Biased or not? somewhat Biased

6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).
This was the key point given by those that opposed NAFTA, and proved to be wrong. Since this hasn't really been confirmed over a long period of time, I'd lean toward biased.

Biased or not? somewhat Biased.

7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
I don't see how you could say agree here - it increases base cost, so therefore less people can be hired. At BEST you can say it keeps employment flat.

Biased or not? Not biased

So 2 questions are biased, 2 slightly biased, and 3 not biased at least in my opinion. The very liberal got a 5.6 - even giving them the monopoly one wrong, how the f*ck do you get almost 6?

Re:That is awesome

[hesiod]

My kingdom for mod points.

Re:That is awesome

[Fned]

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms" - Alan Greenspan

Re:That is awesome

[kaizokuace]

so based on that criteria music today is better than any music before 2001? 2002?

Re:That is awesome

[DigiShaman]

That's his response in regards to the mortgage industry. You can thank government mandates and regulation to provide the poor low-income housing. Which most likely would never have been a problem in the first place had we not got off the gold standard generations ago. Not that the free market is without sin, but anytime you find a cluster-F of a situation, government is at the heart of the problem via laws of unintended consequences. When you plan command-and-control of society via legislation, you will distort the laws of supply and demand. Make no mistake about that!

Here's something to think about. Have you ever wondered why the housing market played a major part in or US economy? Because it's considered an investment. A boat to ride the tide of inflation. Inflation caused by the federal government. The idea being that in periods of inflation, you invest in a home. It's the type of debt that you want to be in as the payoff is much better. Trouble is, unemployment is high, wealth is evaporating, and many people are now up-side-down on their mortgage. To this day, there is a standoff between potential buyers and sellers in the housing market. The only true factor in the drop in housing is after people have defaulted and foreclosed on their home.

Again. ALL of this can be traced back to our fiat currency system.

Re:That is awesome

[The Master Control P]

Half the reason the US was downgraded (one half being the lack of any revenues) was exactly because the prospect of the US defaulting is no longer completely impossible - The Republicans took the economy hostage, and the teabaggers were seemingly excited at the prospect of shooting it in the head (probably thinking that then they'd finally get to play Post-Apocalypse Survivalist, which I think a lot of them are bitter about never getting a chance to do ever since the USSR died).

You're probably right in that the Republican old guard aren't completely insane, though, which is why Boehner was between a rock and a hard place - if the Dems hadn't caved, he'd have been forced to give them some of what they want (an actual compromise) in order to get their votes instead of being held hostage himself by a small minority of his own party.

And I didn't really expect a default, no. I will admit I was completely unprepared for the overwhelmingly bad capitulation that came out, but that's a different story.

Re:That is awesome

[The Master Control P]

The next time your credit card or mortgage payment comes due, you should try telling them that you are refusing to pay the bill because you disagree with what your S.O. is spending on and see how far "But I'm being fiscally responsible by destroying our credit rating" goes. Nice try at a NO U, but it is a fact that defaulting on one's debt despite having the ability to pay it [America has no difficulty finding buyers for T-bills, which is what actually defines our credit limit] is the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.

And dude, you can pretend all you want that the tea partiers aren't a marriage between the religious right and the conspiracy nutters but it won't fly. Not when the things that Palin and Bachmann, just for starters, have said are on record.

Re:That is awesome

[rolfwind]

While that didn't help, our 2 biggest headaches are Medicare (Bush didn't help with Medicare Part D) and Social Security. That trust fund has been raided to use in the general fund since the Johnson Administration. The military in general comes after and is out 3rd biggest problem.

The two wars and occupations were stupid, but that and the Bush Tax Cuts, are not the main cause of this. This problem was built into the system decades ago by both parties.

Re:That is awesome

[sorak]

Excuse me, but your reading comprehension is terrible. Either that, or you have no idea what the tea parties stand for. I can tell you that they're definitely for Medicare reform and reducing the deficit, both of which were concerns of S&P.

But the tea party went in with an ideology that trumped everything else. They accomplished nothing because keeping taxes low was more important than the deficit, the S&P rating, medicare or anything else. My reading comprehension is just fine. It's your priorities that need to be questioned.

Re:That is awesome

[modecx]

(one half being the lack of any revenues)

Look, the USG takes in what, about 2 trillion yearly in income tax (plus other forms of taxes and tariffs), and has a debt of 14 trillion. I wish I could say I took in 14% of my cumulative debt each year. I'm probably closer to 10%.

The American people don't have a revenue problem. They have a spending problem. Look at a graph and you see the income is increasing in a sort of natural logarithmic curve, and the spending is tending towards an exponential curve. That can be sustainable for a period of time, but it's not sustainable forever.

No. 100% of the reason we were downgraded is that there is no end to this trend in sight. Frankly, the the dumb bastards at the S&P picked a poor time to come to this realization, only because it amounts to kicking a guy while he's down, and it's invariably going to cause income to go down and spending to go up even more!

Good thing...

[abednegoyulo]

it was not one of those gathering that simulates rain. Imagine their reaction if the artificial rain washes away the external print exposing the message hidden beneath. That would not be a party, would it..

Re:Good thing...

[maxwell demon]

Of course, the watering in a washing machine is more intensive than any artificial rain could be (or otherwise you'd have to deal with drowning victims at the festival). Moreover, when washing, you are adding detergents to the water. Therefore it should well be possible to design a colour which keeps sufficiently stable under normal rain (natural or artificial), but not when washing.

Re:why attack them?

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer...extremists over people who attack others because of their political views.

I don't believe you understand how extremists work.

Re:why attack them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, right-wing extremists are known worldwide for their tolerance and inclusive rhetoric.

Typical

[JumperCable]

So what? Are they trying to white wash the issues?

Why dramatize it?

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

I prefer political assailants over people who exaggerate to enforce a weak point. Let's be straight though. This isn't an attack. A sneaky(also clever) campaign, for sure, and I'm sure it caused some emotional distress. But there was no physical harm, no substantial mental scarring or emotional hurt. If this ingenious and devious advertisement is to be called an attack, it was a harmless one.

Re:Why dramatize it?

[Belial6]

Except that it gives them a reason to rationalize that [Group of Choice] are shifty, deceitful, and can't be trusted.

Re:Why dramatize it?

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

Or brilliant.
...I'm kidding, I see your point.

Re:why attack them?

[AvitarX]

I prefer harmless attacks on political views over those that would use politics to interfere with my life.

Re:how big is the movement?

[mosb1000]

you'd likely have an easier time finding neo-nazis in Idaho than you would in Germany

Woah, you set the bar pretty high there.

Kind of a stretch to say they were "tricked"

[Dachannien]

I give you free stuff and it turns out to be unsuitable for its apparent purpose. Wow, I really tricked you there.

Still, it's kind of amusing.

Re:Kind of a stretch to say they were "tricked"

[pinkushun]

Just like the Greeks tricked the Trojans by giving them "free stuff", like say a big free wooden horse? ;D

Degrees of trickery include hidden messages, slight of hand, to fudging IP addresses.

Heck even surprise buttseks has an element of trickery, it's all about timing.

Re:Kind of a stretch to say they were "tricked"

[gblackwo]

Unsuitable for it's purpose? You can still wear it right? It didn't stop being a t-shirt did it?

Re:Kind of a stretch to say they were "tricked"

[shadowrat]

That was what i first thought when i read the summary. The article was more interesting. It wasn't about tricking anyone, it was about delivering a message in a way that they felt it would best be received. If you just show up to some rally trying to tell people how they can get out of that group, you are unlikely to make headway. Whatever you give out would be tossed away or defiled. This was crafted to only reveal it's message in a situation where the individual was not being influenced by the people around him/her.

The goal wasn't to trick people into wearing a t-shirt that clashed with their ideals. It was to deliver a message when they felt the recipient would best be able to hear it. I think it was pretty clever.

Re:Kind of a stretch to say they were "tricked"

[tecnico.hitos]

But they were tricked. The fact that they didn't pay anything doesn't change the fact that they were misled.

Another thing about the free shirts is that at the same time you didn't pay for the shirt, they didn't pay you for the free advertisement. They had the cost of producing the shirts, but they reap the benefits indirectly.

This would only work on imposters anyway

[B1oodAnge1]

everyone knows that if you're hardcore enough your clothes never get dirty.

Re:This would only work on imposters anyway

[Lisias]

everyone knows that if you're hardcore enough your clothes never get laundered.

I fixed that for you.

Re:why attack them?

[sjames]

Attack?

A trick tee-shirt that reveals it's message in a quiet moment at home is an attack now?

An attack would be if it used a small explosive charge to tattoo rainbow brite on their chests.

Re:why attack them?

[FunkSoulBrother]

Jesus man, I mean it would suck pretty bad to hate the Dutch and all, but no need to kill yourself!

Brilliant!

[mSparks43]

Brilliant, just brilliant. Where can I buy them, I know a few people who could benefit from this.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Eraesr]

If I understand correctly, nazi symbols (like the swastika) aren't illegal per se in Germany, as long as they're used in the proper context. Used in entertainment or as a way to promote the nazi ideology is forbidden, but in a historical documentary about what happened in WW2, I don't believe the symbol necessarily need to be blurred out or removed from footage from that era for example.
I'm not German though so I'm not entirely sure about the rulings surrounding such symbols.

more nazi's in america

[maverickjesterx]

I am an American that has lived in Germany for some time. Most of these people are not "children" and the definition of a "child" is quite different here than back home. Also to wear, own or display anything from the Nazi era will land you in jail unlike back home in America where you are free to where Nazi uniforms, fly their flags (I can think of one instance lately where a guy in Michigan flew a Nazi flag to celebrate his grandmothers birthday as he put it). Don't get me wrong there are still extremist here that want all Auslanders OUT. For Germans this is in the news for the humor of it, not like OMG the Nazi's are rallying.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you gotta keep at least one around to look at, as a sort of specimen. If at least so you can occasionally observe it and think, "Oh wow, people really can get that batshit crazy."

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[artor3]

Stop listening to Fox "News". There is no relationship between Nazis and socialism. The Nazis hated socialists. They simply co-opted the word for their name as a little trick to steal supporters. The Nazis were right-wing by all standards. I know it makes you sad that there have been bad people on your "team". Life is so much easier when you can see in black and white. The professional liars know this, and so they carefully craft their lies to let you think that way. They take every bad person in history, mix them all together, and then mix in their current victims (i.e. Obama) and you drink it all down.

It's poison, and you will never be able to think for yourself as long as you keep exposing yourself to it.

Re:Give in to your hate.

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll win in the end anyway. You lost this war the moment you lost the war on miscegeny. You can't win. It's better if you just kill yourself. Come on, Nazi scum. Do it. It's the one way you can finally escape the horrors of multiculturalism. Go out like a man and eat one of the dozens of barrels that adorn the walls of your squalid little shack.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Kokuyo]

It does boil down to this, yes.

As an example, take the Lucas Arts Indiana Jones adventures. In those, the Svastika was colored black, resulting in a misshapen square.

On the other hand, Nazi uniforms in movies are not really censored so go figure. I guess back then Lucas Arts was just very careful and decided to err on the side of caution.

On the other hand, Wolfenstein was on the index I believe, but you decide whether it's because of the brutality or the Svastika ;)

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[cbope]

Please do some research before you imply Hitler and Mussolini are not right-wing. Contrary to popular believe in the US, they were NOT leading socialist movements in any shape or form although they tried to disguise some of their activities under that false banner. They were nationalist right-wing extremists and fascists. They were absolutely not left-wing or socialist in any tangible way.

In the US it's more accurate to label politics as far right (republicans) or center right (democrats). There is no true left in popular US politics, even democrats are more right of center than in many other progressive countries (including many EU and all Nordic countries).

Re:how big is the movement?

[rbrausse]

according to a pre-release of the 2010 statement of the Verfassungsschutz (German domestic intelligence service) we have a headcount of 5600 neo nazis.

Take this with a grain of salt, like most government agencies the Verfassungsschutz has a political agenda - every publication is announced by the far-(left||right) wing* with "the data is biased"

*) and everyone else...

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[dunkelfalke]

WTF? German neo-nazis are never punk anarchists. In fact, they beat up or even kill punks.

Also, get your other facts straight. In Germany, swastika is only allowed in the historical context because this law was dictated by the allied control council after the end of WW2.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[pecosdave]

Nazi's hated communist, Hitler did what he could to dissociate the similarities between Socialism and Communism, much as today's Progressives try to disassociate social programs from socialism. I actually have a little admiration for people who call themselves Socialist, it beats the deniers who call themselves Progressives and Liberals (Liberal being a term corrupted to a point that makes it's real/original meaning unusable). Under the Nazi regime nearly every facet of life was controlled by the state, education, raising for children, employment, etc... Many businesses were "privately owned" but the ownership was little more than a shell in name and the companies were still mostly run by the party if they were allowed to continue to exist (think FDR's NRA and the Blue Eagle). To acquire new employment permission of the previous employer had to be obtained, most employment went into supporting the war (much like what happened in the U.S. only more regulated). Hitler had a diet plan in place he planned to slowly impose on his people, he had homedic medical plans he intended to impose and only got the first parts of most of his plans out the door before the war ended. Hitlers Germany was very much a socialist construct and was increasingly so as time progressed.

As for the rest of your comments - what team are you talking about as my team? I don't watch TV, nor do I intentionally listen to it, though it is often on in my work environment. Your Fox News references are invalid as I don't watch TV.

Are you calling me a Republican? If so I feel insulted. I do not play for either team in the Republicrat league.

I've dealt with many professional liars, company management, lawyers, police, and salesmen, you come across to me as an extremest team player on the Democrat side of the Republicrat league. FYI, it doesn't matter which side in that league wins, it's a win for the league and loss for the rest of us and pretty much the same garbage gets enacted.

Parent summary is biased

[lavagolemking]

Ok, I'll bite. Those questions are heavily weighted to someone's political beliefs, in an apparent attempt to confirm right-wing ideologies, and paint liberals as ignorant about the economy with conservatives being the guys with an educashun. Not surprising, given that it's published by a company owned by Rupert Murdoch (who also owns Fox News). Basically, if you disagree with their viewpoints, you're "unenlightened". Let's take a look at the questions:

• 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). Liberals generally support licensing of professional services, while conservatives support deregulation. Aside from direct economic consequences, the question doesn't account for consequences of unqualified professional services, such as medical complications from an unlicensed doctor operating on you.
• 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). This is a matter of perspective; conservatives are often of a higher socio-economic class, while liberals (who unsurprisingly support welfare/entitlement programs) are more commonly of a lower class. Additionally, since conservatives are also commonly older, many liberals were not around 30 years ago, and have only seen the economic decline.
• 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). Another loaded deregulation argument. Although true, lack of rent control leads to high rent prices, and a higher rate of homelessness among those who cannot afford high rent. A lot of conservatives believe in leaving free-market economics to treat basic essential needs such as food, water, and shelter as a commodity, while liberals are more likely to believe in guaranteeing such "commodities" to underprivileged citizens. It is not a farfetched mistake to confuse increased homelessness with housing shortages, and this type of question almost seems to imply a housing "shortage" is somehow worse than those houses being empty with people living on the streets.
• 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). Although by no means the definition of a monopoly, anybody here can agree that companies in a given sector with the largest market share (Microsoft, etc.) probably has the largest market share because of their monopoly. Correlation vs. Causation: a lot of people without a background in statistics miss that. Conservatives or libertarians who believe monopolies don't exist will probably say false for that reason.
• 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). This one is just outright wrong. Free-market economics lead to large multinationals (Apple, Nike, etc.) outsourcing labor and production to the country with the cheapest rates. This, in turn, leads to companies who pay the lowest sweatshop-level wages with no benefits, ludicrous requirements on things like bathroom breaks, and anti-unionizing intimidation, getting all the bids. Basically, third world countries cutting costs at the expense of workers, where minimum wage laws and other worker-protection laws don't apply. I guess if you disagree on principles of exploitation and human rights, or on the definition of third world workers, as many conservatives I've spoken with seem to, then you could consider this false, but that's definitely not how a liberal will see it. I've met a lot of conservatives who think that there is nothing morally wrong with sweatshops, which are a boon to their workers.
• 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). Looks a lot more like a conservative talking point than a scientific economic question to me. Interesting that it appears close to the end of the survey, after all those loaded questions. In some cases, yes it does; look at what is happ

Re:Parent summary is biased

[Anonymous Coward]

"1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). Liberals generally support licensing of professional services, while conservatives support deregulation. Aside from direct economic consequences, the question doesn't account for consequences of unqualified professional services, such as medical complications from an unlicensed doctor operating on you."

Are you utterly mad?

Whether the question "accounts for the consequences of unqualified professional services" is a separate question as to whether or not it raises the cost of providing those services. That's like the following sequence of questions:

Q: Do you agree or disagree that people who have received government funded training find jobs either somewhat or a lot more easily than those who haven't?
A: I strongly disagree.
Q: How come?
A: The question fails to account for the cost of providing that training.

If the liberals questioned aren't able to decompose a situation into component parts and answer questions about each of them separately, but have to shout a "YAY" or "BOO" on the basis of their feelings about the situation, totally ignoring whatever is asked about, then something is wrong.

Re:Parent summary is biased

[snowgirl]

As my sibling post points out, many of the questions were unattached from the unfortunate negative consequences of the actual terms. However, I will point out that this was done with direct intent to make liberals/progressives answer wrong. Watch, let me do it to conservatives: "Deregulation of medicine and healthcare will result in more deaths." If you answered "disagree" then congratulations, you're empirically wrong.

What happened though was I intentionally gave a question whose consequences the individual's political beliefs would object to, and therefore basically handing them the wrong answer with a big "DO IT!!!! Come on, YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO!"

So, the problem with all of the questions is that they're all trick questions. Even if a libertarian/progressive can see through all the sham, the best answers they can give are "yeah, but..." or "no, but..." But that's not how people answer surveys. They don't answer the question they're presented, they answer the questions they think they've been asked, and when you have trick questions intended to obfuscate the details to elicit an ideological response, you're going to get ideological responses. This also effects the conservatives as well though! There's no provision for questioning why the person answered the way that they did, so even if someone gives an "enlightened" answer, there's no guaranteed that they arrived at that answer through "enlightened" thought. A statement that is true can still be a lie, if the person speaking it thinks that they are lying. "Yes, Jenny went to the movies." (She actually did, but I thought she went to a party, and I was trying to cover up that she went to a party, so I'm lying even though my statement is true.)

1) "Mandatory licensing raises prices." Yes, but why would we ever consider endangering people's lives and/or livelihoods over removing mandatory licenses? If I make potato soup, then buying potato soup raises my prices. It's a trick question because few people will actually logically break down the question properly, and will just answer with a gut answer that is ideologically based.
2) "Standard of living is better now than 30 years ago." The median standard of living has factually gone down relative to the mean standard of living, even though both have risen as absolute values. The two ideologies are answering different questions about the vague term "standard of living".
3) "Rent control leads to housing shortages." Making french fries leads to a shortage of potatoes. People renting more than one property leads to housing shortages... I mean, the statement is technically true, but the original premise behind asking it is so absurd, that no one would expect it. So they answer a different question based on their perceived premise behind the question.
4) "Largest market share is a monopoly" Yes, because everyone will give the most unique answer possible here. Oh wait, I just abused the word "unique" like the entire population does. "Monopoly" doesn't mean "single supplier" to most people anymore, it means "the person with the largest market share." because true monopolies are rare, but one doesn't need a true monopoly to begin leveraging the benefits of being a monopoly. It's a trick question because most people don't use "monopoly" exclusively for true monopolies anymore.
5) "Third World workers working for Americans are being exploited." Well, some liberals/progressives think that American employees are being exploited. What does "exploited" really mean? Are Third World employers using the relatively massive pay that they can offer the third world workers to make those workers concede reasonable accommodations in their employment? Tell you what: I have a job, it pays a million dollars a year, but you have to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, with zero vacation time, and no benefits, or other perks. Would you take this job? Many people would, because hey, it's freaking a million dollars a year! Would you count it as exploitation? Some people think there are maximums

Re:Parent summary is biased

[snowgirl]

If the liberals questioned aren't able to decompose a situation into component parts and answer questions about each of them separately, but have to shout a "YAY" or "BOO" on the basis of their feelings about the situation, totally ignoring whatever is asked about, then something is wrong.

But there was no accounting for the possibility that the conservatives questioned weren't doing the exact same thing, because the whole survey suffers from a confirmation bias. They're only looking for confirmation of their preconceived theory (that liberals are gullible to trick questions), rather than looking for disproving theory (that conservatives are just as gullible to trick questions). If a conservative were to answer entirely without reason or logic according to his "YAY" or "BOO" on the basis of his feelings about the situation, then he would answer every single answer as "enlightened", but not because he can actually decompose a situation into component parts and answer it properly and logically.

Re:Parent summary is biased

[silentcoder]

>Whether the question "accounts for the consequences of unqualified professional services" is a separate question as to whether or not it raises the cost of providing those services.

No. It isn't. Because the cost of those consequences must be considered part of the cost of the service. If an unlicensed doctor messes up an operation and now you need four more operations and years of drugs to recover, then the cost of the condition for which you sought treatment has been massively increased.
It could be shown that licensed services lead to a price that's higher for the same service, than it would be unlicensed when the quality of the service is the same. However the reality is that the quality of the service is the reason for licensing and quality is a fundamental aspect of how we measure value.
Licensing of services increases both the price AND the value of the service. However you can only say that it increases the COST of the service if the increase in value is LESS than the increase in the price.

Liberals would argue that in nearly all cases the value increase significantly exceeds the cost increase so much so as to create an over-all massive cost decrease (my example shows one case where this happens). And this analogy only shows the DIRECT cost of that value reduction, the indirect costs are orders of magnitude more. Bad doctors mean much longer times off-sick from work. Meaning much higher risk of being unemployed at the end of it. That's months or years of income lost which is ALSO a cost of not licensing the service, it's lost productivity to your employer either way, it's a massive cost to the economy.

More-over most licensing of services happen in situations where the cost of unlicensed services is far more than mere monetary cost. It involves very real risk of costs of human health and even lives. What should we consider the value of a human life to be ? The funeral costs are hardly the whole financial loss there after-all. At the very least you have to add in the entire plausible earnings of that person for the rest of their life-expectancy had the services been licensed as well as adding their entire likely expenditure over that period as a loss to the entire economy - and all their productivity is lost to the economy as well.
Right there you have millions of dollars worth of losses.
And that's not even close to the real loss. Most people, like me, believe the true value of a human life to be infinite - that no amount of money is ever too much to spend to save a loved one, therefore no amount of cost saving is big enough to let them die for.
The potential cost in human lives exceed any potential saving of unlicensed services (as if I hadn't already proven that there wouldn't be any) by an order of infinity.

And because COST is defined as price per VALUE not just price, there is nothing economically unenlightened about arguing that the COST of a service goes UP in the absence of professional licensing, by massive amounts.

The sad irony of the world is that we've left the decisions about these matters up to people who think that there is a saving which is big enough to let people die for. A lot of them work for medical insurance companies - who will do everything in their power to avoid paying for a procedure if they can possibly fight it out until you die without it to save them the money (after taking your premiums for ever).
And to people like that, there is no saving too SMALL to let your loved ones die for.

In a world without licensed professionals, those would be your doctors, your electricians, your bridge-designers...

Even if the licensing really DID add a true cost increase, the result would be a world where hardly anybody would WANT to live.

So when I pay my electrician, I am GLAD there is a licensing authority that ensured a minimal level of competence before letting him sell his services - because even if that means I'm paying him 500% more than he could otherwise charge, it is still orders of magnitude less than the costs I'd risk otherwise - not least would be the death of my family and loss of all my possessions when his bad wiring burned my house down.

Re:Parent summary is biased

[HeckRuler]

It's a loaded question.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Do you prefer baking babies into pies over Mr. Politician's policies?

Oh, I'm sorry sir, "bullshit" isn't an option. I'll just mark you down as "strongly disagree". Thank you so much for supporting Mr. Politician! Have a nice day.
But seriously, any group that answered "I don't know" to every question would have scored perfectly on this guy's interpretation of the poll data.

Re:Parent summary is biased

[stdarg]

If an unlicensed doctor messes up an operation and now you need four more operations and years of drugs to recover, then the cost of the condition for which you sought treatment has been massively increased.

Yes, in that hypothetical. But you're pulling that out of thin air. You can't use it as an argument.

Anyone can make stuff up: if an unlicensed doctor performs an operation flawlessly and charged you 90% less, then clearly it's cheaper and superior to licensing.

What a reasonable person does in this situation is work with what's given. By itself, the cost of an individual service, without respect to the effect on the rest of society, will increase if there are stringent regulatory requirements related to that service. That's just blatantly obvious... you know, because if it were cheaper, then you wouldn't *need* regulations.

Liberals would argue that in nearly all cases the value increase significantly exceeds the cost increase so much so as to create an over-all massive cost decrease (my example shows one case where this happens). And this analogy only shows the DIRECT cost of that value reduction, the indirect costs are orders of magnitude more. Bad doctors mean much longer times off-sick from work. Meaning much higher risk of being unemployed at the end of it. That's months or years of income lost which is ALSO a cost of not licensing the service, it's lost productivity to your employer either way, it's a massive cost to the economy.

Again, all of that is made up. It also assumes that the alternatives available are "fully licensed" and "totally unregulated with horrible quality." What about stuff like Underwriters Labratories, an "Independent, not-for-profit product safety testing and certification organization." In a dark and scary world where light bulbs were not tightly regulated by the government, couldn't you vote with your wallet and be like "Well I'm not buying light bulbs unless they're tested by this third party that has a good reputation."

I would imagine for something important like surgery it would happen almost immediately. Now I have a choice. If I need a heart transplant, I'll go to an expensive doctor just like now. If I have a broken finger and I need some pain medication and a splint, well guess what it's not going to cost $1800 for a trip to the ER. I'll go to the hedge witch down the street for $50, no insurance required.

Re:Parent summary is biased

[phantomfive]

It's ok to support things, like mandatory licensing of doctors, on grounds other than economic grounds. For example, who wants to be treated by an unqualified doctor? No one.

But these questions were asking about the economics of the issue. If you got them wrong, then you are letting your politics blind you to reality.

For example, minimum wage laws might increase the living standard of some people, but they will also increase unemployment. That may be a tradeoff you're willing to make, but you have to be aware of the cost of your policies if you want to make good ones.

Re:Parent summary is biased

[mike1210]

This one is just outright wrong. Free-market economics lead to large multinationals (Apple, Nike, etc.) outsourcing labor and production to the country with the cheapest rates. This, in turn, leads to companies who pay the lowest sweatshop-level wages

A loaded term, which is basically code-word for "Those filthy n***ers getting jobs so they're no longer dependent upon us wise and benevolent progressives!". These so-called "sweatshops" are in reality, a stepping stone to gradually improving wages and conditions far better than what the people who work there had before.

Re:Parent summary is biased

[MmmmAqua]

*snip* because if it were cheaper, then you wouldn't *need* regulations.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The need for regulation is not predicated on the price of a service, but on the potential for damage, to the consumer and the economy as a whole, from incompetent practitioners.

Again, all of that is made up. It also assumes that the alternatives available are "fully licensed" and "totally unregulated with horrible quality." What about stuff like Underwriters Labratories, an "Independent, not-for-profit product safety testing and certification organization." In a dark and scary world where light bulbs were not tightly regulated by the government, couldn't you vote with your wallet and be like "Well I'm not buying light bulbs unless they're tested by this third party that has a good reputation."

The "vote with your wallet" argument is, in this context, disingenuous at best. Sure, the cost of waiting for the market to weed out shitty lightbulb manufacturers is relatively small, and the market will eventually produce a generally decent grade of lightbulb-makers. But we are not talking about lightbulbs. We are talking about professional services, many of which involve direct risk to human and economic health. It may cost the economy a few million dollars to weed out Shitty Lights, Inc., but the cost of weeding out shitty or marginally-competent doctors, engineers, and lawyers is astronomically higher. None of those people are going to be drummed out of business by one dissatisfied (or dead) client, or even a hundred, in a deregulated market.Consumers are generally poorly informed and unwilling to do much research when seeking professional services, and that is simply not going to change.

I would imagine for something important like surgery it would happen almost immediately. Now I have a choice. If I need a heart transplant, I'll go to an expensive doctor just like now. If I have a broken finger and I need some pain medication and a splint, well guess what it's not going to cost $1800 for a trip to the ER. I'll go to the hedge witch down the street for $50, no insurance required.

Yes, in that hypothetical. But you're pulling that out of thin air. You can't use it as an argument.

Unregulated services are not going to be uniformly horrible, but without a guarantee of minimum competence the services you get below a certain price point are going to tend to suck. Even if your $50 hedge witch gets things right 70% of the time, she is still screwing up 30% of peoples' broken fingers. Those mistakes have a much higher overall cost to the individual and the economy than the price difference between a licensed doctor and an unlicensed quack.

You are also ignoring the fact that you have a choice, now, too. The $1800 ER trip could just as easily be a $400 urgent care clinic trip, no insurance required. $400 is more than $50, but it's also much more reasonable to most people than $1800, and you also get the guarantee that the MD or RNFP seeing you knows what they're doing.

Re:Parent summary is biased

[Nithin Philips]

...That's just blatantly obvious... you know, because if it were cheaper, then you wouldn't *need* regulations.

You're refuting a argument of your own making. The OP said regulations are there to save lives, not so much money. That's just a hypothetical positive side effect. In this case what we're left with is wishful thinking. Wouldn't it be nice if I could get a heart transplant at the back of a Chinese restaurant for 200 bucks and live!

Again, all of that is made up. It also assumes that the alternatives available are "fully licensed" and "totally unregulated with horrible quality." What about stuff like Underwriters Labratories, an "Independent, not-for-profit product safety testing and certification organization." In a dark and scary world where light bulbs were not tightly regulated by the government, couldn't you vote with your wallet and be like "Well I'm not buying light bulbs unless they're tested by this third party that has a good reputation."

I would imagine for something important like surgery it would happen almost immediately. Now I have a choice. If I need a heart transplant, I'll go to an expensive doctor just like now. If I have a broken finger and I need some pain medication and a splint, well guess what it's not going to cost $1800 for a trip to the ER. I'll go to the hedge witch down the street for $50, no insurance required.

From Wikipedia: The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) is a multi-part professional exam sponsored by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME). Medical doctors with an M.D. degree are required to pass this examination before being permitted to practice medicine in the United States of America.[1]

Both FSMB and NBME are independent organizations much like UL. The doctors are tested by a third party. In licensing them the state simply verifies that they have passed the tests from these organizations. Getting back to the topic, no matter how much you wish you can get your broken finger completely fixed for mere 50 dollars by the hedge witch, reality may strongly disagree with you.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[artor3]

You can pretend to ignore the liars all you like. But the whole "Obama = Nazi Socialist!" tripe is a right-wing talking point that no intelligent, free-thinking person would believe. You've already revealed yourself to be poisoned. Maybe it was by Beck or Limbaugh or Free Republic, instead of Fox. But you're poisoned all the same. Try to cure yourself, instead of striking out at me.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[sourcerror]

Hitler had socialistic policies for the preferred race. (See Lebensborn camps.)

"Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals, the state could nationalize it.[182] Nazi government corporate takeovers, and threatened takeovers, encouraged compliance with government production plans, even if unprofitable for the firm."

Re:how big is the movement?

[Canazza]

I think you mean Illinois, not Idaho.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[izomiac]

and in the U.S. they're usually ignorant racist rednecks.

While I find your point interesting and without egregious error to my superficial reading, I had to chuckle at that last expression. Few people care about being politically correct to white males in America, but it's a little amusing to call a subgroup of a race racist, especially using a racial slur to do so.

Not many of them saw the message...

[gshegosh]

...since I don't think they wash their clothes ;-)

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[pecosdave]

You're one of those people who's allowed Obama to trip the religious centers in your brain much like Apple users (are you one of those too?).

How can bribing (the Louisiana Purchase), threatening (the Pelosi guard dog), and generally holding the Congress hostage to push a social health care bill exempt him from being a socialist? Love it or hate it your boy Obama is a socialist, hung out with socialist in college, and read socialist propaganda in college.

You started out by striking me out.

My hero's are Andrew Jackson, Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, Mark Twain (for other reasons), and George Carlin for putting modern politics into perspective. Liberals like to claim Carlin, they also like to claim Douglas Adams which I very much enjoyed for the same reasons I enjoyed George Carlin.

You need to lower your dosage of Rachel Maddow and Michael Moore.

Re:how big is the movement?

[TheRaven64]

There's other crazy censorship in German games too. The German release of Red Alert, for example, had android infantry instead of human, and they died in pools of oil instead of blood.

Re:how big is the movement?

[stjobe]

If I understand correctly, nazi symbols (like the swastika) aren't illegal per se in Germany, as long as they're used in the proper context. Used in entertainment or as a way to promote the nazi ideology is forbidden, but in a historical documentary about what happened in WW2, I don't believe the symbol necessarily need to be blurred out or removed from footage from that era for example.

I'm not German though so I'm not entirely sure about the rulings surrounding such symbols.

"Proper context", according to Strafgesetzbuch section 86a (paragraph 86a of the German Criminal Code) is:

(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.

Anti-racist is code for anti-white

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious - how pathetic. Why don't the Left start with some rational arguments for a change, like why white people shouldn't be allowed to have their own countries any more, you know, to freely associate only with those they wish to?

Nobody on the Left can debate me. None of you morons have a clue what's really going on in the world - just look at the U.K. riots - majority black looters, destroying white society.

What you are essentially saying is that YOU should be able to decide and dictate the lives of millions of white people.
It's rather like approving of forced marriages - one party gets what they want (the man) and the other is the victim (the woman), and idiots like you approve of denying people the ability to simply GET AWAY from people we don't want to associate with.

If you can't choose who you associate with, then you are either a slave, or in a giant concentration camp, or both. And you 'holier than thou' idiots approve of this.

Re:Anti-racist is code for anti-white

[lucidlyTwisted]

"Why don't the Left start with some rational arguments for a change, like why white people shouldn't be allowed to have their own countries any more, you know, to freely associate only with those they wish to?"
I didn't realise is was a legal requirement to have friends from a different genetic heritage. Oh, it isn't. And in point of fact, you can break the pale-face up into quite a few more subsets; Viking, Saxon, Angle, Pict, Basque etc. They have been more than happy to invade/pillage each other for many years, so there's more than just skin colour that separates people.

"just look at the U.K. riots - majority black looters, destroying white society."
Citation please. From watching at the news I saw a fair few Caucasian faces involved (for example, the back-pack robbery). I also saw a fair few non-Caucasian faces involved in the voluntary clean-ups. People are people, and feral scum are feral scum regardless of colour. I did notice that most were wearing hoods. Perhaps we should round all the "Hoodies" up and keep them to restricted areas?

And as for "destroying white society" I think you'll find that most of the terrorist organisations active within Europe are what you would probably classify as "white". IRA-splinters, ETA, Breivik etc.

"What you are essentially saying is that YOU should be able to decide and dictate the lives of millions of white people."
Err...I thought that was the job of the elected government? I decide nothing, about the best I can do is lobby my MP/MEP. And you can do the same (or whatever the equivalent is for where you live).

"If you can't choose who you associate with, then you are either a slave, or in a giant concentration camp, or both."
Who, precisely, is restricting you from associating with people? Oh, wait, do you live in Libya or somewhere? My guess is that you are from the USA and that is just SUCH a bad place to live. Oh my, yes it is. Life is so HARD for you, isn't it? It's so TOUGH. You, my friend, do not know you are fucking born. I suggest you remove yer heard from yer arse and get out into the world.

Oh, wait, you can't. There's BLACK/YELLOW/RED PEOPLE out there!

Re:Anti-racist is code for anti-white

[oreaq]

You're just mad because you didn't get your T-shirt.

+1 Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up please

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[pecosdave]

Something I've noticed -

Overall racism is going away in the US.

There are however pocket communities in all race groups that are very much racist and there are geographic locations where it's very much alive. I live in Houston and the mainstream part of Houston is about as race blind as it gets, however there are pocket neighborhoods of every race imaginable where racism is very much alive. I was friends with a couple, black male, white female, that returned to an Asian restaurant in a very Asian neighborhood that they had been introduced to by their Asian friends. Without their Asian friends there nobody waited on them, after 45 minutes they left. In the "blended" areas little to no racism exist overall - this is one example, I've heard of similar stories in every imaginable combination of races.

I'm mostly white, were you not to know I'm some weird fraction native due to getting it from multiple parts of the family (more than an 1/8th less than 1/4th) you wouldn't think me otherwise. I moved to a small unincorporated community outside of Houston and it actually took me a little while to notice it was too white. I didn't hear the stories about the area until later.

Most of the Baton Rouge area - where I do spend a lot of time - has a lot of Black vs. White tension that as far as I can tell is shared by both groups equally in responsibility for perpetuation.

I have not problem using racial slurs to refer to the racist sub-groups of any community, as a racist sub-group they deserve the label. That's why I don't have trouble calling a Redneck a Redneck. I consider it as big of a slur as the ones I'm not allowed to say because I'm considered white. For the record white males are the only group still legally, and sometimes mandatorialy , discriminated against based on race/gender in the US. This has little effect in upper income families, but it can be devastating in lower income families. My grandfather didn't get his papers to say he was an Indian, because SURPRISE, discrimination. The other kids on the reservation decided he was too white to be cool so he left the reservation hating his own heritage due to the way he was treated. He actually had full siblings that looked less white that got along fine. As a result I've was pretty told I was passed over for getting hired at AIG because they needed to hire a minority or two first (not such a loss after all considering what happened a year later), not to mention I didn't qualify for most "must be female or minority" (white male need not apply) scholarships. Did I mention racism isn't a unique attribute to any one race?

Re:why attack them?

[TheRaven64]

Any political group that wishes to attack me by giving me free t-shirts is welcome to do so. Also, a free laptop, maybe a free HiFi would be nice...

Re:how big is the movement?

[dunkelfalke]

Don't try to hide behind "many posters".

I've been around some of those guys

[93 Escort Wagon]

And based on the smell, I'm guessing they're unlikely to trigger the shirts' hidden payload anytime soon.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[pecosdave]

I fail to see where I referenced a swastika.

There are different definitions of punk - remove punk from my statement and use the term anarchist, does it make sense now? If so excuse my out of context use of punk and use just anarchist. If it does not please elaborate - what defines the use of the term "Nazi" outside of the actual WWII Nazi's is debatable.

My personal use of the modern term Nazi usually parallels Fascism (which also has a debatable/argued definition) and involves a lot of authoritarianism. This is why I reference the video game laws in particular, and yes I consider the enforcement of anti-Nazi laws in Europe to be very ironically Nazi-like. The Nazi's are being suppressed and outlawed and suppressed in a way that is undeniably similar to the way the Nazi's suppressed and outlawed the Jews. I have no love for Nazi's, but as one who embraces freedom I find the suppression of someones political beliefs, however horrible and objectionable they may be, through legal means to be wrong.

Re:I guess...

[Sique]

It's because the current crowd often has a different ideology than the original nationalsocialists. The current crowd's main theme is no longer that inferior races should be eliminated, but that cultures should be separated. The very idea of people with a different cultural background in the same country/place/neighbourhood is frown upon, and the main claim is that every multi-ethnic empire ever has failed (while ignoring the fact that every national state has failed too).

YES! Someone who gets it.

[pecosdave]

Mod this A/C up!

Re:how big is the movement?

[Arancaytar]

Not enough to be a danger to democracy, but enough to be trouble.

The main nationalist party (NPD) is estimated at 7000 members and reached 1.5% in the last federal election, but is represented in two state parliaments (Saxony and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) at around 5-7%. Not all of these members and voters are radical or violent enough to be called Neo-Nazis, but there are still quite a lot.

(There are also other nationalist parties, which are smaller.)

Lets get in the lawyers

[ipix]

So the 'execution' of the exploit took place within the home of the victims. Assuming that's where their washing machine is. And information was destroyed. Lets get in the lawyers.

Re:Lets get in the lawyers

[Talderas]

More appropriately under false advertising. Was there anything to indicate that the shirt changes after washing or any indication of what it changed to?

This is a pretty classic bait and switch.

Re:why attack them?

[mcvos]

The Dutch are getting increasingly intolerant of other cultures, unfortunately. A growing group is even intolerant of much of Dutch culture.

Obligatory Links Thread

[pinkushun]

Jen from the IT Crowd, "Ich bin ein nerd!"

Re:how big is the movement?

[gmack]

It has to be pointed out that most countries where "Foreigners steal our jobs" is a complaint are countries where, if not for immigration, there wouldn't be enough people left to keep the system going as the population ages. That includes pretty much all of Europe and North America.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[mcvos]

Nazi's hated communist, Hitler did what he could to dissociate the similarities between Socialism and Communism, much as today's Progressives try to disassociate social programs from socialism.

Did he? I think he threw socialists and communists on one big heap as a danger to the country. He allied with conservatives in order to grab power. His national socialism had nothing in common with socialist ideals: it was corporatist and aristocratic.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Arancaytar]

This is inaccurate; however, people who consider endorsing civil rights for minorities equivalent to endorsing muslim terrorism definitely meet the criteria.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[mcvos]

You realize they came into power by allying with conservatives, don't you? If not, read some history. Hitler hated socialists. He was all about traditionalism and a hierarchically structured society.

Your kidding, right?

[Shivetya]

Sorry, but quite a few wacko Democrats are in Congress, the difference is that the PRESS chooses to ignore them whereas they relish in finding the wacko conservatives. The Tea Party is anything but a bunch of wackos. Oh I am quite sure there are some daffy duck types in there, all groups get them, but their core belief around smaller government is anything but wacko. It would probably only take a few minutes to get a list using google of the lefts wackos who are in Congress, or consistently on TV.

The real wackos are the ones who want to spend us into a ditch and attempt to tax their way out of it. There simply is not sufficient money to be taxed to pay for all the promises made.

Re:Your kidding, right?

[jahudabudy]

It would probably only take a few minutes to get a list using google of the lefts wackos who are in Congress, or consistently on TV.

And yet you didn't do it in order to provide any support for your assertion. Instead, you rely on the old "Conservatives, are, like, being oppressed, man, by the MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Reality is the opposite of what you see." Seriously, this mantra from right-wing apologists gets pretty old. I've been hearing it since the 80s, how the poor misunderstood right wing is misrepresented by the media (or academia), while the evil left wing is nefariously undermining our society, in collusion with the PRESS. After a while, you all just start to sound like a bunch of crybabies. Which isn't helped by the absolute tantrums Congressional Republicans have thrown the last two times the Dems took the Whitehouse (I'd guess it goes back further, but I don't remember Carter). I don't have any particular respect for Democrats, but geez, at least they aren't the fat kid that wants to take the ball we all chipped in on and go home when the group decides to play the bushes as an automatic double and he wants to play no boundaries. Then cries to mommy about how we are all just SO MEAN b/c we don't wanna play exactly like he does.

Re:Your kidding, right?

[ubergeek65536]

So Sweeden, Germany, Belgium, and Austria are full of wackos? Very high on standards of living lists, very prosperous, and very taxed.

Re:Not rightists...

[mcvos]

While Liberals today like to pretend otherwise, the Nazi's were the National Socialist Party and were, therefore, leftist by definition.

No. What really defines whether you're left or right, is where you want to sit in parliament. And Hitler sat with the conservatives. He hated socialists and communists, yet didn't mind the conservatives, aristocrats and industrialists so much.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Mad Hamster]

When the "The Producers" musical ran in Berlin, they weren't allowed (AFAIK, might be self-censorship) to use swastikas. Which was too bad, spoils the joke a bit.

Awesome, you say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. As in: Awesomely dumb. (Hear me out. I'm speaking anonymously because I always do out of principle. Not because I'm interested in acting like a dick.)

Why do people always think, they could change the minds of those who think differently (even when dumbly), by treating them like they are worse people? (Even when they actually act like that.)
That's not how that works. In fact that's quite the opposite of how that works. And to make things even worse, it's exactly the thing the Nazis do to other "races". So it's quite stunningly stupid, to tell someone to lay off the pipe by blowing smoke in his face.
Humans, and I'm speaking from the standpoint of someone who knows his psychology, always have to keep their self-respect. No exceptions.
So the way to go about actually changing their views, requires you to keep that. Period.
Which means you do not say "You bad! Become normal! I know way." ("normal" is a very egocentric word anyway), but you do say "You normal. You know way to become better! You just didn't know you knew." Then you make them imagine how much better life is that way. There is hardly a soul on the planet who, when in a shitty situation and being offered something with huge benefits they can personally relate to, chooses not to take it.
And if you can't... then sorry mate, but GTFO, since you're not helping, other than proving they have good reason not to choose something that even you can't make look better. (Ok, I know I always could make non-racism look better. Because it is better.)

Besides: I had contact to may Nazis from today (as a brown-ish actual Aryan who has lived in Germany's more backwards countrysides), and they just became racist because of the shitty situation/life they were in and the Nazi mindset/people offering them some hope / "way out". Just like many people become religious when they have to live through a war. They drink a lot. And if they are off alcohol and their life becomes better, they nearly all just become normal people who love their family and are often better citizens than many of us. I think if some people would actually try to understand the reasons Nazis become Nazis, instead of being just as ignorant dicks as the Nazis themselves, this whole problem would be long gone by now.

(That's why I found the "Nazis need love too" campaign much better.)

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[royallthefourth]

When Hitler got his real power in government, the brownshirts demanded that he actually follow through and implement the social portion of his national socialist program. Of course he had no plans on doing this, resulting in the "Night of the Long Knives".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

Not to mention that nationalism is antithetical to socialism because it creates divisions among the proletariat by national lines, thus weakening it by division and mixing it with the class enemy of capitalists. This absurdity, when the whole point is to unite the proletariat and make those divisions purely on class lines.
So, no, the viewpoint was not socialist. They may have had some social programs in there, but there's not a shred of Marx to be found.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[royallthefourth]

I consider the "blue laws" still on the books to be right wing fascism

Well fascism is just, like, your opinion man.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[The Master Control P]

Let's list some of the defining characteristics of fascism: Powerful and Continuing Nationalism; Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause; Rampant Sexism; Obsession with National Security; Religion and Government are Intertwined; Corporate Power is Protected; Labor Power is Suppressed; Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts; Obsession with Crime and Punishment.

Are you seriously going to continue claiming that FDR was fascist?

Labels aside, the thing that the Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Castro and basically all other dictatorships (left or right) and religious theocrat movements like AQ have in common, and the thing that ties together all of the characteristics listed above, is Hofstader's "disorder in relation to authority:" the inability to find any mode of human relationship other than complete dominance or complete submission.

Re:how big is the movement?

[grumling]

I hate Illinois Nazis
    -Joliet Jake

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Blues_Brothers#.27Joliet.27_Jake_Blues

Troll shirts next

[Billly Gates]

Part of my niave side thinks it would be hysterical to hide the goatse.cx image for a surprise. :-)

I do not know ... maybe give them out at a Tea Party event. Just saying ...

Re:Troll shirts next

[ArsenneLupin]

Yes!!!!!!! Does anybody know the address of a shop where you can get these printed?

Re:Not rightists...

[The Master Control P]

Right, and the People's Democratic Republic of North Korea is a democracy. And I'm a fool for deleting all those emails that promise me cheap, high-quality viagra - after all, it'll be cheap and high quality by definition, it's in the name.

[Poe's Law - the right wing has gone so far off the deep end it's impossible to distinguish between those satirizing them and those who actually believe this BS]

Arrogant and zynic

[cm017510]

I have to wonder about the attitude of these "T-Shirt Partisans", how they dare to interfere with the private life of others. How arrogant and zynic this is, "donating" T-Shirts, but it's not a real donation, it's a "fuck you", disguised as "helping". The people who do such actions seem to view themselfes as morally superior. There could not be a much more dangerous attitude.

Re:Arrogant and zynic

[hesiod]

The people who do such actions seem to view themselfes as morally superior.

How do YOU know that THEY aren't laughing their asses of for trolling a bunch of NN's? That's pretty arrogant of YOU to suggest you know their intentions. Fuhrermore, maybe they are morally superior. I don't know anyone involved, so I can't say for sure.

Re:Arrogant and zynic

[cm017510]

Common sense. The climate is no longer rational.

Re:Give in to your hate.

[silentcoder]

>It's still a given in any culture with a hope of long-term survival. Without this, a culture lacks the cohesion required to prevent being overrun by others. (other things are required too of course, like a decent birth rate and the ability to defend land)

This kind of logic is exactly what drives racism and most of the evil bigotry in the world. And it's a shortsightedly stupid way to think about things - that is just plain wrong.
Historically the longest living cultures have consistently been those that embraced change, embraced other cultures and homogenized with them. The greek and roman cultures were both like that.
If you study greek mythology you will find Zeus having dozens of wives one after the other, In fact, if you look a bit closer you learn that each of them is the name of a mothergoddess from some culture the Greeks conquered.
The first thing they did each time: take the local deity and marry her to their OWN chief deity - voila, end of any religious dissagreement with the new subjects. Then take elements of their culture into Greek culture, and they are much more ready to accept elements of Greek culture into their own.
Thus came an empire of almost 2000 years, the Romans really just took over the Greek empire (so much so that 200 years after the fall of the Roman republic in the time of the Apostles Greek was still a lingua franca throughout the empire).
By incorporating Greek culture into Roman culture they could do so, by repeating the methodology of acceptance and homogenization they preserved their world and empire for another 1500 (that's 3500 that's really Greek culture), and even then only the Western Empire failed - the Eastern Empire still lasted another 900 years after that !

No culture since then has been that long-lived, no empire has come close to that longevity - exactly because they didn't homogenized, didn't treat other cultures with tolerance and mutual sharing of ideals and knowledge.
Cultural reservationism is a doomed enterprize. And in our world of global communication it's more doomed than ever before. The simple reality is that a one-world-culture is the only logical outcome. The only choice we have is how much bloodshed we'll have before we get to that inevitable result.
Those cultures that provide the least bloodshed, and the most tolerance are likely to have the biggest influence on the cultural mergers and ultimately the biggest impact on the resulting world human-culture.

That's cultural longevity. It may not be the kind you want, but sorry for you, it's the only kind that can possibly exist in the future. Take it, or leave it -and the only way to leave it is to kill yourself.

The Hitler line of thinking (preserve culture by wiping out all others) doesn't work - you will always lose. You can't kill all the people in your own culture who have empathy and humanity with different people. You can't kill all the different people and you sure can't force them all to be like you without some reciprocity.

In short. Die now, or accept that cultural homogenization is inevitable and dedicate your efforts to achieving it with the least bloodshed and maximum utility possible. Work to show the best of your culture other cultures so they will want to adopt that, and work to adopt the best of theirs so they will respect you for it.
Now THAT is how you build a society worth living in.

Should have bought Che Guevara t-shirts!

[Vinegar Joe]

Because he's uber cool.

Re:how big is the movement?

[PopeRatzo]

how many neo nazis are there in Germany, about?

I would say that all of the neo-nazis in Germany are about.

However, more to the point is "how many neo-nazis are there in all of Northern Europe?"

I was shocked at how ubiquitous nazi-style nationalism and white supremacism seemed to be on my last trip to Scandinavia. But I guess when you squeeze a society with "austerity measures" this is the kind of ugliness that's going to pop out. The rise of the "Tea Party" here in America is a similar phenomenon. They're just neo-nazis with a good public relations department.

This won't be a popular opinion...

[ThisIsSaei]

I know this is going to get a bit of hate, and I considered for a moment posting as anon, but meh -- if it's worth saying, it's worth taking the blame for it. I don't like this. I think that subversively trying to inject your opinions into another group gets into that gray area of suppression of free speech. (Yes, I know, I know, they're Nazis -- you can't get a more polarized group than this, and the entire mentality of Godwin's law is in effect here, this is too volatile of a emotional package to make a decent point.) But, if we were to look at it generally (i.e. Replace 'Neo-Nazi' with '$group_name') and just make the same argument -- you'd start to find it a lot less funny, and perhaps even offensive. For example, had Neo-Nazis used the same method to secretly trick a huge number of people into wearing Swasticas ("I swear, it was a picture of a dog before I washed it!") There would be outrage over the "subversive attack" used to "deface" the, arguably, victims. (I only use the quotes to stress those words, clearly if I think we shouldn't do it to Neo-Nazis, I think we shouldn't do it at all.) To paraphrase Billy Gates here; "Let's do this to the Tea Party." -- So the next step is suppression of political ideologies that you find wrong? Is this really funny so long as it's not happening to American Liberals?

Re:This won't be a popular opinion...

[ArsenneLupin]

Lighten up. It's a goddam T-Shirt. And one you got for free. You see the new picture when you take it out of the washing machine... before you would put it on and embarrass yourself in public. It's not as if this was changing while you're wearing it (reacting to body heat and sweat), making you unaware of the message that you're displaying.

Now, for some truly bad mischief, print a T-Shirt which changes into a cartoon of kiddie porn. Even if it happens in the privacy of the victim's home, the damage would still be done: indeed, legally the victim would not even be allowed to throw it away, as that would be destruction of evidence...

Re:This won't be a popular opinion...

[ThisIsSaei]

I see your point - and it is a ton better than it was in the privacy of a home where the hidden message revealed itself - but can you still see what I'm saying about how this will be used? I'm pointing to the calls to use it in other cases, with more shocking images, against less extreme people - right here in this thread. I guess I'm saying; yes, this isn't the most horrible thing ever... does that make it good?

Re:how big is the movement?

[Anonymous Coward]

"On the other hand, Nazi uniforms in movies are not really censored so go figure."

My first Godwin today. :-)

Most of the original Nazi chic was designed by a sponsor of the SS, Hugo Boss, one of the favorite designers of US Bosses too.
He designed the SA, SS, Hitler-Youth uniforms as well as those of several other Nazi groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Boss

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[pecosdave]

FDR was at minimum a socialist.

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - yes - a traits of most national leaders.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - Free market capitalist? Freedom in general? He ordered lots of banks to close, part of the history of the town I live in now is devoted to that and he prolonged the depression so money?

Sexism - look at when he was in power. He was more famous for racism anyways.

National Security - this was the excuse for a lot of his socialist programs

Religion and Government intertwined - I don't see this as a requirement myself, however as long as you consider personal moral causes etc.. to be religious, yes

Corporate Power is Protected; Labor Power is Suppressed - He seized corporate and labor power with the NRA (the old NRA) and Blue Eagle programs. He enforced the programs with goon squads. He regulated pricing of everything, those who did not participate in the programs by either under cutting the national price or over pricing, got a visit from a goon squad. What about executive order 6102?

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - I don't see how this is actually something to do with fascism other than some arbitrary opinion shared by many fascist. Hitler loved art, he's famous for his Disney character sketches as well as some other stuff. Mussolini stared in films (American films even) and was known to have his own artistic side. I don't know much about FDR and art but I don't consider this "requirement" very relevant. Obviously anyone smart enough to make a few bucks by getting around his anti-profit anti-business Blue Eagle garbage was hated by FDR.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment - YES - blue eagle, Compulsory Code System, court packing, most of the "crime" Roosevelt disliked had to do with opposing him.

I don't know how you can see him as anything less than a fascist.

What makes the NDP "right wing"?

[Attila Dimedici]

When I looked into what the NDP stood for, the only difference I could see between policies that NDP called for and policies that the Democratic Party in the US called for is that the NDP is nationalistic and above board about its segregationism.

Re:What makes the NDP "right wing"?

[cm017510]

Valid opinion. However if you say this in Germany, you are a Nazi. There are many reasons, but one esp. is that the NPD doesnt want foreigners esp. from arabic countrys in Germany. Generally, you canont discuss rationally anything related to cultural or social problems betwheen Germans and certain foreign people like the Arabs. This comes because after the war we where all evil, so to say: "Hitler killed the Jews, that was wrong, but we have seen our mistake and NOW we are tolerant to everybody". Ideas of Multiculturalism emerged, negating pretty much all real problems bethween different cultures, wich of course always exists. Whoever spoke about problems with other nations is a Nazi. The NPD of course might have some resonable policies, but on the other hand many extremist people are in there. If you are a member of the NPD in Germany, you are target of public hate and harassment. It's some kind of ritual. If you are maybe a public person, and would say something slightly reasonable about the NPD, or would refuse to take part in a donation or petition "Against Right", as there are many, you would be excluded from public life and humiliated. Just to give you an idea. My view is, that of course there are more then enough crackpots in the NPD, and I wonder why they dont realize they cant't win, but this kind of public hysteria and open hate towards them is also not healthy.

Re:What makes the NDP "right wing"?

[Attila Dimedici]

However if you say this in Germany, you are a Nazi.

Of course that brings up the question of what makes the Nazis right wing. What about a socialist being nationalist is "right wing"?

Re:What makes the NDP "right wing"?

[Darinbob]

National Socialists weren't socialists. It's just a word. There was very little in their ideology that had anything to do with traditional socialism. According to Goebbels the name was meant to be an opposite of "international socialism" used by Marxists.

The nazis were right wing in many ways but they really didn't have much of what we'd recognize as well structured political ideology so aren't so easily classified. Like all fascists it was more of a populist movement based on opposition to other ideologies. That is it is easier to describe it as what it was against than what it was in favor of. Left and right are very fuzzy terms and you can't take these archaic revolutionary French descriptions and apply them to modern society easily. Politics is is much more complex than the one dimensional scale people try use with it.

Re:What makes the NDP "right wing"?

[Attila Dimedici]

Fascists are central planners like all other left wing ideologies. If you put communists on the left wing and fascists on the right wing it makes for a very narrow political spectrum. From the perspective of modern American conservatives, fascists have more in common with communists and socialists than with the modern American conservatives.

Re:What makes the NDP "right wing"?

[Darinbob]

Right wing can be central planners too, and socialists can be decentralized. The nazis were absolutely opposed to everything that had to do with socialism or communism. It is true that they were very state oriented much like USSR was but that does not mean that they had similar ideologies or political leanings. The nazis were opposed to workers unions and more encouraging of big industrial chiefs, whereas communism and socialism were very much pro-worker (not counting Stalinism who was much more fascist in some ways than communist).

Ultimately though the nazis weren't really left or right. Their plan was to get rid of jews and communists and undesirable elements then go to war to promote German strength and regain lost glory. They didn't have much of a plan on how to actually govern beyond that though. They were thugs and it's hard to have a reasonable political discussion with thugs. Still, people do want to pinpoint nazis somewhere on the illogical left-right spectrum even though they don't really fit.

Modern American conservatives are for central planning too, when it suits them. All political parties tend to want a strong government to support the stuff that they feel needs enforcing and a weak government for the stuff they feel the government shouldn't get involved in. You can see it in the budget debates, each party has their set of items that they do not want to see shrinking and a set of items that they do what to shrink. The republicans are opposed typically to shrinking the defense budget, thus they're for a big government when it comes to the military. Both parties tend to want a big government for homeland security, anti terrorism theater, drug enforcement, etc, and that means central planning.

Re:What makes the NDP "right wing"?

[Attila Dimedici]

Modern American conservatives are for central planning too, when it suits them.

No, they are not. Many (probably most) Republican politicians are for central planning when it suits them. I should have clarified that modern American conservatives do not favor central planning of the economy.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[pecosdave]

So is that a real Troll mod, or is that I'm a Left or Right winger and I disagree with this Libertarian minarchist?

That was a stupid survey

[sirwired]

2, 3, 5 and 6 were all highly conditional questions for which there is no single correct answer. It was merely designed to promote the ideological bent of the author.

2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). - I can see what he's getting at here (the "market basket" of goods a median household income can buy today is far better than it was 30 years ago) but this is demonstrably untrue by many other measures. (Labor required to attain the median household income, unemployment, retirement age, leisure time, income inequality, poverty, etc.

3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). - Universal rent controls, yes. "spot" mandatory affordable housing, not necessarily.

5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). - I'd call factory conditions that would shame a 1900s factory boss exploitation, no matter that the wage is otherwise "fair."

  6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). - What a joke. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of late middle age unemployed manufacturing workers that can only find McJobs that that is the case.

Re:That was a stupid survey

[phantomfive]

In fact your arguments merely show that your economic knowledge comes more from partisan sources, and not from actual academic resources. For example, your answer to question 2 indicates you will use whatever statistics necessary to conform with your political leaning. You might want to reassess where your economics knowledge comes from.

Re:Give in to your hate.

[heathen_01]

Fantastic, all we need to do is marry Muhammed to Jesus and peace and harmony will reign for 4400 years.

Couple of problems with that...

[denzacar]

1 - Humans are not perfectly logical automatons.
In fact, if we have learned anything from all those math classes it's that most people can't wrap their heads around any logic above the very basic "1+1=2" level.

2 - Other person's subjective point is generally inferior to our own subjective point, us being able to sense our own body and think our own thoughts and not theirs. Unless...

3 - ...We are confusing his/her/its subjective point with our own. Which would be empathy.
We are not logically empathic any more than we are logically hateful, loving or afraid.
We simply can't always tell if it is us or the humans we are observing that is experiencing sensations and emotions.

You can't be rationally emotional, no more than you can solve mathematical problems with love alone.
Sure, you can use logic to figure out empathy, but you can't impose rules or form laws of empathic actions-reactions on the base of rational logic.
Cause emotions are simply not logical.

Re:Couple of problems with that...

[JordanL]

Again, I am not saying emotions are logical, I'm saying emotions are information which is necessarily logical to understand.

Re:Couple of problems with that...

[denzacar]

I'm saying emotions are information which is necessarily logical to understand.

That (part of the) sentence does not make much sense.

Are you trying to say that logic is necessary to understand information?
Or that it is logical that the understanding of something like emotions is necessary?
Or that all emotion is JUST information, and all information being logical it can be understood logically... something-something...

Re:Couple of problems with that...

[JordanL]

I am saying that it works like this: the more knowns you have, the more accurate your logical conclusions will likely be. Emotions represent an unknown or a known, just like other information necessary to interpersonal interaction. Because of those two things, it follows that someone wishing to employ logic to guide them should see empathy, (or the ability to receiving understanding about the emotion of other people), as a component of knowledge that will always improve their logic in dealing with other people.

Re:Couple of problems with that...

[cheekyjohnson]

it follows that someone wishing to employ logic to guide them should see empathy

I don't see why. Just understand their position and how they came to it (if that's even relevant information). Their subjective point of view is, to me, irrelevant (because it's subjective). Well, I suppose you would need to empathize with other people... if you wanted to empathize with them in the first place.

Re:Couple of problems with that...

[JordanL]

Believing you can understand someone's position and how they came to it without empathizing is a dangerous path. It is the pill that poisons intellect into megalomania.

Their subjective view is objective information to your reality, because it affects their actions, and their actions affect you. Without empathy you can convince yourself that you understand people, but you cannot truly understand them.

Re:Couple of problems with that...

[cheekyjohnson]

Believing you can understand someone's position and how they came to it without empathizing is a dangerous path.

Well, I suppose if they reached their position entirely based on preference or emotions, you'd have a point. But, then again, I don't care about understanding those types of viewpoints.

Their subjective view is objective information to your reality

Only in that it exists (probably).

because it affects their actions, and their actions affect you.

It can't be helped.

Without empathy you can convince yourself that you understand people, but you cannot truly understand them.

You could understand it without empathy if their reasons for reaching their viewpoint include more than just emotion or preference. Assuming facts exist, that is.

Re:Couple of problems with that...

[JordanL]

The point is not that empathy is the only thing you need to understand their point of view, the point is that it a necessary part to understand their point of view.

Re:Couple of problems with that...

[cheekyjohnson]

I guess my point is that I don't care about their point of view. Viewpoints reached only through emotion or preferences do not matter to me. They may affect me at times, and I may occasionally try to convince them to rethink their position, but it's ultimately pretty pointless to me. It's subjective for a reason.

Re:Couple of problems with that...

[JordanL]

I don't know another way of saying this.... Empathy is not JUST important for view points ONLY reached through emotion, it is important for ALL view points because regardless of what people would like to believe, the vast majority of human brains will use emotion as a component of reaching a view point in almost every situation and circumstance they can be put in.

As I said, I am not really trying to convince you that I am right and you are wrong, I am relaying my view point using nothing but information, (which is the way that you have stated you are interested in understanding view points). Perhaps because of the type of view point I am holding, this method is failing both of us. It's clear to me that empathy is necessary for my point to be made, (which also actually is my point), but it's equally clear that you find no utility in understanding the view point I'm expressing.

Thanks for the conversation, it's been interesting. :) We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

Re:Couple of problems with that...

[cheekyjohnson]

Empathy is not JUST important for view points ONLY reached through emotion, it is important for ALL view points because regardless of what people would like to believe, the vast majority of human brains will use emotion as a component of reaching a view point in almost every situation and circumstance they can be put in.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I believe that you can easily thrive while not using emotions or empathy.

which is the way that you have stated you are interested in understanding view points

Only for information that I deem useful. I don't deem emotions as useful.

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

I guess so.

Re:Couple of problems with that...

[cheekyjohnson]

Saying that subjective things don't matter because they are subjective is circular reasoning and doesn't answer question.

Alright, then I'll answer your question: because I just don't care about them.

Does this mean you only care about things that can be absolutely proven to be factually real and true?

No. I accept what I see around me and typically only believe in things that have been scientifically proven to a certain degree. I'm not sure that anything can be absolutely proven.

that doesn't mean it doesn't matter or isn't real.

Well, it doesn't matter to me (even if it is real).

If life was nothing but cold, hard facts, with no feeling associated with it, I think that would be pretty boring.

I think so, too. However, I said nothing of the sort. I meant that I don't care if someone comes to the conclusion that oxygen doesn't exist because that belief gives them comfort (perhaps I communicated that poorly). I'm going to need some scientific evidence to prove that if you want me to believe it.

I believe that, for most things, using emotion to try to prove something is absolutely futile. That's why I don't care about them.

If you will indulge my curiosity, tell me: what do you consider important, and why?

I don't know.

Re:Give in to your hate.

[Killjoy_NL]

Bookmarking this comment because it is so fucking hilarious :D

Re:how big is the movement?

[lxs]

I watched Inglorious Basterds in a Berlin cinema, and in one shot where a swastika flag filled the screen, there was an audible gasp from the audience. So I can tell from first hand experience that Nazi symbols are allowed in the right context (i.e. not glorifying Nazism), and that Germans are still very uncomfortable around them.

Re:how big is the movement?

[AngryDeuce]

I think the implied distinction is that it's "illegal" foreigners that are doing the job stealing. At least, that's been my experience. I honestly haven't heard a "foreigners" rant in it's own right since my grandfather passed away 15 years ago. Pretty much everyone accepts the people that come here properly and follow the law (although you do have rants about people not learning English and such, but I'd bet that happens in any country that has a universal language if not a national one).

What a great idea

[DaveV1.0]

Because, there is no better way to get your message across to someone than to trick them and waste their time.

Lefty tendencies

[sourcerror]

However Hitler and Mussolini weren't free-market, free-trade advocates either.
Wikipedia says:
"The Nazis argued that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences within it.[97] Adolf Hitler, both in public and in private, held strong disdain for capitalism; he accused modern capitalism of holding nations ransom in the interests of a parasitic cosmopolitan rentier class.[99] He opposed free-market capitalism's profit-seeking impulses and desired an economy where community interests would be upheld.[100] "

" The Nazis claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict, its aggression against the middle class, its hostility to small businessmen, and its atheism.[97] Nazism rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction.[23]"

"Private property rights were conditional upon the economic mode of use; if it did not advance Nazi economic goals, the state could nationalize it.[182] Nazi government corporate takeovers, and threatened takeovers, encouraged compliance with government production plans, even if unprofitable for the firm.
[...]
Agricultural and industrial central planning was a prominent feature of Nazi economics. To tie farmers to the land, selling agricultural land was prohibited; farm ownership was nominally private, but discretion over operations and residual income were proscribed. That was achieved by granting business monopoly rights to marketing boards, to control production and prices with a quota system. Quotas also were established for industrial goods, such as pig iron, steel, aluminium, magnesium, gunpowder, explosives, synthetic rubber, fuels, and electricity.
[...]
In place of ordinary profit-incentive determining the economy, financial investment was regulated per the needs of the state. The profit incentive for businessmen remained, but was greatly modified: “Fixing of profits, not their suppression, was the official policy of the Nazi party”; however, Nazi agencies replaced the profit-motive that automatically allocated investment, and the course of the economy.[189] Nazi government financing eventually dominated private financial investment, which the proportion of private securities issued falling from over half of the total in 1933–34 to approximately 10 per cent in 1935–38. Heavy business-profit taxes limited self-financing of firms. The largest firms were mostly exempt from taxes on profits, however, government control of these were extensive enough to leave “only the shell of private ownership”. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Private_property

Also, the Lebensborn camps are like a pimped up social benefits program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[V for Vendetta]

Stop listening to Fox "News". There is no relationship between Nazis and socialism. The Nazis hated socialists. They simply co-opted the word for their name as a little trick to steal supporters. The Nazis were right-wing by all standards.

No. The Nazis implemented a lot of laws and rules which qualify as being "socialist". I bet if you ask people on the streets these days in Germany about who implemented these things back in the day, a lot of them would guess "SPD" (Socialdemocrats). This is no surprise as the Nazi leaders (with the exception of Göring - a fighter ace of WW I, perhaps) were working class people and suffered from those restrictions/under those circumstances themselves before coming into power.

Here's a quick list off the top of my head:

• Bonus payment for overtime and work done on Sundays/bank holidays.
• Access to higher-rated professions for working class people. I.e. becoming an officer was restricted to nobles and upper-class citizens.
• Women were treated as equal in jobs, even allowed in leading positions.

The Nazis were very good observers and analyzers of the decline of the Kaiserreich and the Weimar Republic. Most of it was of course done out of necessity (men needed as soldiers -> women in factories) . But it was also done out of conviction.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[V for Vendetta]

[...] remove punk from my statement and use the term anarchist, does it make sense now?

Your original statement seems to be about the typical Neonazi outfit these days. If that's the case, both "punk anarchist" and "anarchist" unfortunately are now longer true. The (ideologically well-trained) Neonazis these days wear suits and ties. They learned that their brutal outfit doesn't cater to the masses. So just like the wolf in the fairy tale they adapted, slipped into the sheep's costume, ate crayon and tuned down their radical messages a bit so that they sound more rational. I said "unfortunately" above as this is more dangerous than the 80s-90s "punk" that will just fit you straight in the face. That did hurt - but the Neonazis could be easily identified as one. These days they (try to) sneak into positions of power. And we might only realize their true conviction if it's too late.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[pecosdave]

So they took a lesson from the Socialist who call themselves Democrats and the Theologans who call themselves Republicans. I'll admit I'm not fully up to date on everything, but what I saw of that one skin head group in Arizona I caught spying on me/scouting me out I'm not in the least bit surprised.

Re:why attack them?

[ravenshrike]

[citation needed]
Specifically about the right wing claiming that those weren't acts of terrorism, outside of the small minority that considers what Roeder did to be vigilantism.

Also, explain how 4 incidents committed be persons with WILDLY differing motives over a period of many years aren't isolated incidents.

Re:why attack them?

[jackbird]

There's two things I can't stand - people who are intolerant of other cultures, and the bloody Dutch!

Re:how big is the movement?

[gmack]

I hear that a lot but then I don't meet very many people willing to do the work they are doing.

Re:how big is the movement?

[tehcyder]

I think the implied distinction is that it's "illegal" foreigners that are doing the job stealing. At least, that's been my experience. I honestly haven't heard a "foreigners" rant in it's own right since my grandfather passed away 15 years ago. Pretty much everyone accepts the people that come here properly and follow the law (although you do have rants about people not learning English and such, but I'd bet that happens in any country that has a universal language if not a national one).

With most neo-Nazis the distinction is that it's the people with brown skin who are stealing the jobs from the people with white skin, nothing more subtle than that.

Re:how big is the movement?

[tehcyder]

I watched Inglorious Basterds in a Berlin cinema, and in one shot where a swastika flag filled the screen, there was an audible gasp from the audience. So I can tell from first hand experience that Nazi symbols are allowed in the right context (i.e. not glorifying Nazism), and that Germans are still very uncomfortable around them.

I should fucking think so too.

Re:how big is the movement?

[readin]

I hear that a lot but then I don't meet very many people willing to do the work they are doing.

Well, at least not at the wages the corporate owners want to pay them. Illegal immigration basically pits rich corporate owners against the poor. The owners win by bringing in scabs thereby keeping wages low.

Re:how big is the movement?

[AngryDeuce]

That's because we're not willing to work for slave wages with no protections or benefits of any kind like they are.

I mean, c'mon, there are plenty of people that are willing to do these jobs, there always has been, but if you expect people to go out and pick strawberries in the heat for $20 a day then you expect too much. Any business running a margin that razor-thin that they can't afford to hire legal citizens for a reasonable wage should probably not be in business, whether it be a farm, or any other type of business.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[royallthefourth]

How can...holding the Congress hostage to push a social health care bill exempt him from being a socialist?

The same way it did for Otto von Bismarck: he created social welfare programs to improve the condition of the working class without destabilizing the bourgeoisie. The whole point was to draw them away from the socialists and give them less incentive to radicalize, thus buttressing the empire from internal collapse. Perhaps a left-wing concession, but completely on behalf of a conservative realpolitik.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Paternalistic_welfare_state

Re:how big is the movement?

[Reverand Dave]

The rise of the "Tea Party" here in America is a similar phenomenon. They're just neo-nazis with a good public relations department.

Well said sir, except I don't think they have a good PR department, just a really really stupid audience.

Re:how big is the movement?

[h4rr4r]

Same thing in the USA with most of the people in the USA stealing about illegals. Note I said most, some are ok with legals, but most use it as a way to hide their real motives.

Re:how big is the movement?

[darkwing_bmf]

Let us know how you feel about that after running your own successful strawberry farm.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Runaway1956]

Part of the problem here is, many of you who are proclaiming the presence of "neonazis" here, there, and everywhere, aren't freaking COMPETENT to count neonazis.

How about this:

I'd be perfectly happy to shoot a few brown-skinned invaders at the border. But, I'd be just as happy to shoot a few white-skinned neonazis just because they are foaming at the mouth, shouting hatred at the brown skins for being brown.

There is nothing wrong with nationalism. Nothing. There is nothing right with hating another race, religion, nationality or whatever. Nationalism is good. But, some of those other races, religions, and nationalities should stay at home, and practice a little nationalism in their homelands. They can't ALL move here, and take our children's heritage away form them!

Let the copycats free!

[alphabet26]

I cant wait for a PETA shirt to turn into an ad for bacon!!!

Foxconn "plight"?

[Quila]

The sensationalist media portrayed the Foxconn employee suicides as a reaction to harsh working conditions. That's a lot of suicides! But a lot of people work at Foxconn. Did you know the suicide rate there is less for that demographic than in the general Chinese society, and much less than for China overall?

Re:Foxconn "plight"?

[mekkab]

You know, I think I had read about that, but when grasping for an example that was semi-relevant to /., I came up with Foxconn suicides. Once again, my own bias for remembering the sensational over whats actual fact comes shining through, once again!

Re:electronics, cars are cheaper

[virg_mattes]

Of course, virtually every item on your list of improvements (with the exception of vehicles) can easily be labeled a luxury. I don't see a single thing (other than the cars) that could reasonably considered a requirement of life, and as you said yourself, for the actual essentials, wages have been stagnant. As for your car argument, I don't see a huge improvement overall. Sure, domestic cars have improved a lot, but Toyota got its reputation on the back of the cars it produced in the '80s, and some of them still show better repair and longevity records than cars today.

Virg

Thank Dems and Pubs, not tea party

[Quila]

Your own quote shows the Dems and Pubs didn't have the spine or will to make real changes that would lead to financial solvency. They didn't even come close to the tea party position of demanding financial solvency.

Re:Thank Dems and Pubs, not tea party

[sorak]

They offered 4 trillion in cuts, and were willing to work with the other party. The tea party and GOP were not. Had the GOP been willing to accept the 4 trillion this would not have happened. Period.

Re:how big is the movement?

[AngryDeuce]

With most neo-Nazis the distinction is that it's the people with brown skin who are stealing the jobs from the people with white skin, nothing more subtle than that.

I understand that, but the person I was responding to was speaking of the U.S. and Europe as a whole, characterizing them as having the opinion that "Foreigners steal our jobs." I was simply pointing out that the number of people who have a blanket hatred foreigners is relatively small in the US. There are very few people I've ever met and talked to that have every begrudged someone from coming here through legal channels (and yes, it comes up, I'm very politically active). It kinda came off like he was accusing the entire continents as being racist, which is untrue.

Re:how big is the movement?

[AngryDeuce]

Well, I guess that's the difference between me and them: I can't take advantage of a person's desperation and by low-balling them for hard labor and still sleep at night. Nor could I willingly sell out my country by hiring an illegal and paying them under the table.

Re:Nazi views right-wing?

[moco]

Since... ever?

From Wikipedia's entry on fascism:

Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism, stating: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century.".[41][42] The majority of scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right.[43][38][39][40]

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[TangoMargarine]

My hero's are Andrew Jackson, Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, Mark Twain (for other reasons), and George Carlin for putting modern politics into perspective.

My heroes know how to properly use an apostrophe. Though to be fair, all of those guys with the exception of George Carlin lived back before they really standardized American English spelling.

Re:Give in to your hate.

[tehcyder]

You either need therapy or a bullet in the head.

Re:Give in to your hate.

[tehcyder]

Bookmarking this comment because it is so fucking hilarious :D

But GP is just stating FACTS tha every WHITE person knows! You can't argue with SCIENTIFIC PROOF like that.

Re:What is Right Vs. Left in the German context?

[HeckRuler]

Man, I love how you rally against labels like "right" and "left" and then go on a veritiable rampage throughout your thread about the labels of Nazis, socialists, communists, who was who, and who was similar to who.

Fuck your -ists, fuck your -isms. It all boils down to what they did. Everyone that sits around bickering about how it all fits into the ideological flavors of... whatever, they need to get off their ass and go do something.

Re:why attack them?

[tehcyder]

I prefer right-wing extremists over people who attack others because of their political views.

You didn't really need the words after "extremists" to show us how you think.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Creepy]

Most of that censorship (like the ban on red blood causing games to use green blood or android armies) was pre-PEGI. These days Germany mostly follows PEGI recommendations without additional censorship except for certain things (like swastikas), or so my German friends say.

I still laugh at their crazy taxes, though - for instance, computers are taxed as TVs even if they aren't used as TVs. I'm waiting for smartphones to get that tax bitch slap...

Re:how big is the movement?

[scot4875]

Actually, the neo-nazi compound near Hayden, ID was purchased, bulldozed, and turned into a park a long, long time ago. Most of the skinheads that lived in the area have moved away.

--Jeremy

Re:how big is the movement?

[magarity]

how many neo nazis are there in Germany, about?

Nazis? It says right-wing.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Opportunist]

But ... but ...

They took oooor juuuuuubs!

Re:how big is the movement?

[Opportunist]

I won't. Why? Because in this economy it is not possible to run a successful strawberry farm without breaking the law. That's why.

Also I wonder where the usual right-wings cries for "less legislation and let the market sort it out" are. I can see why there are none, though. Why? Because it would not only go against another demand of them, it would also make prices go UP, not down, as they usually promise when you take away regulations.

That's what I don't like about the new right, it's inconsistent. We don't want government influence, well, unless it does what we want to do. We don't want government influence. But we want government to keep illegal immigrants out. Taking away government influence means that there are simply no illegal immigrants anymore. People would move wherever they want, according to the market demands. And then these people would tell the strawberry farmers to go suck on a cucumber, they get 50 bucks a day in the factory around the corner, with a roof above their head, and they can now work there because they don't have to take every shady deal anymore, they can legally work. And prices for strawberries would go up, since wages have to go up to get pickers.

Now, dear new-rights, where is the demand for less government action and more market driven economy now? As soon as market forces would require you to pay higher wages and doesn't allow you to abuse people in a pickle anymore, suddenly I hear cries that government has to step in and do something about it.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Opportunist]

I guess it depends on where you go. If you go to Germany, you'll find a lot of Neo Nazis in the former GDR areas, where unemployment is high and the outlook bleak.

They're rather few and far between in the more prosperous areas.

Re:how big is the movement?

[darkwing_bmf]

I completely agree with you about the hypocrisy.

Taking away government influence means that there are simply no illegal immigrants anymore. People would move wherever they want, according to the market demands. And then these people would tell the strawberry farmers to go suck on a cucumber, they get 50 bucks a day in the factory around the corner, with a roof above their head, and they can now work there because they don't have to take every shady deal anymore, they can legally work. And prices for strawberries would go up, since wages have to go up to get pickers.

This is how I would solve the so called "illegal immigration" problem. Unfortunately, the voting majority are self centered and lack any sense of egalitarianism. Prejudice against "the other" trumps "freedom and justice for all."

Re:how big is the movement?

[Firethorn]

Used in entertainment or as a way to promote the nazi ideology is forbidden,

One would think that using them as bad guys in a movie set just before WWII (Raiders of the Lost Ark was set in 1936, Last Crusade in 1938) would be okay, but I guess that Germany is still a touch sensitive about it.

I know it's not a 'documentary', but it was still a period piece.

Re:how big is the movement?

[bluemonq]

If the government spent money on prosecuting companies that hired illegals instead of trying to keep illegals out, I suspect you'd get better results.

Oh, wait. I forgot that no party would want to do anything to harm the profits of the agricultural industry.

Re:how big is the movement?

[gangien]

The rise of the "Tea Party" here in America is a similar phenomenon. They're just neo-nazis with a good public relations department.

How does shit like this get modded up?

The absolute number 1 goal the of the tea party is a government that lives within it's means. Doesn't spend more than it makes. And that is considered radical and worthy of comparison's to terrorists and nazis.

We are so fucked it's amazing.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Jiro]

Illegal immigration is actually opposed to "let the market sort it out" in several ways. The illegal immigrants are coming from a country whose economic situation is worse than ours, and that situation is the fault of their country's government, which makes it non-free market. Also, foreign ownership of property in Mexico is subject to restrictions, and illegal immigration *to* Mexico is treated very harshly--the "free market" is one sided. Finally, any benefits that illegal aliens get from the US government are certainly not free market, even very generalized ones like police or public education if they're better than the homegrown Mexican versions.

Re:age rating

[TheRaven64]

You're the second poster today to assume that I'm in the USA. I'll have to tell you all to be good chaps or something in future. In the UK, game ratings had no legal force (I don't think they do now, but I stopped caring once I became 18), so a minor could buy any game without problems.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Danse]

While the Republicans make a lot of noise about illegal immigration, they never seem to have the balls to really go after the consumption side of the equation and start prosecuting every company they can find that hires illegals. They're so gung-ho about it in the drug war, why not immigration as well? It's also kind of interesting that Obama is actually deporting more illegals per year than GWB did.

Re:how big is the movement?

[PopeRatzo]

The absolute number 1 goal the of the tea party is a government that lives within it's means.

You left out the most important part:

The absolute number one goal of the tea party is a government that lives within it's means, where "lives within its means" means making sure the niggers and mexicans stay in their place

Let's not bullshit here, gangien. There have been presidents who raised the deficit a lot more than Barack Obama, in actual dollar terms. The last budget that George Bush signed went from a previous year's deficit of about $300billion to over $1.2 trillion, for a total addition to the deficit of $900 billion. Barack Obama's first year in office the deficit increased by $200 billion, during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. In his second year, the deficit actually shrunk by nearly $200 billion.

So when I say "let's not bullshit" what I mean is, let's not pretend that the "tea party" is anything by a hyper-racist, John Birch-style group, and it is absolutely worthy of comparison to other similar gangs.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Opportunist]

Well, then I guess moving production to this country is also anti-free market, since their economy obviously doesn't support it. In other words, moving production to China should be banned.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Opportunist]

If they'd be gung-ho about the drug war, they should start hanging the ones that launder the drug money. You'd see a lot clean up in very little time.

And it's quite logic why the right is vocal about illegal immigration, to appease its voters, but not really interested in getting rid of them. They're essentially slaves, near free workforce that need not be subject to labour laws because they have no representation and no legal protection at all.

This is, btw, what we'd get if we really let the market "sort it out". Take a look at the illegal immigrant and realize you'd be looking at yourself in a totally free, unrestricted capitalist society. Unless of course you own that strawberry farm.

Re:how big is the movement?

[Hognoxious]

I won't. Why? Because in this economy it is not possible to run a successful strawberry farm without breaking the law. That's why.

What do you mean by this economy? The article is about Germany, and yet you're suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch an expert about the UK that you absolutely must have lived there since the fucking act of bastard union. Or perhaps you flipped a finger to the Romans as you crossed them in the channel. Whatever. Even if you were half the genius you think you are - and you aren't - you can't be in two places at once.

Where were we? Strawberry farms.

So, even if wages for strawberry pickers do go up, and prices move accordingly, somebody somewhere will like strawberries so much that they'll be willing to pay. Demand isn't a boolean. There will be fewer strawberry farms, but that's a long way from there being none, and you know it.

Didn't you read what I said?

[sirwired]

I stated that there was NO SINGLE CORRECT ANSWER. If you measure standard of living by "market basket" (or many other measurements) you come up with a better living standard. If you measure standard of living by examining a different set of factors, you get a different answer. He didn't ask about "market basket", he just asked the responder to judge the unacceptably vague "standard of living." How is the survey responder supposed to know which one Prof. Klein had in mind?

Yes, the answer a particular person chooses can demonstrate political leanings and/or information sources. But to decide that one set of perfectly correct answers is "enlightened" and the other "unenlightened" is disingenuous in the extreme.

By the way, I would have answered using the Market Basket measurement, meaning I would have been considered "enlightened" under this test for that question.

And yes, my Macroeconomics class in college covered almost all of these topics and covered them from both sides.

3) The question does not state what degree of rent control it is referring to. There are no U.S. communities with universal rent control. The poster child for rent controls, NYC, has under 2% of the market under rent control, making the effect on the larger housing market quite minimal. (A larger portion is covered under "rent stabilization" which is a different topic. The question is not clear if it refers to rent stabilization also.)

5) "Exploitation" suffers from the same vagueness (actually, much more so) than "standard of living."

6) The employment effects of Free Trade Agreements are hotly debated amongst economists. The classic (somewhat old) view is that they do not cause unemployment in either the country of the net importer or net exporter. However, that view relies on the assumption that displaced workers in each country will be able to find jobs in the industries in which their country is more efficient. In the case of NAFTA and Mexico, much of our textiles manufacturing moved there, while much of their agricultural production moved here. (i.e. we are much better at growing one of the primary Mexican staples, field corn, than they are.) Labor productivity went up, but that does not necessarily correlate with lower unemployment in either nation. As labor specialization increases, the ability to reallocate labor resource towards the industries that each country is comparatively better at reduces. In addition, of the labor required for the various specializations is unequal, net employment decreases in one country. (i.e. Increasing grain production for export by a dollar amount equal to the increase in textile imports requires FAR less U.S. ag labor than the U.S. textile labor that was lost, as grain production is natural resource and land intensive, not labor intensive.)

You might want to review Poll and Survey Construction basics. (Hint: Those questions are not the correct way to create an unbiased survey.) He even admitted in his story that none of the questions were designed to "trick" uninfomred economic conservatives into giving "unenlightened" answers. (Which also vaguely implies that this survey was designed to do so in the other direction.) If the survey had included question such as: "Tax increases lead to net employment decreases" (false or true, depending on the nature of the increase), or "Perpetual defecit spending eventually results in currency deflation" (false or true depending on if annual deficit outpaces growth in GDP.)

Re:Didn't you read what I said?

[phantomfive]

I stated that there was NO SINGLE CORRECT ANSWER.

Yes, but there are wrong answers. The ones you gave are really quite lame (the labor required to achieve the median income? Really?)

The point of the quiz is either A) to make liberals look stupid, or B) to allow people to assess how much they are letting their political preferences affect their judgement. If you find yourself putting too much energy into attacking these, you may be a fanatic, and want to check if you are trying to find ways to close your eyes to the facts.

Minor correction

[sirwired]

Whoops... that last sentence was supposed to read "inflation" not "deflation."

Re:how big is the movement?

[darkwing_bmf]

Illegal immigration is actually opposed to "let the market sort it out" in several ways.

The government uses the law to restrict immigration. That is how it is actually opposed to "let the market sort it out."

Re:Nazi views right-wing?

[shutdown -p now]

Fascism is state capitalism, not state socialism. Hence, far right on the traditional scale.

Anarcho-capitalism is not on the traditional scale at all. In any case, it's too fringe to bother recalibratin it (no country has ever voluntarily implemented it, unlike fascism).

Re:Give in to your hate.

[r00t]

You can't kill all the different people and you sure can't force them all to be like you without some reciprocity.

This is a weakness of democracy. Suppose that China decided to repopulate Somalia with Chinese people. They could do it, and nobody would stop them. The USA isn't about to go nuclear with such a major trade partner over some resource-free pirates. China could keep things mostly quiet, claiming to help while limiting information, or just boldly use their UN security council veto power. China can probably even convince the US government to help keep things quiet, since denial is the easiest way for the US government to avoid pressure toward a US-China war. Once the true facts leak out, it's too late.

Better idea

[shutdown -p now]

Make a tee with that iconic Stormfront logo - cross and "white pride world wide" inscribed in a circle around it. Make it so that it changes to "black" or "Jew" or whatever when washed. The trick is that it wouldn't be immediately obvious to a cursory glance, and when discovered by others while the shirt is being worn, hilarity ensues.

Re:Give in to your hate.

[silentcoder]

Damn why doesn't /. have a "Like" button right now ! I love that !

Re:how big is the movement?

[trickyD1ck]

I'm the one doing the stealing, so no need for hiding.

Willing to work with?

[Quila]

I want to shit in your yogurt. You don't want me to. Let's work with each other and find an acceptable level of shit in your yogurt. I say 1/10th of the initial amount I wanted. Is that acceptable?

All the Democrats wanted to cut was projected increases, to not increase the budget by quite so much. In addition, much of the "decrease" was projected, easily killed by later terms of Congress after this issue fades away. Most Republicans were willing to go along with them. This does not lead to financial solvency, so it was not a negotiable position as far as the tea party was concerned. It was the shit in your yogurt.

Tea party types were demanding actual decreases now, as in we spend less next year than we did this year. They were demanding what is needed for financial solvency, not the usual Washington numbers game.

Re:Willing to work with?

[sorak]

And that's why you fucked up our credit rating.The S&P does not buy into your bullshit yogurt analogy and neither the GOP nor the tea party had any interest in responsible deficit control. It was all about keeping taxes low, telling the Dems to go fuck themselves, and finding spending cuts. The reason you could not come up with a responsible deficit plan is because it was not your top priority.

A quote for you

[Quila]

"Congress and the administration are jointly responsible for the conduct of fiscal policy. So, this is not really about either political party." -- David Beers, head of S&Pâ(TM)s government debt-rating unit

If not for tea party influence, we wouldn't have gotten the pathetic effort at debt control that we did get. Both parties would have gladly continued driving us to insolvency.

The blame game you are playing is one of the reasons for the downgrade -- the desire to put politics above getting things done. Just like when your people called the tea party "terrorists."

Re:how big is the movement?

[RockDoctor]

With most neo-Nazis the distinction is that it's the people with brown skin who are stealing the jobs from the people with white skin, nothing more subtle than that.

Try working in the Middle East, or Africa some time. People with one shade of brown skin are perfectly capable of being deeply prejudiced against people with a different shade of brown skin. Or, for that matter, against people with an identical shade of brown skin and a different but intelligible dialect. Or a whiter shade of brown skin. Or people with the same shade of skin and the same dialect, but from the wrong side of the village.

It is a sad but true fact that Homo sapiens (so-called) seems to be genetically or socially pre-disposed to be afraid of (and therefore hostile to) "the other". And if there is no visible ground for distinction, one will be invented.

Anyone want to watch "West Side Story" in a slightly different light?

One for The Good Guys

[PennMan]

Sneaky, sneaky; but ingenious. Fighting fire with water. What a fabulously new concept.