Iran Set To Block Access To Google

legolas writes "The official state online censorship body in Iran has reported that Google and Gmail are going to be blocked effective immediately, ostensibly in response to the contentious videos that YouTube is hosting. This comes as Iran is preparing the launch of their 'Halal' intranet to replace the current direct (albeit highly censored) access to the global Internet. While there have been several state-organized protests for the film 'Innocence Of Muslims' in Iran, the public in general doesn't seem bothered by it."

Comments

Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[squiggleslash]

This poll seems timely: http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/muslim-americans-no-justification-violence.aspx

People react to the culture in which they're brought up. And even in the Middle East, it's a small proportion of Muslims acting in the way rightists here want to depict all Muslims as.

As an atheist, I have no dog in this fight, except one: I want to live in a peaceful world. Six years ago I wrote this journal entry. I'm more fearful today than then that a new Hitler will arise, and no less convinced that the chances are equal that such a Hitler will come from the West as they are from the Middle East.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about the above jibber-jabber, but it seems like Iran didn't take lightly to google being a monopoly in Europe.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[TaoPhoenix]

Trying to save this from a First Post Godwin,

Mr. H. is passe. That's not precisely how the next threat will manifest. The world is too networked for that. I don't have time to read my 1,000 pages for Citations Needed, but basically Mr. H. got as far as he did because of the specific places he was in geography-time.

Now, we might see another Charismatic Dangerous Leader, yes. But you can't go just marching along, not today. So the next Bad Guy will be more of a Loose Cannon that needs to be talked down Game Theory style, with VERY clever diplomacy.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[fustakrakich]

Mr. H. is quite dead, but the ideals are alive and well in today's world. Most people will just march along if they get squeezed in the right fashion, trashing the economy still provides the best results. The "war to end all wars" is coming, if not this one, then the next, or maybe the one after that...

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Nostromo21]

I like yer sig. I read something similar a long time ago: "Evil, like a mathematical proof gone wrong, cannot be 'fixed' - it must be removed entirely & re-started from scratch". :)

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Twigmon]

I think the most scary thing from the poll you linked is that 8% of Muslims did not agree that: Muslims living in the U.S. do not sympathize with the al Qaeda terrorist organization.

This means that 1 in 12 Muslims interviewed could believe that Muslims living in the U.S. sympathize with an organisation who openly hates western society.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[poity]

I'm not sure about those equal chances. People in the West don't fear for their lives when they espouse anti-authoritarian or anti-religion views. This tells me there are more barriers in the West to some imaginary future Hitler. Now, you can say those barriers aren't good enough for you, but the difference is there and the equivalence is false.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[dskoll]

People react to the culture in which they're brought up.

So... does it have nothing to do with culture and religion that most Muslim countries have poor human development levels? That most Muslim countries are sexist (in practice even if they deny it) and homophomic? That a disproportionate number of conflicts involve Muslim countries? Or that most people killed in religiously-motivated riots in the last 50 years have been killed by Muslims (and indeed, have probably been Muslim themselves)?

As another atheist, I think all religion is bad. But just because all religions are bad doesn't mean that all religions are equally bad and at this particular moment in history, Islam is by far the most dangerous religion.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[poity]

Well, that could have other meanings. It could mean, as you say, that they're admitting something. But it could just as likely mean that there are some Muslims who are cynical about people of their faith. I'm sure we can find a good percentage of self-identified Christians who think they're surrounded by fundamentalists and think there are people among them who sympathize with abortion clinic bombers. Less of them would think so as compared to non-Christians, just like the graph, but I'm sure you could find 8 cynics out of 100.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Blaskowicz]

Mr H. had a similar opinion on evil, which was spelled as either jewry or weakness. Strength can only prevail if it eliminates all kinds of weakness.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Taco Cowboy]

The above jibber-jabber you replied to is siding with Iran even though he didn't say so.

By implying that a new "Hitler" could rise out of the West while all the signs are pointing towards the Middle East and the surrounding area - Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt, Libya.

Shutting out Google / YouTube is not the only thing Iran is doing.

Iran is also banning Female Students from taking courses in 77 subjects, including English Literature, Nuclear Science, Sociology, Philosophy

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-22/iranian-women-banned-from-77-university-courses/4275764

It's a totally fucked up world under Islam and more often than not the "new Hitler" will come from a fucked up world, not from places like the West.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[z0idberg]

So the last war will be the war to end all wars?

You are quite sure it won't be the second last one?

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[interval1066]

...it's a small proportion of Muslims acting in the way rightists here want to depict all Muslims as.

Says Agenda Joe.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Guru80]

Didn't bother to go read your 6 year old post, but I disagree on your last point in the parent. There very well could be another "Hitler" in the near future but he's going to be a religious fanatic bent on completely eliminating a competing sect/religion. Think Iran/Israel or any of the other dozens of groups who have a competing antithesis to their stance. Wouldn't shock me at all to see one of those groups to get their hands on the ability to completely wipe out their opposition and actually do it.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Charliemopps]

Most atheists I know have a dog in every fight. Proclaim "There is no God!" is just as annoying as telling everyone to repent. Your anti-believe in God is just as fervent as any foaming at the mouth preachers belief. I'd think that anyone that truly didn't have a religion, if I asked them about the subject they'd just say "Oh I dunno... never really thought about it." Instead you have your own religion, Atheism, and you believe anyone that doesn't agree with your faith is strange and capable of violence. If only they had the same moral compass as you do... perhaps you should try and convert them? Oh wait...

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[jhoegl]

If you dont think hate is being generated here in the USA by "news channel talk show hosts" or "radio talk show hosts", then you havent been paying attention.
It takes generations to remove hate from a culture, but it only takes a few years to generate it.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[khallow]

Mr. H. is passe. That's not precisely how the next threat will manifest. The world is too networked for that. I don't have time to read my 1,000 pages for Citations Needed, but basically Mr. H. got as far as he did because of the specific places he was in geography-time.

And that's how you can fail to degodwinize a thread. Hilter was lucky to get where he did, but it wasn't so much a matter of luck that a Hitler rose to power. For example, the German military, almost immediately started violating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles to the point where they apparently were killing people who knew too much of the Treaty violations in the 1920s. As it turned out, one of the leaders who supervised the German military's black ops stuff, a General Kurt von Schleicher, later became the chancellor of Germany prior to the appointment of Adolf Hitler.

Prior to Schleicher, there was Chancellor Franz von Papen whose most notable act of the period was to overthrow the state government of Prussia (one of the bigger obstacles to ending the Weimar Republic). In other words, there were a number of potential Hitlers out there, two which preceded Hitler in the very job by which he took over. The actual Hitler was relatively dangerous, but he was far from unique.

Now, we might see another Charismatic Dangerous Leader, yes. But you can't go just marching along, not today. So the next Bad Guy will be more of a Loose Cannon that needs to be talked down Game Theory style, with VERY clever diplomacy.

Hitler could have been dealt with that very way and he took a great number of risks that could have ended his reign before the Second World War started. For example, the remilitarization of the Rhine in 1936 provided a great opportunity for France and the UK to take him down. The weakness of his primary opponents was just as important as Hitler's qualities.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[LordLimecat]

it's a small proportion of Muslims acting in the way rightists here want to depict all Muslims as.

>>Objecting to others stereotyping a group
>>Doing so by stereotyping "rightists"

I see what you did there.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[LordLimecat]

But the original Hitler came from the west not from a fucked up place.

What exactly do you suppose you would call Germany, post WW1? Hyperinflation isnt typically the mark of a great place to live.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no expert on the subject (I know everyone else is), but I seem to remember Hitler arose in a battered, lagging nation, suffering from years of retribution over WWI. And before the inevitable, "oh well our economy kinda stinks", you'll have to work pretty hard to convince me that the state of our nation's psyche is anywhere near postwar Germany.

Meanwhile, Gallup says Obama is in the lead, beating a contender that (all hyperbole aside) does not resemble a maniacal dictator with ambitions of taking over the world and breeding a race of aryans to rule for a thousand years. At worst he's an insensitive 2000's-era business mogul looking to enrich his somewhat-similar buddies. At best, he's a political panderer with the ideological spine of a wet noodle and little real prowess to back it up, just doing what looked like the next stop on his career path.

If you want to find a Hitler, I think you'd have to look somewhere pretty poor (not: I can't have the new iphone 5 for another 6 months), where once there was wealth, with a raging hard-on for the outside world. Then find the intelligent, convincing, hard core political leader that presents himself as a "true believer" fighting for his people.

I know we hear some pretty nasty stuff on TV sometimes, but the idea that we're nearing anything close to building a Fourth Reich in earnest seems really silly. Our hot-button issues sound like, "shouldn't gays have all the same marriage priviledges as straights?!" and "is capital gains tax too low?!" or "I think marijuana should be legal!" It all sounds like a far cry from, "are muslims really human beings, or sub-human creatures we should blame for 8% unemployment?"

I dunno... like I said, I'm no expert in geopolitics. That's just how it all looks to me.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[AK Marc]

Yup. the next Hitler will come from a conservative USA after the economic collapse. There will be piles of "I told you so"s and "this all started with 9/11" and other things blaming the Muslims and such for all the hardships in post-collapse USA. We are getting surprisingly close now, with 47-49% of Americans being lazy freeloading leaches taking government money and not paying any taxes. Like my mother who worked for the government for 30+ years and is retired now, sucking the government dry by not killing herself on retirement day. If a liberal posted the exact words from Mitt, he'd be accused of making it up.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[AK Marc]

I'd think that anyone that truly didn't have a religion, if I asked them about the subject they'd just say "Oh I dunno... never really thought about it."

Have you ever answered that in a group of believers? They'll talk to you until you tell them you are saved, or start professing your love to the anti-God. Either way, I've found few religious people that allow for people who do not pick a side.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[cold fjord]

People react to the culture in which they're brought up. And even in the Middle East, it's a small proportion of Muslims acting in the way rightists here want to depict all Muslims as.

Yes, this is clearly a problem of "rightest" depiction of the actions of Islamists.

Bounty on Salman Rushdie increased to $3.3 million - Iran will pursue makers of anti-Islam film: vice-presidenthor

Pakistani minister puts bounty on anti-Islam filmmaker's head

Egypt's president elect Mohammed Morsi says he will try to free Blind Sheikh

Mohammed Morsi, Egypt's president elect, on Friday appealed for the release of one of Osama bin Laden's closest associates, a call sure to alarm critics worried about the direction he will take the country

Interview with Father Zakaria Botros, 'Radical Islam's Bane' - An interview with the Coptic Orthodox Priest with a 60 million dollar bounty on his head from al Qaeda.
More: Michael Coren Interviews Father Zakaria Botros 'Radical Islam's Bane'

Allied Menace

"Here are two brother countries, united like a single fist," said socialist Hugo Chávez during a visit to Tehran last November, celebrating his alliance with Islamist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Che Guevara's son Camilo, who also visited Tehran last year, declared that his father would have "supported the country in its current struggle against the United States." They followed in the footsteps of Fidel Castro, who in a 2001 visit told his hosts that "Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees." For his part, Ilich Ramírez Sánchez ("Carlos the Jackal") wrote in his book L'islam révolutionnaire ("Revolutionary Islam") that "only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the United States."

As an atheist, I have no dog in this fight, except one: I want to live in a peaceful world.

You want to live in a peaceful world, and al-Qaida and assorted Islamists want you to live in a Muslim world. I expect that neither of you will get your wish unless enough people prefer any peace, even the peace of the graveyard, or the "peace" of slavery, to the long term struggle to defense genuine peace a freedom.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[cold fjord]

Now, we might see another Charismatic Dangerous Leader, yes.

The desired habits are being installed even now.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[cold fjord]

defend genuine peace and freedom.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to save this from a First Post Godwin,

Then for pity sake grow a brain and ignore Godwin! There are perfectly valid and rational arguments that invoke Nazism as an example. "Oh my god he mentioned Hitler, therefore he loses" is just childish.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Nemyst]

Comfort breeds a lot of things, namely political apathy and corruption, but it doesn't bring the kind of social unrest necessary to create a new Hitler. You need an unstable area combined with an extremely charismatic leader to succeed there.

A politician in the US or in Europe who wanted to go power-crazy would be stopped by inertia: the population doesn't give a flying shit about what he wants to do, since they're still comfortable as they are and see no reason to change that.

Now, if the US or EU collapse for whatever reason, this may change quickly, but for the time being the chances are slim, whereas the Middle East already is extremely unstable, and many societal elements are already present for there to be a new Hilter-level individual, namely political unrest and the rise to power of religious extremists.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[drkim]

"Mr. H"?! Since when did he earn the right to be referred to in this way?

Since he guest starred on "Happy Days."

I often think it was this, and not Fonzie's "Jumping the Shark" episode, that led to the series' demise.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[X0563511]

If you don't know about the "above jibber-jabber" then don't fucking reply. Reply where it's pertinent, or start your own "thread" by replying to the story itself.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[mjwx]

Most atheists I know have a dog in every fight. Proclaim "There is no God!" is just as annoying as telling everyone to repent. Your anti-believe in God is just as fervent as any foaming at the mouth preachers belief. I'd think that anyone that truly didn't have a religion, if I asked them about the subject they'd just say "Oh I dunno... never really thought about it." Instead you have your own religion, Atheism, and you believe anyone that doesn't agree with your faith is strange and capable of violence. If only they had the same moral compass as you do... perhaps you should try and convert them? Oh wait...

Sorry, but this is what you want to beleive, not reality.

In simple terms, it's wrong.

It is also clear, you've never actually talked to atheists. It is an utter fabrication you need to tell yourself this in order to compensate for your own self doubt. This is a weakness in your faith, not a aspect of my lack of faith. You seem to be offended when I say, "there is no god" but I'm not offended when you say "there is a god" because I do not fear what you do or do not believe in.

I proclaim, "there is no god", I also proclaim "I dont want you to do anything". What you believe in is your business, I only ask the same courtesy to be returned and for you not to demand I believe in your deity.

Yes, whether or not you believe in god has zero effect on me as I don't believe in god. To use an analogy, your hobby of collecting stamps has not effect on my hobby of not collecting stamps.

The question is, why is your faith so weak that you are so offended that I don't believe in god.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[jhoegl]

You seem to think a non-functioning government is not a large issue. When governments collapse or change shape it is because one side has found a way to take large amounts of power from another (Nazi's, Iraq,USSR...). We are seeing that take shape right now. And it is because of polarization, lieing, and manipulation that it is happening. Again, much like history has shown us.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[cold fjord]

It takes generations to remove hate from a culture, but it only takes a few years to generate it.

Assuming it ever really leaves. . .

The Full-Blown Return of Anti-Semitism in Europe
The New Anti-Semitism
Is Toulouse the Future of Europe?

If you dont think hate is being generated here in the USA by "news channel talk show hosts" or "radio talk show hosts", then you havent been paying attention.

The problem is bigger than you think.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[TaoPhoenix]

Not sure we're talking on the same plane.

I meant that Today's Scary Leader is/will soon be sitting on a button that could blow up the world. It's not about marching troops per se anymore, it's all down to convincing that guy not to push the button.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Mr2cents]

I know a few Iranian students, and from what I can tell, there is a *huge* gap between the people and the government in Iran. While the leaders are frantically screaming and warmongering, the population just sighs, shake their heads, and go on living. The petty rules are simply ignored whenever they can. Civil disobedience is a national hobby. I love that attitude. This is especially true in the larger cities that are more modern than you might think.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[DNS-and-BIND]

Hitler was Austrian, dumbass.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[MaskedSlacker]

It's a totally fucked up world under Islam and more often than not the "new Hitler" will come from a fucked up world, not from places like the West.

You need to make up your mind. You can't say things like the new Hitler will come from a fucked up world, not from places like a fucked up world and still expect us to listen.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[wonkey_monkey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf9jJx0NSjw&t=0m15s

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[cold fjord]

The problem areas in the American fiscal environment are pretty well known. I don't think anyone would seriously try to blame Muslims for them as it would be obvious nonsense.

FDR knew that the funding mechanism for Social Security had to change long term, and it has never been done. And please spare us from nonsense about wars and defense spending being the problem, because they aren't. Rapidly increasing social welfare spending mixed with soaring debts, and an economy that is frozen by government meddling (such as helped create the housing and mortgage meltdown) and unable to produce jobs, growth, and income, is what will push the United States over the edge, if anything.

Chart of the Week: Federal Spending on Defense vs. Entitlements

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?
Who doesn’t pay taxes, in eight charts
Public-Employee Unions Gone Wild,
The Path to Economic Disaster

And lets not forget the Euro crisis - if Europe collapses, it might very well drag down the US. Once again, it would be pretty clear what happened.

If there is a new "Hitler", he is very unlikely to come from conservative America.

Bad socialist habits coming to America: Obama's Creepy Cult of Personality

America's 'Fascist Moment'

. . . . contemporary liberalism descended from the ranks of 20th-century progressivism, and "shares intellectual roots with European fascism."

When Mr. Goldberg uses the term "liberal fascism," he is not offering a right-wing version of the left's smears. He knows it is a loaded term. What he is talking about is the historical idea of fascism: a corporatist and statist social structure that creates a deep reliance of its subjects on the government and engenders a sense of community and purpose. In American politics, this tendency toward statism has always been much more at home on the left than on the right.

It is impossible in a short review to do justice to the rich intellectual history of American liberalism that Mr. Goldberg offers to his readers. He has read widely and thoroughly, not only in the primary sources of fascism, but in the political and intellectual history written by the major historians of the subject.

Readers will learn that the very term "liberal fascism" came from the pen of H.G. Wells, the famed socialist author who delivered a speech at Oxford University in 1932 that included hosannas to both Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. "I am asking," Wells told the students, "for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis." Democracy, he argued, had to be replaced with new forms of government that would save mankind, producing a "'Phoenix Rebirth' of liberalism" that would be called "Liberal Fascism." Like the activism, experimentation, and discipline that made the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany new dynamic societies, the West too could reach such a plateau by adopting the new soft fascism that suited it best.. . . .

Indeed, America, as Mr. Goldberg writes, certainly had a "Fascist moment." It was not, however, during the current presidency, but one that extended from progressivism through the New Deal. Mr. Goldberg traces the American roots of liberal fascism to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, who saw i

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Macgrrl]

Iran's ideological position on women is archaic and disturbing. But to suggest that the West isn't fucked up in it's own special way (and doesn't have issues with how it treats women - seeing how this was your main argument for qualifying civilisation) is myopic to say the least.

As for painting all mulims with the same brush - why do you think so many of them are trying to immigrate if everything is so fabulous at home?

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[nospam007]

"Your anti-believe in God is just as fervent as any foaming at the mouth preachers belief."

Sure and not collecting stamps is our hobby.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Tastecicles]

There is only one race. The Human Race.

Might I suggest a new term: cultural genocide.

I've cleared court rooms with that one.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[dskoll]

Your anti-believe in God is just as fervent as any foaming at the mouth preachers belief.

Bullshit. If someone wants to convince me that God exists, the onus is on the believer to supply proof.

People who do follow religion are demonstrably capable of believing in supernatural beings without the slightest shred of evidence. That's already a good sign they're not quite rational and the more weak-minded among them are ripe to be recruited by extremists.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[dkf]

Hitler was Austrian, dumbass.

That's correct, but unhelpful. The issue is that it has to be understood from within the context of German unification, which had been a political project in what is now Germany through a lot of the second half of the 19th century. This ran out of steam somewhat toward the end of that century, but it was all recent enough — especially during Hitler's childhood — that it wasn't a ridiculous thing. An Austrian could claim to be german, and everyone would agree with that even knowing the facts of the person's birth.

It's different now. The Austrians are far more certain that they are not Germans (except in an ethnic sense).

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[pantaril]

I know a few Iranian students, and from what I can tell, there is a *huge* gap between the people and the government in Iran. While the leaders are frantically screaming and warmongering, the population just sighs, shake their heads, and go on living. The petty rules are simply ignored whenever they can. Civil disobedience is a national hobby. I love that attitude. This is especially true in the larger cities that are more modern than you might think.

What you describe is a relic of a past. Until 1953, iran was quite democratic, progressive and western-oriented country. Unfortunately, great britain and US were afraid, that iran will align with soviet russia and orchestraded coup d'état which transfered the power to authoritan leader and later to religious groups. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat or the movie/comix Persepolis, if your are interested about actions which lead to current situation.

Unfortunately the actions of current regime (internet censorhip, ban on women higher education etc) will soon mark end for that few groups of freedom-thinking people that are left there.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Gavagai80]

Any atheist will tell you there are very peaceful religions -- the Quakers, Buddhists, Jains, etc. We consider your religion potentially violent because of the facts of how it's been used through history and the present to promote violence, not simply because we disagree with it.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[kbg]

You don't find it alarming that Obama has a kill list, can kill people anywhere (even US citizens) without any trial or even any evidence of wrongdoing. Runs a prison where people are jailed indefinitely without any trial or jury. It all starts the same way, slowly and slowly your rights are taken away.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[FictionPimp]

Oh it is alarming and imho un-American. But I honestly can't say any one else I elect is going to give those things up. I can't even think of a time in america's history where a president gave up powers from the previous one.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[khallow]

I meant that Today's Scary Leader is/will soon be sitting on a button that could blow up the world. It's not about marching troops per se anymore, it's all down to convincing that guy not to push the button.

In that situation, there probably will be some degree of "marching troops". It's worth noting that Iraq's leaders thought they were about a year away from a nuclear bomb when they invaded Kuwait in 1990. I imagine the original plan would have worked out really well, if no one had responded to the invasion. A nuclear Iraq in control of most of the Arabian peninsula would have been a pretty solid world power.

My view is that Iraq initiated the invasion because they thought both that they'd have nuclear capability in a short while and because they thought the rest of the world wouldn't respond.

Frankly, that comes directly from the Hitler playbook. It applies any time someone thinks they have strong military force coupled with weak or disinterested foes.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[camperdave]

There is no button that could blow up the world. The combined military might of the entire planet has barely a fraction of the power necessary to pull off a feat like that. The worst we could do is destroy a portion of the surface of the planet.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[misexistentialist]

On the other hand some "progressive" with a conspiracy theory and a compulsion to impress his saintly mother sounds a lot like Hitler too...

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Hatta]

You seem to be offended when I say, "there is no god" but I'm not offended when you say "there is a god" because I do not fear what you do or do not believe in.

As an atheist, I fear what people will do based on what they believe in. If they wreck our educational system because it conflicts with their beliefs, I suffer. If they prohibit birth control because it conflicts with their beliefs, I suffer. If they goad us into a third world war because of their apocalyptic beliefs, I suffer.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the 1953 coup, again. So, the reaction against a right wing monarchy is a right wing theocracy because someone overthrew a left leaning government? How does that make sense?

The only problem with the 1953 coup was that they replaced one moron with a bigger, even more brutal moron. The Iranians had plenty of chance to select a liberal democracy as their government in 1979, they didn't. Say what you like about the posh middle class types in Iran, but they were never more than a minority. The theocracy was built on a solid foundation of religious fundamentalism that was embodied in Khomeini. And please don't try and tell me they were "fooled", no one puts a conservative cleric in power and expects him to not turn the country into a theocracy.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[tnk1]

Although actually blowing up the Earth, Death Star style, is completely outside our current capabilities, making the planet uninhabitable for humans is entirely possible. And although it is recognizable as hyperbole, "blowing up the planet", or "destroying the known universe" would look about the same to us in that situation, so I consider it to be forgivable.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[NeutronCowboy]

If you consider your parent post "flaming religion", you ARE indeed the problem. That was a well-reasoned, politely-worded to response to an idiotic statement. I think you might want to look into your persecution problem. I doubt you will, since you probably will utterly forget that no one modded you down, and no one modded any of your replies up.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[tnk1]

It doesn't help. The two most atheistic countries on the face of the planet were once the most feared, and it wasn't for what they *might have done*. The USSR spent much of its time in the early days attacking countries around it, when it wasn't busy slaughtering its own population. China right now, though less feared for its communism, is still feared for the campaigns it has executed in the past, its huge army and its own future regional aspirations.

Fact is, when you compare the worst of the atheistic or agnostic regimes, like the communists and the German fascists, to the worst of the religious nuts, you don't really see all that much of a difference. Sure, the religion nuts tend to be a bit more creative about how they execute their enemies, but you're still as dead from being burnt at the stake as you are from being gassed or shot in the back of the head in a KGB jail.

Honestly, if people actually followed most of their religions, as opposed to simply saying they were believers, and then continued on as if it didn't matter, the worst you'd end up with is a decent place with some queer ideas about things sometimes. Science and ethics, as they are today, certainly did not come about due to some sort of atheistic revolution, they managed to come out of a religious atmosphere. Would things have gone better or worse without the religious stuff is hard to tell, but it certainly was not impossible with it in effect.

Point being, every moment wasting time about abolishing religion being a major solution to the world's problems is just that, a waste of time. If you want to stop wars and killings you go after the real issues: the need for humans to compete for resources, and the human instinct to be suspicious of people outside their own group. Our problems have less to do with religion and more due to our very survival and competition instincts. These are the instincts that religions were ultimately formed to combat, and the same ones that ultimately corrupt every religion, philosophy and system.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[tnk1]

If your habit is to come on public boards and and argue why stamp collecting causes all of the world's problems, then yes, you're putting your hat in the ring. If you are particularly fervent about it, then you are in fact, preaching. You may believe to be necessary, and I could see why you might believe it, but have some honesty and don't try and pretend that you're aloof from the conversation while completely not being aloof at all.

Yes, it's not the same as you worshiping Allah or Kali or something, but it's not the same thing as seeing a stamp collection and thinking to yourself, "looks like a waste of time" and moving on.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Hatta]

Fact is, when you compare the worst of the atheistic or agnostic regimes, like the communists and the German fascists, to the worst of the religious nuts, you don't really see all that much of a difference

Compare the best of the theocracies to the best of the secular nations and you'll see the difference more clearly.

Point being, every moment wasting time about abolishing religion being a major solution to the world's problems is just that, a waste of time. If you want to stop wars and killings you go after the real issues: the need for humans to compete for resources, and the human instinct to be suspicious of people outside their own group.

This I agree with. Religion is not the root problem, it is a symptom of the root problem. But that doesn't change much. It stands that abolishing religion is a necessary, if not sufficient condition for true peace and freedom.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[AnonyMouseCowWard]

As an atheist, I find it offensive that you believe I'm atheist because "oh, I never really thought about it." Do you realize a lot of atheists do not believe in any god precisely because they have thought about it, and found that there's no reason to believe in a god? As an atheist, I'm interested by religion, want to learn about different people and their culture, their beliefs. However, I've yet to talk to a believer in any god that can rationally, factually explain to me how it is that they know their god(s) exist(s).

Also, I'm not trying to convince a religious person that they're wrong. I don't really care, I know they are, but they're entitled to their opinion. It has nothing to do with moral compass; let's face it, a lot of religions promote great values. It's just that I personally feel that, as a believer, there's a part of your brain you must turn off to believe in an invisible, omniscient being, without factual proofs. The fact you can switch your brain off scares me a bit, because I find it irrational, and irrational people are unpredictable (though everyone is capable of violence).

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[tnk1]

That argument is entirely flawed because even atheists believe in things they have no personal evidence exists. Most of that is science.

You may argue that everything has been proved by science that is scientific. Fair enough, but the day that you have run the experiments for everything you believe in, yourself, is the day that I accept that you don't believe in something that you believe simply because someone else told you that.

Most human knowledge is transmitted to someone, rather than discovered or proven. The existence of a method for generating greater predictive power for the natural world is a great thing, but most people don't actually make use of it.

If you want to tell me that you think that the scientific method is a better way of constructing a timeline of the Universe or building a cell phone, I'd be inclined to believe you, but again, I'm believing you. There is a cell phone in my hand, and it had to come from somewhere, but that doesn't mean I could construct one. I have no way of verifying 99% or more of those things that we call scientific facts. I accept and believe that they are probably right, because most people believe the same things, but then most people used to believe in ghosts and fairies too.

Everyone is a believer, and few have to supply proof, even fewer *can* supply proof. After all, you posit a supernatural being, how are you supposed to prove a supernatural being? You can't. I can see how it is acceptable to not want to waste your time on it, but I don't think it makes anyone less rational for believing in the possibility. I just wouldn't want to try to apply that idea to building cell phones.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Thaelon]

The question is, why is your faith so weak that you are so offended that I don't believe in god.

Because the religion is constructed in such a way that its believers are programmed to attack or convert non-believers.

It is a classic survival mechanism used by things we all agree are "alive" all the time:

1) Produce more of yourself (believers/hosts for the faith). Usually children indoctrinated by their parents. Also converting those without believing/infected parents.

2) Kill off the competition. (non-believers)

In this way a religion is more a living thing than an ideology, and people are merely hosts.

tl;dr: Religions like this are parasites.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[tnk1]

Of course, we should realize that the real problem isn't going to come from the places we expect. The Next Big Thing isn't Hitler or Stalin. It's probably not even Osama bin Laden. We're fighting the previous war here.

The next real problem is something that we couldn't anticipate, because that is *why* it will be a problem. We know what Nazis and Communists look like, and what their weaknesses are. They're not a big deal for the immediate future. They're problems, but they're like diseases you'd need a completely compromised immune system to get again.

What is coming is going to be worse than Hitler, and will come about in a completely different way. It may well come from fighting Islamic extremists, but it may not *be* Islamic extremists. Just like Hitler and the Nazis partially arose from fighting off communists in places like post-WWI Germany.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[jbonomi]

When I was a Catholic I used to wonder why people would enthusiastically label themselves "atheists." "Really," I thought, "labeling yourself based on something you don't believe?" I was also quite annoyed; it seems almost impossible to indicate that you don't believe in God without being perceived as implying that those who do believe in God are fools. But if non-believers remain silent their bests interests are ignored and the religious begin to assume a position of preference and privilege. Don't deny this. People claim in the US that this is a Christian nation and often don't think twice about leading off official government and scholastic meetings with sectarian prayer. If people like me keep my lack of God belief to myself then we will be ignored. Of course, there ARE asshole atheists out there who do little besides patting themselves on the back and chuckle at creationists.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[tnk1]

Compare the best of the theocracies to the best of the secular nations and you'll see the difference more clearly.

I don't know, the Vatican City sounds like a pretty nice place to live. Lots of nice art, European atmosphere, evolution taught in the schools, its got a nice observatory, uses the Euro. As long as you figure out natural family planning, I'd say I wouldn't mind living there. Granted, you don't get to elect your rulers, but really, who actually does these days? :)

I hear Tibet was an okay place, back in the day, as well. That may just be the Free Tibet propaganda, though.

Admittedly, a theocracy is going to be a lot less appealing for someone who is not a member of that religion, but not all theocracies throughout history have always been as backwards as the Muslim world is now. A lot will depend on the religion itself.

This I agree with. Religion is not the root problem, it is a symptom of the root problem. But that doesn't change much. It stands that abolishing religion is a necessary, if not sufficient condition for true peace and freedom.

Even if I was an atheist, I'm not sure I'd jump to that conclusion. Things like religion don't form out of nothing and I have trouble believing that humans would continue to worship invisible people in the sky for as long as they have if there wasn't something there. It's not like atheism is a new phenomenon or people are unable to conclude that things that are not visible aren't actually there.

I imagine you could create some sort of idea to keep society together that doesn't require deities, but I think you need some actual reason to believe in universal brotherhood when you want peace, because universal brotherhood, truth be told, is a complete crock of shit. As it stands, people are so different, you almost have to believe they were all created by the same god to think they are equal in any sense. Humanity may not need the lack of myths, it might just need a much better myth. The truth tends to be overrated in my experience.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Maudib]

I'm sorry, but you are either deluded or engaged in a white lie for the sake of atheist PR.

"I only ask the same courtesy to be returned and for you not to demand I believe in your deity".

Nice fantasy world, but there are additional requirements. I also ask that you not act on or promulgate a belief system that causes poverty while encouraging slavery, racism, child abuse and war. Unfortunately this is the implied mandate of the major religions. Christianity/Islam/Most Religions are not compatible with modern standards of decency. We can't honestly say that we are okay with people quietly living as Christians or Islamics so long as they leave others alone, because their core belief system is antithetical to just that. Branches of these beliefs that manage to temporarily achieve this are rare as ultimately it all comes back to their texts and their texts are quite clearly templates for violence.

There is a moral imperative to advocate against religion and to call it what it is. Evil.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[im_thatoneguy]

Instead you have your own religion, Atheism, and you believe anyone that doesn't agree with your faith is strange and capable of violence. If only they had the same moral compass as you do... perhaps you should try and convert them? Oh wait...

Atheism isn't a religion. It's not a belief. If people were killing people in the name of the tooth fairy I would hope regardless of your orientation to God you would try change people's minds.

Atheism is as much a religion as trying to correct moon landing conspiracy theorists is a religion.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Urza9814]

Most atheists I know have a dog in every fight. Proclaim "There is no God!" is just as annoying as telling everyone to repent. Your anti-believe in God is just as fervent as any foaming at the mouth preachers belief. I'd think that anyone that truly didn't have a religion, if I asked them about the subject they'd just say "Oh I dunno... never really thought about it." Instead you have your own religion, Atheism, and you believe anyone that doesn't agree with your faith is strange and capable of violence. If only they had the same moral compass as you do... perhaps you should try and convert them? Oh wait...

Sorry, but this is what you want to beleive, not reality.

In simple terms, it's wrong.

It is also clear, you've never actually talked to atheists.

It is an utter fabrication you need to tell yourself this in order to compensate for your own self doubt. This is a weakness in your faith, not a aspect of my lack of faith. You seem to be offended when I say, "there is no god" but I'm not offended when you say "there is a god" because I do not fear what you do or do not believe in.

I proclaim, "there is no god", I also proclaim "I dont want you to do anything". What you believe in is your business, I only ask the same courtesy to be returned and for you not to demand I believe in your deity.

Yes, whether or not you believe in god has zero effect on me as I don't believe in god. To use an analogy, your hobby of collecting stamps has not effect on my hobby of not collecting stamps.

The question is, why is your faith so weak that you are so offended that I don't believe in god.

Congratulations. Either you're lucky or I'm not.

I don't believe in God. I refuse to use the term 'athiest' to describe myself. Why? I've never met someone who states they are an athiest who doesn't make a religion out of it. Who doesn't go to or stage anti-religion protests; who doesn't take every possible opportunity to argue with religious preachers; who doesn't openly insult anyone of faith; and whose personal hobby isn't reading the bible so they can find flaws in it to mock on Facebook and to win arguments.

Granted, I probably know a lot of athiests who don't do these things, and I'm not aware of it because these are the people who most vocally state they are athiest. But these "religious athiests" are by far the most vocal majority; they're the athiest equivalent of the fundamentalist christians.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[ogdenk]

It's a totally fucked up world under Islam and more often than not the "new Hitler" will come from a fucked up world, not from places like the West.

Germany wasn't all that f**ked up. Just hurting bad economically after WW1 and Hitler didn't think it was fair everyone else got to play empire and Germany got the short end of the stick. Hitler presented himself as a charismatic champion of the people that was going to fix everything and turn the country around. He actually did fix a lot of things and the people followed him to the bitter end. Was he an asshole? Yes. A sick mass murderer? Yes. An unsuccessful politician? HELL NO!

Remember, the Nazis were in power for YEARS prior to WW2. Stuffing folks in gas chambers didn't come for a while. Tyranny and evil don't magically appear overnight. And successful evil people will not let you in on the fact that they're evil. Even after it's plainly obvious they've duped people for years, it will all be "in your best interests" and to protect your "freedom". To even question such logic is obviously bordering on terrorism/treason.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[ogdenk]

Then it sounds like the office needs to be stripped of ALL of it's power and reinvented. Period. "I don't think he's going to be any less tyrannical and unAmerican...." is not an excuse to let the current trends continue. Their offices, "executive privileges", and laws only exist as long as we allow them to exist. No "legal" methods will be effective in removing this new-found god-like power as the courts are part of the problem.

And considering Bush and Obama *BOTH* worked hard to take the leash off of corporate campaign contributions and give them "personhood" you can rest assured your government has been bought and paid for by the wealthy elite who are even LESS interested in fixing the problem.

Ever wonder why recent legislation completely and utterly screws over the people but a few companies get to make a ton of money while excluding competition? Ever wondered why the rich generally spend far less time in jail than the poor for the same crime, if any at all?

They have effectively created a modern "aristocracy" consisting of shareholders and lawyers. Executives are the new US nobility. Welcome to Feudalism.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[FictionPimp]

I have voted Libertarian for years. But I don't honestly think they will change the system either.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Jane Q. Public]

You're off your nut.

Nobody gives a flying sh*t about Iran anymore. We don't need their gasoline, or for that matter anything else they have.

Let them stew in their own juices. Or roast in the lack of them. Whatever. I don't care, and neither should you.

This isn't the 70s or 80s anymore. Iran can go to its own private hell. We don't need to be concerned about it.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[fustakrakich]

Did I mention Iran? I was speaking globally and domestically.

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[Jane Q. Public]

"Did I mention Iran? I was speaking globally and domestically."

That's okay. I was just trying to add to the crowd of "not the usual gaggle of fascists".

Re:Before we get the usual gaggle of fascists

[AK Marc]

I don't think anyone would seriously try to blame Muslims for them as it would be obvious nonsense.

Do you think it reasonable to blame the Jews for the problems in Germany before WWII?

FDR knew that the funding mechanism for Social Security had to change long term, and it has never been done.

It's easier to steal from your children who can't vote yet. The "cut taxes, keep expenses high" philosophy of so called conservatives is a symptom of that.

And please spare us from nonsense about wars and defense spending being the problem, because they aren't.

But they are. If the debt were paid off and the defense was the minimum to defend the US from the rest of the planet, and we expanded medicare to cover everyone, not just the elderly, then we'd have a large surplus. However, any attempt to address those is aggressively blocked by the modern conservatives.

Re:No big loss

[gmuslera]

Certain US (and other countries) agencies needs them. How else they are supposed to do social engineering on iranian population?

This was to be expected regardless of this video

[cheesybagel]

After Stuxnet Iran started buying up networking equipment like crazy to make their own version of the Great Chinese Firewall. Eventually they were going to segregate all outbound communications. Considering the amount of information people trust to Google and the fact that the US Government can access the information if they ask for it (Google has little choice but to comply) there is little reason not to filter their services out completely. Plus if users are forced to use Iranian Internet services the Iranian state can then access all personal user information regardless if it is encrypted en route or not.

Re:This was to be expected regardless of this vide

[legolas]

Iran already tried to address this by forging certificates for man-in-the-middle attacks.

Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a small proportion of Muslims acting in the way rightists here want to depict all Muslims as.

BULLSHIT!

Pakistan's Foreign Minister has this to say about free speech:

US needs to rethink on free speech: Hina

WASHINGTON - In the wake of anti-America protests in many parts of the world over an anti-Islam film, the US needs to rethink about its concept of free speech, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said.

“It is not good enough to say it’s free speech, it should be allowed. I think if this does provoke action against American citizens or Americans anywhere else in the world, then maybe we do need to rethink how much freedom is OK,” Hina told CNN in an interview.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you been to Iran? I was just there two months ago. The majority of the population hates their government, but they are too scared to do anything about it.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you been to Iran? I was just there two months ago. The majority of the population hates their government, but they are too scared to do anything about it.

And that means the rioters attacking US, French, and other Western interests throughout the Islamic world are small in number?

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, since it's a fact they are "small in number", relative to their population, yes, the parent post does infer what is factually true.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[dskoll]

Every Iranian I've ever met has been erudite, intelligent, moderate and truly delightful. The Iranian people are oppressed by Islamists who justify their power by appealing to Islam. As long as Islam holds sway over a billion+ people, injustices like the Iranian theocracy will perpetuate.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[Ol Olsoc]

The Iranian people are oppressed by Islamists who justify their power by appealing to Islam. As long as Islam holds sway over a billion+ people, injustices like the Iranian theocracy will perpetuate.

There's an old saying that the amount of shit you are willing to put up with is approximately the amount of shit you'll be given.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[Schmorgluck]

It's factually true, but it doesn't follow from the premises. It's a non sequitur.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

Well la dee dah!

I got to know eight Iranians in college because they came into the on-campus copy shop I worked at all the time. They were, without exception, racist, thuggish, mysoginst assholes. Refused to be helped by any female employees, talked down to everyone, didn't buy into the concept of waiting in line, and that sort of shit. Couple were from some sort of oil money. Nearly got in a fight with me on two occasions when I made it clear I was not putting up with their bullshit.

Personal anecdotes, huh?

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[guttentag]

Every Iranian I've ever met has been erudite, intelligent, moderate and truly delightful.

This is consistent with my experience. I have the utmost respect for every Iranian I have personally gotten to know.

Then again, every Iranian I've ever met (a few dozen) took huge risks to escape the regime in Iran and request asylum in the U.S. Unless you have wide experience in Iranian cities and rural areas, the people we have met are more extreme than the general population, in much the same way that the steam that rises from a boiling pot is hotter than the water in the pot. I absolutely believe that in Iran, as in Russia, the masses do not believe the state propaganda being produced to keep a paranoid minority in power, but it would be a mistake to assume that the majority of people in Iran are like the ones who escaped. By definition, they're different because they didn't escape (for whatever reason).

It's also important to remember that being erudite, intelligent and moderate doesn't preclude one from being complicit with more radical ideas. About 15 years ago a relative in New York doing business with a factory in Pakistan asked me work with a technically-proficient relative of the owner of the factory to set up a modern communications channel to replace the expensive fax and telex method they'd been using for years. I was expecting difficulty in communicating concepts and file formats because I had no idea what kind of equipment they were using. As I talked with my counterpart in Pakistan, who happened to be a military officer, I was struck by how erudite, intelligent, moderate and practical he was. I liked the guy. We very quickly figured things out and saved both sides a lot of time and money. A year later, when Pakistan tested its first nuclear weapon, he was the military spokesperson quoted in all the English-language newspapers announcing the test. I am sure he was opposed to the test and the increased tensions with India that would result, but that didn't stop him from being used as the mouthpiece that spread fear around the world in the spring of 1998.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[fustakrakich]

I'm much more disturbed by the growing numbers of Americans and Europeans that agree with him. Free speech will soon be limited to whatever graffiti a guy has time to spray on the wall.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[guises]

The endless arguments on Slashdot seem to go like this: "Muslims are violent because Islam is bad."

"It's no worse than other religions, look at Christianity."

"But Christians don't get all weird about iconography, no rioting over cartoons."

"Christians get weird about other things, that's just one idiosyncratic example."

Look, the problem isn't with Islam or any other single belief system. Or any other single belief for that matter, this is about people in power maintaining their power by pushing a topic with broad public support. Usually that support comes from ignorance or gullibility. Look at all the things justified "because terrorists" or "child pornography" or "pedophile rapist home invaders, who are lurking around every corner." You don't solve this problem by ranting about Islam, you solve this problem by, somehow, convincing people that they need to be less gullible. This is why you so often hear people talking about education as a long term solution to corruption and other ills, and why dismantling public education is often such a high priority among the corrupt. Iran isn't keeping women out of schools out of misogyny, they're doing it to keep people tractable.

The point is: enough with the Islam/Christian bashing. Or religion in general. It's a red herring, there to distract you from the real problem.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[Nemyst]

Not to imply that all Iranians are stupid, extremist or terrible, but please keep in mind you're having an extreme sampling bias. Unless you say you went there and spoke with the local population, the Iranians you will have met have managed to leave the country, and that usually requires money or a heap of effort, both of which are heavy factors into whether the person is going to be erudite and intelligent. Moderation then comes from being exposed to many different ideas and perspectives, which is a lot more likely when you are affluent.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[Ol Olsoc]

I'll let you know if and when my "state" gives me shit.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[Artifakt]

Right! When authorities stop one group from seeking higher education, they are seeking to gain twofold. They keep some people dumber, and they also make the other groups that can still get that higher education feel like insiders whom they hope will become more prone to reject criticism from the outgroup. The people who are still allowed to seek higher education may also come to fear they too can be cut off from the success it helps produce if they don't go along with the government. If it continues long enough, nobody in the outgroup has the credentials of success and status and so they become more subject to ad hom attacks as well - as in who cares about the opinions of a bunch of people who never finished college?
      Controlling authorites can genuinely hate the chosen outgroup, or genuinely believe they are inferior, but they don't have to. In the US in the late 60s, it could well be argued that at least most of the effort to keep blacks out of higher education was motivated by hatred and belief in their fundamental inferiority, but the US also had a lot of fundamental hostility between the people rich enough to go to college and get deferments from the draft, and the ones who couldn't avoid the draft that way. This helped create the environment for Kent State and other such state actions, but the people who gave the orders there were ultimately much more of the classes which could afford college for their own kids, and they were generally oblivious to any implications there was a class struggle issue in the minds of the guardsmen who carried out those orders. Yet no one consiously set up the draft laws to create tension between diferent economic classes, and very few in authority realized there was a hair trigger factor built into these confrontations until after it happened a few times.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[blind biker]

in much the same way that the steam that rises from a boiling pot is hotter than the water in the pot.

While I agree with the content of your post, I must point out that the temperatures of the water vapor is exactly the same of the boiling water.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[cold fjord]

Actually religion is THE problem. As Richard Dawkins so elegantly has pointed out: Religion is a delusion, but as so many suffer from it, it is not recognized as the mental illness it really is.

The alternatives appear worse.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[Kiuas]

enough with the Islam/Christian bashing. Or religion in general. It's a red herring, there to distract you from the real problem.

"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." -House

I get and fully agree with your point about gullibility being the real issue. However what you're proposing (ignoring the religious part of the matter) sounds a bit like saying that instead of getting treatment for an illness a person should simply switch to a healthier lifestyle and the disease will magically fix itself.

Complicity to auhtority is an integral part of most religions. And I'm not talking just about muslims here. Members of the abrahamic religions usually gorw up in an enviroment where they are told that their view of the world is the correct one and everyone else - no matter what kind of reasoning or evidence they might use - is wrong. Likewise they are most often than not told that questioning anything told to them by their religious leaders is wrong. No adult would swallow all of this without questioning it but the mind of a child is extremely gullible, especially when it comes to information coming from his/her own parents so they come to accept it as the norm.

Don't get me wrong. The problem isn't that these people are stupid. The problem is that they've been told to never question anything that comes from a position of authority, no matter how much they dislike it. Many of the Iranian people probably disagree with the regime but - just like they're afraid to question the existence of God (in public) - they're afraid to question their leaders, no matter how vastly they might outnumber the people in power. Some people see and understand this but they tend to escape from the country instead of risking their lives (and the lives of their families) by trying to speak up because they also know that the majority of their fellow men will - out of fear - be demanding their public execution rather than standing with them.

That is essentially what organized religions are used for by both religious and govermental leaders: as a tool to control people and make them obidient and fearful. So while I agree with you that the true problem is indeed gullibility: I don't agree that religioin is a red herring because as far as I can see the vast majority of these people wouldn't be so gullible if it wasn't for their religion and religious upbringing.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[Hatta]

you solve this problem by, somehow, convincing people that they need to be less gullible.

The point is: enough with the Islam/Christian bashing. Or religion in general

You contradict yourself. Religion is based on gullability. Therefore if gullability is the root of our problems, we have to eliminate religion. Not exclusively religion, we still have to eliminate religion.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[tnk1]

To be fair, a small number of protesters, when they are not actively opposed by the government, starts to become a lot more dangerous than it would otherwise seem.

These protests would never have gotten as far as they have if the governments were not wishy-washy on taking them down, or for that matter, encouraging them, in the likely case of Iran.

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[mythix]

Religion in not the problem persé, it is often the tool used to oppress and keep people dumb... when they are dumb, they are yours, you can tell them to do/believe anything in the name of religion... but that doesn't mean that said religion actually supports the claims they make...

Re:Complete and utter pandering BULLSHIT

[Maudib]

Religion is the real problem though.

Currently Islam is more of a threat to civilization then Christianity. This hasn't always been the case, and I'm sure it could flip again. There is nothing inherently less evil or dangerous about Christianity then Islam though and ultimately we wont be safe until all religions are a thing of the past.

Re:This was to be expected regardless of this vide

[Alwin Henseler]

(..) there is little reason not to filter their services out completely.

Sure there is: how are Iranians going to find their anti-US propaganda on the Irantranet, if they don't have Google to find it? </sarcasm>

Re:Who cares

[Nostromo21]

If you hate all other races equally, that's actually Bigotry. If you include all other people (your own race not excepted), then it's just being a GOB (Grumpy Old Bastard). And I am not far away from that .

iMaps

[postmortem]

They did not ban Google Maps, afterall censors are not that sadistic.

Re:The 'National' Interanet, here we come!

[Nostromo21]

Ummm...piss-poor excuse which shows those with the most power have IQs inversely proportional usually. i.e. If they wanted to stop that video, wouldn't they just block IT (or the link to it), or just all of YouTube...NOT all of Google/Gmail ffs...?

Just because the G-men stood up for freedom of speech & true democracy across the board for the millionth time & this time it affects their ongoing spread of ignorance, lies & evil...? Pftt.

And WTF is it with deifying human prophets anyway FFS...? :-/ It's sad to think half the world share the same 1st 5 books of the bible, ergo the same OT God, and yet cannot seem to get along with each other (or the other half of the world) most of the time...Jesus wept! *sigh*.

I wonder if someday this could be done here

[QilessQi]

in the United States. Large swaths of the country are deeply religious, by which I mean some stripe of Christianity. They have grown increasingly suspicious (if not downright scornful) of scientists and educators who challenge their views and threaten to corrupt the views of their children. I suspect that many of these folks sincerely see unrestricted search engines and an uncensored internet as tools of the devil. How far would public opinion have to tip before *all* searches are "safe" searches, and the "sanitized" web becomes the norm?

It seems unthinkable. But when 46% of the U.S. population earnestly believes that humans were created in their present form within the last 10,000 years, you have to be open to what happens if that number goes to 56%, or 96%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[Anonymous Coward]

Get over yourself. First start by citing a source that isn't the left wing version of Fox news. Next realize that there are a small but vocal group that represents this fringe element. I know tons of Christians and I don't know of a single one who has a problem with evolution being taught. To be honest I don't know of a single one that has said anything against evolution.
 
I know you'll be modded up and if anything I'll be modded down but your post is pretty much trolling. Let's be honest here, if the Christian right really had that kind of power do you really think that abortion and homosexuality would still be legal?

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[artor3]

The number that believe in creationism has been pretty much constant for the past thirty years, according to the survey you cite. What makes you think that it's going to go up? And even if it does, what makes you so sure that belief in creationism correlates so closely to a desire to lock down the internet?

What exactly are you even getting at? That would should be afraid of "others"? Sounds like run-of-the-mill hate-mongering to me. No different from Rush Limbaugh moaning about how the US is on track to become majority-minority.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[kermidge]

While the odds may seem low at the moment, the possibility of the rise of a Nehemiah Scudder scares me. (In a way, it's too bad Heinlein never wrote that story; then again, it leaves it as an interesting exercise for the reader.)

The U.S. is in trouble enough owing to that 46%. Does it increase another five or ten points, we're totally screwed. (Of course, it's still unknown if we'll survive the DHS. The combination of that with a theocracy would be beyond chilling.)

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[sconeu]

"Logic of Empire" gives some small hints as to his rise.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[guttentag]

But when 46% of the U.S. population earnestly believes that humans were created in their present form within the last 10,000 years, you have to be open to what happens if that number goes to 56%, or 96%.

46%? I know that number. Aren't those the people Mitt Romney said don't pay any taxes? Just as Mitt's numbers were a gross mischaracterization of nearly half the country, I would tend to question the assertion that 46% of the population supports religious censorship. In the United States no one is more aware of the ties between "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" than the religious right. Their way of life couldn't exist without those. I've sat through sermons in numerous churches of different denominations that talk about how lucky we are to have this, and how fortunate we are that we don't live in states like China that practice censorship. Many of them ask their congregations to donate money to support missionaries to subvert censorship in other countries to spread religion. They don't want anyone censoring their beliefs, and censoring others who are anathema to your religious beliefs is an exercise in stones and glass houses of worship. Sure, there are a few short-sighted religious leaders out there who don't understand this or care, but the majority get it, and they would tell their congregations to apply the golden rule here.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[anubi]

You ain't kidding.

I consider myself spiritual. I know God exists. Look around and consider Occam's razor. See creation - observe its complexity. There has to be something that created it.

In the Christian Bible, there is the story of Moses, who asked God about who was sending him to the Pharoah of Egypt to tell him to let the Israelites go. God replied " I am who I am". So what does that say? God is not man. He is who He is. A process? I do not know. No one else seems to either.

Only thing I know is that this thing I know as God has to be extremely powerful, creative and intelligent - much more than I am. Does He take a personal interest in me? That is what I would like to find out. Forces that have a substantial financial interest in our belief systems would have us think so. Especially if they can position themselves as the intermediary. How seriously can the hocking from their heads be taken?

You should have seen the wake of frustration I stirred up in my Church when I confessed to the Pastor that I was having fits over the faith doctrines and I had a lot of doubting Thomas in me. One of the Ten Commandments was not to bear false witness. So am I to confess to things I have not personally witnessed? This is the kind of behaviour I expect from politicians, used car salesmen and stockbrokers... whose headhocking has extremely low credibility in my book.

I ended up downright asking if I had to be a liar and give up my personal integrity in order to be a proper church Christian... as I felt - as an engineer - duty bound to report the truth. My personal integrity demands it. At that point, they suddenly had important matters that had to be attended to and they scurried to their cars. They had time to hock up in front of microphones, but all they can tell me is God wants gullible people who accept whatever some head hocks up?

The Bible also tells us to be wary of the False Prophet. The Parable of the Fig Tree, who Jesus Himself told us to learn, tells of the wolves in sheep's clothing who seek to enslave us. How about the part that says we aren't to go around preaching while carrying a begging bag? We are just here to "sow seeds", then show up next week for the "harvest" of new believers and tithers? Whatever happened to "tending the sheep", or do we just show up every week with silver begging bowls and shearing tools?

I guess if I am going to Hell, I am going to be sent there because I refused to witness to things I have not seen.

Am I to believe that the Church is trying to screen in the most gullible, superstitious, and ignorant among us, discarding the rest of us as agents of Satan, because they cast their "pearls of wisdom" before us, and we, being the swine we are, question the intention?

No wonder the Wolves in Sheep's Clothing, described so well in the Bible, hates science! You can break Man's law as long as you avoid getting caught. Ever tried to break one of God's law? You can't. They are self-enforcing! Of course, we can't stand to give God the credit for His law, so we call it some arcane thing like "Thermodynamics". God's Law reveals the False Prophet in all its nakedness. Of course, expect them to use everything in their power to discredit truth - starting with microphones and high powered amplifiers, financed with proceeds from silver bowls.

Ok, ok, enough of this rant. I am going to get moderated "off topic" for this rant, and deservedly so. All I can say is that I consider myself spiritual, believe in God, and even I am highly leery of "religious fanatics" coming into power. Even my "own" religion!

You read "Obedience to Authority" by Stanley Milgram and you see we are capable of extremely heinous acts if someone else puts us up to it. I would hate to have our fate determined by some religious fanatic's imagination.

This is exactly what we are seeing a lot of today.

The God I believe in is quite powerful enough to do whatever He wants to do. For me to meddle in it is just about as helpful as my cat trying to "help" me fix my car.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[rickb928]

For the record, I'm stil confused about something - gay marriage isn't illegal anywhere in the U.S. that I am aware of. It just isn't recognized in most states, and DOMA means it isn't recognized by the federal government.

Please, flame away, but I have several family members that are gay, got married, even adopted or birthed children, despite the states they live in not recognizing their union. THEY think they are married.

It's not about marriage, the ceremony happens all the time. It's about acceptance. And the nation as a whole is not yet of one mind on this, exept to say 'no'.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[Oceanplexian]

I suspect that many of these folks sincerely see unrestricted search engines and an uncensored internet as tools of the devil. How far would public opinion have to tip before *all* searches are "safe" searches, and the "sanitized" web becomes the norm?

It's a fallacy to think that the US Christian population is the major drive in pushing Internet censorship. Look at the more advanced European countries where religious practice has been on decline. It doesn't seem we can go a single week here without hearing about yet another country-wide website blocking system being implemented in places like the UK, Germany, Sweden, etc.. At the moment, the US is the most free in regards to the Internet and has no country-wide censorship program.

Just because a populace is educated doesn't somehow protect them from fascism or the stripping of their rights. Having a population that believes in personal liberty is much more important than a highly educated one.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[rickb928]

"You should have seen the wake of frustration I stirred up in my Church when I confessed to the Pastor that I was having fits over the faith doctrines and I had a lot of doubting Thomas in me.... I ended up downright asking if I had to be a liar and give up my personal integrity in order to be a proper church Christian... "

The churches I've been a member of have asked me if I believe. Do I believe in Christ, etc., you should know the drill. Beyond that, I'm at a loss as to what would be required of you. 'Acting' like a Christian is, in my current church, an anticipated result, not proof.

But there are many doctrines, and much controversy within Christianity.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[Nemyst]

Doubtful. The advantages of control (because let's be honest, religion is just an excuse for control in those instances) are much less important than the disadvantages for a post-industrial country like the US. The entire economy of the US revolves around the services sector, and destroying the Internet would have profound impacts on that.

You can say what you will about the FBI, the MAFIAA, the DoD, etc. wanting more control, but there's a point where the encroachment would be too great to be financially beneficial, and making an intranet would be much past that point. Just think about the effect on stock markets.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[QilessQi]

I did not say that 46% support censorship. 46% believe in Young Earth Creationism; I cited an article that posted the Gallup poll where that number came from.

Do I believe that every person of that 46% supports censorship? Absolutely not. But don't you wonder what percentage of Iranian citizens really support censorship? Even in a theocracy, people are people, and the people I know generally chafe at restrictions.

Draconian restrictions can be imposed by a government on a populace for their alleged safety, and the populace will go along with it if scared enough, or if dissent is not tolerated.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[QilessQi]

The article references a gallup poll stating that 46% believe in Young Earth Creationism. Here's the original poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[QilessQi]

I don't think it's going to go up. But I'm appalled that it hasn't gone down, and that it's as high as it is.

And I'm not getting at anything. I just think it's unfortunate that entire countries are going on lockdown, and I wonder what it would take for the United States to institute such measures. Of course it won't happen tomorrow, or next year. But what about fifty years, or a hundred? Political, cultural, and religious landscapes change, and not always in ways that we'd expect. Do you think it's impossible?

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[QilessQi]

I would temper your point to say that I don't see censorship as being the sole province of one political party in the United States. I know many fine Republicans and many fine Democrats. But some folks just plain don't like how accessible the seamier side of culture is on the web. They worry -- sincerely -- about the next generation growing up with values different from their own.

But yes, I agree that if you're willing to close your mind to basic science, and encourage others to do the same (by voting for like-minded individuals; by working to change school curricula), then you're implicitly helping that 46% to increase.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[QilessQi]

In my previous reply I forgot to post the link to the poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[QilessQi]

I completely agree. But even in the United States, some people are willing to surrender personal liberty in exchange for safety. Then it all just comes down to what "safety" means.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[QilessQi]

I hope you're right. It does seem unthinkable at the present moment. But I can imagine scenarios where only certain approved sites and communication channels would be approved. Commerce isn't speech; it might be possible to regulate the latter without significantly denting the former.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[QilessQi]

I agree especially with your final point.

Myself, I don't understand why faith and science have to be at each other's throats. If God chose to create intelligent life by a slow process taking billions of years, how is that any less miraculous than taking seven days?

Parents often have simplistic answers to the question "where do babies come from?" because young children are not thought to be emotionally ready for the full answer. Why can't we view Genesis the same way? An allegory for a more-primitive time when human beings did not yet have the scientific tools available.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[misexistentialist]

Marxism, or whatever bastardized collectivism Europeans worship, is a kind of religion, making those governments pretty much godless theocracies.

Re:I wonder if someday this could be done here

[rickb928]

If by visitation you mean parental rights, there are problems there. Since adoption is well supported in law, same-sex couples need to go through legal adoption. Or legal system, not to mention government, is lagging in dealing with parental rights assignments.

Inheritance is fixed with a will. Marriage imposes certain defaults on inheritance, and if I want something different, I too need a will.

Tax breaks are one area where we could change the rules, but the objection I hear most often is that granting tax breaks to households based on self- definition is that changing the partner (and thus changing the household) literally at will complicates the tax code beyond practicality. There ought to be a way, if we want to permit couples to designate themselves as households, for tax purposes, but this will impact marriage. One benefit of marriage is preferential tax treatment. What happens if we lose that? does it matter?

Re:stop knocking them and start fixing the problem

[Osgeld]

we need to leave them to their own, we have already wasted tons of time and resources training them for fuck all of nothing, they just need to be cut loose, that way when they fuck up they cant come back whining and bitching like they do now.

Re:how many usb flash drives can fit in one's anus

[Osgeld]

16

Islamophobia and hypocrisy

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Six years ago I wrote this journal entry [slashdot.org]. I'm more fearful today than then that a new Hitler will arise, and no less convinced that the chances are equal that such a Hitler will come from the West as they are from the Middle East

In that journal, you speak of criticism of Islam as "racial hatred". This is absurd; a person who criticizes Islam is no more racist than a person who criticizes communism. A religion (or ideology) is not a race.

And I would love the Left to practice what it preaches; they ostensibly hate religious intolerance and portray conservatives as "islamophobics", but they do not hesitate to demonize politicians who participated in an Opus Dei retreat.

I clarify that I do not support the sort of sensationalist anti-Islam rhetoric that you see on FrontPage Magazine. I am just highlighting the hypocrisy of those who ostensibly fight for Equality(TM) and Tolerance(TM), yet see no problem in demonizing orthodox Catholics, Evangelicals, and (the most bizarre part, since these people pretend to love the poor) rural Americans, who are despised as "hillbillies", "toothless hicks", "inbred", etc.

I would love the concept of tolerance to be practiced with coherence and reason.

Re:This was to be expected regardless of this vide

[z0idberg]

Would be interesting to know where they are sourcing their networking equipment from and how much trust they are placing in the hardware/firmware.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:This was to be expected regardless of this vide

[artor3]

Wasn't Stuxnet transmitted by the good old fashioned "dropped" flash drive trick? I'm pretty sure these two events are unrelated. The Iranian theocracy wants control. This is just another vector by which to achieve it.

Halal intranet

[pjtp]

ok... can we have your IPv4 addresses.

Re:Halal intranet

[vencs]

if you get them, be prepared for worms/spyware that could get you - there might be an uninformed state sponsored hacker somewhere..

Re:how many usb flash drives can fit in one's anus

[grub]

Might be able to tuck a couple in beside those 2 hard disks and greased Yoda doll.

Creationism stems from faithlessness

[kawabago]

The Christians proclaim that the bible is literally true and it is the proof what they believe is true. The problem with that is faith means believing without proof. So all the Christians demanding Creationism be taught in schools are actually proclaiming their own lack of faith. It's kind of funny when you think about it.

Re:Creationism stems from faithlessness

[rickb928]

Yes.

"faith means believing without proof. "

Faith does indeed mean beliving in what you cannot 'see'. That's the definition.

Many a biologist and many from other branches of science believe in Creation, and still believe in Science. Myself, I believe in Creation, but I have NO IDEA quite how God did it, nor do I need to to believe in God, because if He did NOT create everything, he is not the God He says He is. That is the logical puzzle you should consider first. Oh, and the small matter of Jewish history. You'll have to discredit that entirely to discredit the Bible and the Torah, which would be a twofer. You should go for it.

Re:Creationism stems from faithlessness

[DaWhilly]

"The Christians" has the same meaning as "The Muslims". It's an over broad statement which sums up all possible different groups under a single banner. Which specific group are you talking about? Mormons, Fundamentalist, Southern Baptists, Catholics, Protestant, or that guy Ed who lives down the street? Each group follows different interpretations of what they consider "Key" aspects of their faith. Some follow a prophet that came after Jesus, some follow a different interpretation of when Baptism is appropriate, some just developed because of a lack of faith based infrastructure to ensure compliance.

Re:Creationism stems from faithlessness

[rickb928]

We've seen a great deal of Mars. Rocks, sand, and dust. Atmosphere, temperature, etc. Magical faeries are highly unlikely on Earth, much less Mars.

Our experience with God's existence, however, is dramatically more limited. Evidence of His existence is both lacking and abundant. Do you really believe all this came to be randomly, by chance? Theories of our universe's creation have no explanation for 'before'. God is equally plausible, to me. Infinity and eternity are both well beyond comprehension.

Role Reversal

[detritus.]

Would Americans honestly care if their access to Iran's sites were blocked? If Google was an Iranian company, I don't think most would honestly miss it much if it were banned here, especially if you were being sanctioned and a victim of cyber attacks.

Re:Role Reversal

[TuringCheck]

For any law abiding US or European company providing services to Iranians is a total economic loss since they can't legally pay. So if you're motivated only by money - screw them, find another market! You don't (even can't) need to refund any services already paid.
Some people and companies may continue to provide free (as in free beer) services for moral reasons though.

Will they go IPv6?

[SpaghettiPattern]

But will they go IPv6? Since they start from scratch this would make sense.

Oh, wait, this is more of a YRO issue and less of a technical one.....

I'll get my coat.

Re:how many usb flash drives can fit in one's anus

[Khashishi]

Why use USB when you have microSD?

Hyperbole

[INowRegretThesePosts]

If you dont think hate is being generated here in the USA by "news channel talk show hosts" or "radio talk show hosts", then you havent been paying attention.
It takes generations to remove hate from a culture, but it only takes a few years to generate it.

The current "hate" is of the sort "I don't want a ground zero Mosque just like a Japanese wouldn't want Disneyland Hiroshima"
The Nazi kind of "hate" is of the sort "Retards and cripples must die, because they are inferior. Jews must all die, because they are monsters"

If you think that these two attitudes are remotely similar, then you are horribly sensationalist.

Re:how many usb flash drives can fit in one's anus

[guttentag]

In the U.S., we send in professional teams of world-class experts to get the job done. That's how we got Bin Laden. So it sounds like you're saying is we should send a diplomatic delegation of pr0n stars to Iran, after an intensive six-week boot camp with Drill Sgt. Goatse. Interesting, but I don't think it would work because pr0n is on the list of evil Western things the government doesn't like.

Re:liberal ?

[shutdown -p now]

Iranians backing the regime in their country are doing it because they're social conservatives. And, on the other side of the pond, most people in the R-camp are social conservatives as well. Oh, they'll start with taxes, but if you bear with them you'll hear it all about gays and godless atheists ruining the country.

Re:how many usb flash drives can fit in one's anus

[Iskender]

Heh, you tried to build a Beowulf cluster in there, didn't you?

Stop Feeding the Iranian Trolls

[MikShapi]

I wrote about this last week: viableawesomism.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-loudest-voices.html

The biggest trap is using the word "They". "They" are not all cast with the same brush.
By lumping everyone in Iran or in any other Muslim culture together and accusing them of what their extremists do,
you're giving the nutjobs fuel and eroding the sane people (sane Iranians in this case) who oppose them.

Iran is a Dictatorship.
The people who live in it have little say until they get the guts to start walking into the way of bullets. (Again.).
Recognize that Muslims, Iranians and The Iranian Government are not synonyms.

Re:Islam is...

[fnj]

The Koran demands you start killing within the first 10 pages

Citation needed.

Are you serious? All the citations you need are right here. Religion of peace, my ass.

Re:i could be wrong but ,

[fnj]

i thought iranians were persians with a different god from muslims, also i seem to remember that they were enemies of al-queda also
i might be just dreaming this whole thing up....

Iranians are not Arabs, but they are almost purely Muslim. 89-90% Shi'ite Muslim, 9% Sunni Muslim, and 0.4-2% all other religions. That doesn't leave much room for atheists and agnostics!

You'll be missed,

[Weaselmancer]

assholes. I couldn't get into my bank all weekend to pay my bills thanks to you merry jokesters.

Want your own net? Suits me just fine.

Key phrase

[mvar]

the public in general doesn't seem bothered by it.
And why should it. The large majority of the muslims just don't give a shit - like the large majority of the christians didn't give a shit when "Life of Brian" was released in theaters a few decades ago and the far-right protested by shutting down cinemas, burning books etc. The only way for the whole world to escape this religious stupidity that holds us back as a species is through technology and, I'm afraid, consumerism. Just load the middle east with a few million smartphones and tablets and watch them turn into the obedient "I don't give a fuck about god & associates, give me my new ipad" crowd we've all become :-P

Ironically...

[Tastecicles]

...notwithstanding the fact that the Western media continues to paint the Middle East as a war torn, savage region of deserts and oil, the place is actually rather green (albeit warm), and 99% of the populace are generally happy with their individual lot, and peaceful. It's the disgruntled (for whatever reason) 1% who incite, most likely, IMHO, encouraged by Western influences* ::coughCIAcough::. Those same Western influences control Western media, so when unrest does happen, the cameras are already there. It's not a case of convenience, it's staged to deliberately destabilise the region and keep guns moving and blood money flowing.

OK, here's the list, in case you missed it:

CIA (and their list of "friendly" or "useful" individuals, al Qaeda)
MI6 (stop saying MI5, that's Internal Intelligence)
Puppet Governments (such as installed in Georgia - what, you didn't know the current President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, is a former New York lawyer?)
Common Purpose International ("leadership training" - which involves nudging, NLP, and is also used to find and neutralise leadership elements where such traits are not desired, by any means necessary)

Re:i could be wrong but ,

[Dave Emami]

Iranians are not Arabs, but they are almost purely Muslim. 89-90% Shi'ite Muslim, 9% Sunni Muslim, and 0.4-2% all other religions. That doesn't leave much room for atheists and agnostics!

It's not so much of a question of what religion you are, but how big of a factor that is in your decision making, and how much it impacts your opinion and behavior towards other people, especially violent behavior. For example, prior to the revolution, none of my female Iranian relatives in my dad's generation (what would be "baby-boomers" in the US) wore head coverings at all, and even those in my grandmother's generation only wore headscarves, not chadors (the black tent-like things). Most of the men drank about as much alcohol (a no-no for Muslims) as the average American male of their age. They didn't object to kids celebrating "chaharshanbe suri", a Zoroastrian fire festival thing that a lot of the mullahs have tried to ban (the situation has similarities with fundamentalist Christians in the US objecting to Halloween). Yet pretty much all of them were believing Muslims, and most of the older ones had performed their pilgrimage to Mecca at some point in their lives.

Also note that apostate Muslims (those who leave the faith) are subject to the death penalty in Iran -- and you're considered Muslim if you were brought up as one. Things like that tend interfere with accurate information gathering. You don't answer "atheist" if you're afraid that your answer won't stay secret and you'll wind up in front of a judge trying to explain the difference between that answer and the fact that you always used to attend services with your parents at the local mosque.

Reality vs media, not blocked yet

[cancerward]

There is a huge gulf between media reports of life in Iran and the reality. I was there for two weeks this month and wrote a short blog post on the internet censorship. http://kanahakkliha.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/iran-in-2012.html

The reality is the censorship is considered to be a complete joke - freegate or tor just goes right through it. The government is just wasting their time. Facebook, youtube and twitter are all "blocked" but everyone uses them. It only gets annoying when you're accessing wifi from a mobile device and don't have a VPN already set up.

There's a site called blockediniran.com which is pretty accurate - http://www.blockediniran.com/?siteurl=google.com it shows that google.com is not blocked yet (but, for example, it can't understand that m.smh.com.au is a website). However, when I was there, every other country variant of google was blocked - google.com.au, google.co.uk, google.co.nz etc, and blockediniran confirms those.

It just hit me

[Tastecicles]

Innocence of Muslims has been on Youtube since JULY.

Why the protests NOW?

-also-

Why is the US Government so set on blaming the US Diplomatic Mission killings on this video? Doesn't anyone else think that it might possibly have been preplanned, independently of some fourteen minute video, to coincide with the anniversary of the WTC demolition?? I mean, really?

Re:It just hit me

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Innocence of Muslims has been on Youtube since JULY.

Why the protests NOW?

From the Wikipedia article:

Videos dubbed in the Arabic language were uploaded during early September 2012,[6] and were promoted by Morris Sadek by email and on the blog of the National American Coptic Assembly.[7] On September 9, 2012, an excerpt of the YouTube video was broadcast on Al-Nas TV, an Egyptian Islamist television station.[8][9] Demonstrations and violent protests against the film broke out on September 11 in Egypt and Libya, and spread to other Arab and Muslim nations and some western countries

Re:It just hit me

[Tastecicles]

Not too much of a surprise to learn that the channel from which the video was broadcast had evolved from a pop culture channel to a militant islamist channel in only a few months... what better way to incite violence than to play such material to an already angered and captive audience?

Re:Hyperbole

[Torvac]

not true, the "criple,retard,'lazy', homeless people hate" was just the continuation of " is the best blabla, ... superior race & culture and we especially hate <group x> because of <ideology y>" thinking. now for example: z was german, x was jewish people and y was money/zionism or whatever. now exchange x/y/z with value of current news channels, lots of data - there you go , fresh nazi index for dummies. maybe use genocide-over-timespan/victims as data too.

Obama is Hitler

[SmallFurryCreature]

Obama is Hitler and no not because of Health Care and all the sillyness the right claims. People voted for Obama mostly because he was not the other guy. Anything but Bush. "Democracy" is at its most dangerous NOT when an obviously dangerous madman runs for power but when the voting public is willing to accept ANYONE but the regular guys.

In France, Hollande has been in power for 4 months and people are already dissatisfied because he hasn't turned the economy around. And the reason he was elected? Because he was not the other guy.

In Holland, the SP let the polls until it came to vote for rent-subsidie and mortage-tax-deduction and the PvDA and VVD became the big winners but a lot of people already protesting that the policies these two will enact will cause the 4th year of less spendable income for everyone but the very rich. People who barely understand politics think that it was good the PVV lost a lot of seats but forget that the only reason he did loose votes was because Geert Wilders totally failed to deliver on his anti-islam retoric.

In Greece, extreme right is gaining which might make you think that an economic downturn leads to rightwing, but PvDA is socialist and so is Hollande, so explain that?

The fact is that when it comes to crunch time, people will vote for safety if they still have a tiny amount of faith in the system and there is no charismatic alternative but when they lost faith in all the existing parties, there is room for a new star to rise. Even if that turns out to be a super-nova that will burn everything.

Microsoft is Hitler. MS didn't win dominance on the desktop because it was the best option but because all the other options failed (Apple, IBM, Amiga etc etc). Then an outsider can have a shot.

It is only so long before the musical chairs of western politics or the mid-eastern same guys in charge for decades with only the head changing can continue before people are willing to try any alternative no matter how crazy their policies might seem. It doesn't help if people start believing that a president can turn the world economie around in just 4 months (France) or even 4 years (America).

The fact that Romney even has a chance with his insane policies and total lack of any humanity whatsoever says enough.

Part of the problem in democracy is that it has no accountability. How many in Dresden voted for Hitler? Will America stop all government handouts to all Romney voters?

No? Then people will continue to vote for whoever they bloody well feel like it at the moment and damn the consequences.

Re:Obama is Hitler

[InsectOverlord]

Of all the people/things you mention, the one that's actually a bit similar to Hitler is PVV - amusing how you don't include it in your list of things that are Hitler.

Re:Obama is Hitler

[u38cg]

That's kinda the point of democracy. No, we never know what our elected leaders will turn out like. But it's reassuring that we can vote them out when we catch up.

Re:Obama is Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

People voted for Obama mostly because he was not the other guy. Anything but Bush.

Bush had his two terms. It wasn't possible for him to run for a third.

Re:Obama is Hitler

[mythix]

"In France, Hollande has been in power for 4 months and [...] he hasn't turned the economy around."

Hollande is such a douche....

Re:Obama is Hitler

[JudgeFurious]

True, but don't think for a moment that rejection of his party did not play into the vote for Obama. I live in Texas which was without any doubt going to go Republican (and will again). I generally vote Republican though I've crossed over more than once or twice. My wife and I both voted for Obama simply because we were intensely dissatisfied with what GWB had done and what we thought McCain would continue to do if elected. I'm of the opinion that the Republicans are "broken" and while I mostly don't agree with the Democrats I can't see how continuing to vote Republican ever gives them much reason to change. I voted for Obama to get his numbers up in a state he had no chance of winning in hopes that someone on the right might correctly interpret that to mean their supporters were dissatisfied.

Re:Hyperbole

[makomk]

The current "hate" is of the sort "I don't want a ground zero Mosque just like a Japanese wouldn't want Disneyland Hiroshima"

No, the current "hate" is of the sort "Any mosque built in New York City is a Ground Zero mosque and a deliberate and malicious attempt to mock good (Christian) Americans, because it's impossible that there might be groups of Muslims in New Yorn City who actually want to practice their religion, and even if they are they need to respect our nutty theories". Can you see how that kind of dehumanisation is likely lead to other, more nasty forms of hate?

Re:Hyperbole

[unixguy99]

According to Lancet, nearly 1 million people have been killed in Iraq beacause of fake allegations of weapons of mass destruction, so It's a reasonable conclusion for muslims to confront spread of haterad by United states. I would like to remind you that even now, us has a military base in Japan and ever since, there has neumerous reports of rape and torture of Japanese women by US military personnel.

How did you conclude this?

[unixguy99]

the public in general doesn't seem bothered by it

How did you conclude this? As an Iranian, I see that even people who are not usually considered religious, feel bothered from the movie and comdemen it. But with the fact that access to Youtube was blocked even before today, many people don't know how hateful, annoying and sadistic that damn stupid movie is.

Stanford prison experiment

[TapeCutter]

I would expect some people would be deeply offended by that clip, any display of humanity, no matter how tangential, will make a "normal" viewer feel sympathy/empathy for a character they see as pure evil. People don't want to see OBL enjoying a game of volleyball, they want to rip his mask off and expose the reptile hidden beneath the skin.

I think one of the most underrated discoveries about ourselves of all time would have to be the Stanford prison experiment. It goes a long way to explaining how it is possible for an otherwise "normal" person to treat Jewish children as a vermin problem and their own children like....well...their own children. Such extreme moral contradictions do take their toll on a person's psyche, the soldiers flying attack drones from downtown office buildings are said to suffer from an unusually high rate of mental breakdowns even though their society sees them as "normal people".

Drones or not, there is no evil in the modern world that goes quite as far as Mr H did, and despite the hyperbole plastered all over the internet there is certainly nothing like it on today's political horizon. Having said that Rwanda managed a smaller feat of evil with much more efficiency, they slaughtered one million people in one week with little more than religious AM shock jocks for inspiration and hand tools for implementation.

If for one second you (the reader) have thought to yourself "my people" wouldn't do that, then you really do need to stop thinking about other people's behavior for a while, instead, take some time to study yourself and your species in light of the discovery mentioned above. - Needless to say YMMV.

I applaud this move

[concealment]

Every country should be able to tailor the internet to what its population wants. In the West, that's pornography, but other people may have different views. We should be tolerant and respectful of this diversity, and not insist that they join us in enjoying glorious pornography and haphazard troll movies made by former con artists.

Wow

[Murdoch5]

I love how instead of change and give themselves a different image they just want to block it. Here's a radical idea, if you just start acting and behaving like the rest of the world and admit your faults and change then people will stop making what right now is a VERY truthful videos. So how about instead of running to your mother you just own up and accept the fact that as a culture you need to change.

Re:Wow

[bigscience]

It might interest you to know that by far the largest proportion of people on the planet do not live like we do in central and North america and central Europ, but have a vastly different culture. It is the rest of the world that comments on our lifestyle. I think most educated people would realise your comments are just a troll Either that or you havnt bothered to watch the video Its trash and a parody of islam, not a blow by blow defamation of it but a sort of badly made slapstic comedy

Re:Hyperbole

[QilessQi]

I'm not making an argument. I'm simply wondering if the "walling off" of sections of the Internet could happen in this country in the coming decades if the political landscape tilts heavily in one direction.

I picked a religious example, because Iranian censorship is rooted in religion, and because we have many people of strong faith in this country who have fought against the teaching of evolution in the schools. It's an easy example; I was being intellectually lazy. But when people of strong faith feel that their religion is being threatened, it's not insane to expect them to push back.

You say that Christianity is not Islam; I agree that today it seems to be a much gentler religion. But it wasn't always that way. Consider Galileo, or Giordano Bruno. Then consider what might happen -- 50, 100 years from now -- if the political leadership happened to be composed entirely of people drawn from the same religious background: good people, honest people, sincere people, who wish only the best for their nation. They may see censorship not as evil, but as a protection *from* evil influence. I doubt it would even be called censorship. "Standards of decency," maybe. "Protection from harmful influences."

It would very probably start with pornography. But I'm afraid that it would not end there.

As for the "46%" poll, it was done by Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx . When I googled for it the Huffington Post link was the first one that came up. Laziness on my part again. Next time I'll be more careful and cite the original source.

But as you can see, 46% polled by Gallup believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." That most certainly is Young Earth Creationism.

Re:how many usb flash drives can fit in one's anus

[cffrost]

Why use USB when you have microSD?

Sharp edges.

Re:Eheh

[Mr2cents]

Mr2cents
Twit (1998-2012)

I'm going to die this year? And what happened to my teenage years? I'm confused and frightened!
Now I'll have to go and cry because of my imminent death AND some nobody called me a twit on /. for no apparent reason... what a horrible day!

Re:Hyperbole

[INowRegretThesePosts]

No, the current "hate" is of the sort "Any mosque built in New York City is a Ground Zero mosque and a deliberate and malicious attempt to mock good (Christian) Americans, because it's impossible that there might be groups of Muslims in New Yorn City who actually want to practice their religion, and even if they are they need to respect our nutty theories".

I have never seen a respected conservative say that.

America's free speech is safe

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I picked a religious example, because Iranian censorship is rooted in religion, and because we have many people of strong faith in this country who have fought against the teaching of evolution in the schools. It's an easy example; I was being intellectually lazy. But when people of strong faith feel that their religion is being threatened, it's not insane to expect them to push back.

Christianity has been threatened since long, long ago.

You say that Christianity is not Islam; I agree that today it seems to be a much gentler religion. But it wasn't always that way. Consider Galileo, or Giordano Bruno.

First: the Galileo case was less bad (I'm _not_ saying it wasn't bad!) than people think. Galileo thought that the Sun was the center of the _Universe_. He did not have good arguments for his theory - he thought that the tides prove that the Earth orbits the Sun, but this was _wrong_. In fact, we now know that the tides are primarily caused by the gravity of the _Moon_. He also couldn't answer the objections of his opponents - if the Earth moves, then why don't we detect a parallax of the stars? (We now know that the stars are so far away that the parallax is very hard to see with the naked eye). Nevertheless, he was authorized to promote his idea as a scientific hypothesis. But some Aristotelian philosophers and theologians criticized him and, unfortunately, he entered into that fight. He started using theological arguments. He was forbidden (this is where the mistake of the Church authorities begin) to challenge the established Aristotelian philosophy and theology. He then _forged a signature_ to publish a book that did just that - challenged theology and Aristotelian philosophy. Because of the forgery, he was sentenced to _house arrest_; he died a good Catholic and his daughter became a nun. The whole process was still _bad_, I agree, but blessed John Paul II has already apologized for this. Also,

Second: please read about the Council Vatican II(1962-1965). it was an extremely important Church council, which enacted a lot of needed reforms. Certain old bad practices (such as supporting authoritarian governments which censored heresies) were condemned for good. And once an idea has been promulgated by an Ecumenical Council, it stays _forever_.

Also, America has an established tradition of separation of Church and state, and radical free speech. American free speech is so radical that you can deny the Holocaust, or picket funerals. And the Supreme Court is very "conservative" in the sense of not overturning previous decisions. It would be _very_ hard for the Supreme Court to change its mind and start allowing ideological/political/religious censorship.

As for the "46%" poll, it was done by Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx.

Well, that same poll also has some positive aspects.
* If a presidential candidate does not believe in evolution, 53% of American voters would not care, 29% would be _less_ likely to vote for him/her, and only 15% would me more likely to vote for him/her.
* Only 20% oppose evolution being taught in public school science classes, and 61% support it.

When I googled for it the Huffington Post link was the first one that came up. Laziness on my part again. Next time I'll be more careful and cite the original source.

Thank you very much for listening to me, and also for being polite.

But as you can see, 46% polled by Gallup believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." That most certainly is Young Earth Creationism.

Not exactly. Young Earth Creationism states that the _Earth_ is a few thousand years old. It conflicts with quite a lo

Re:America's free speech is safe

[QilessQi]

> Christianity has been threatened since long, long ago.

By which I think you mean that there hasn't been a strong pushback yet, so it's reasonable to think that one will never come. When discussing social change I tend not to think in terms of years but decades and centuries: change is sometimes glacial, but glaciers still move.

What has changed recently is technology. Google and the modern web didn't exist 20 years ago, yet blocking Google today is (1) a significant political act, and (2) easily achievable. If we come to a day when all information resides in the cloud, censorship will be so simple as to be invisible. No public book burnings, no jack-booted thugs breaking down doors and confiscating printing presses. No optics of any sort. Just a few mouse clicks, and the offensive work disappears. A few more, and any story that mentions the disappearance itself disappears.

The question is, who gets to hold that mouse, and why might they use it?

Let's not talk about Christianity (an all-too-easy target). Forget theocracy; I don't seriously think it would happen here in the next 200 years, though I do sometimes wonder what the sequence of events might be, and how unlikely they really are. Instead let's talk about political parties that come into power and seize upon some crisis as an excuse to put an entire nation on ideological lockdown. Let's talk about the Big Bad Thing that happens on the 200th anniversary of 9/11, the thing that popularizes the idea that subversives need to be rooted out and shut down. Censorship, isolationism, handed down from above, all in the same of keeping us safe. The scenario doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility to me.

> Only 20% oppose evolution being taught in public school science classes, and 61% support it.

That's encouraging, and indeed, many Christians that I know (middle class, educated, living in or near large cities) would fall solidly into that camp. But 20% is still too high for my comfort. The theory of evolution is probably as well-established as the theory of atomic structure, with a preponderance of evidence in its favor.

> Thank you very much for listening to me, and also for being polite.

Not at all; you're quite welcome. I enjoy debates here... I usually learn a few things. For example, I didn't know that Vatican II had addressed the issue of government censorship. Mostly I thought it dealt with more basic matters of worship (such as eating meat on Friday, that sort of thing).

  > Not exactly. Young Earth Creationism states that the _Earth_ is a few thousand years old. It conflicts with quite a lot of established science. Believing that _humans_ were created recently (possibly from preexisting hominids) has much less conflict with established science

Well, I'm going to have to let this one slide. But if someone tells me that they think that humans were created several thousand years ago, I'd bet heavily that they were speaking of a literal interpretation of Genesis, right down to the Ussher chronology [which establishes the year of Creation as 4004 BC].

Anyway, whether or not you choose to reply, thanks for the convo.

Re:America's free speech is safe

[INowRegretThesePosts]

What has changed recently is technology. Google and the modern web didn't exist 20 years ago, yet blocking Google today is (1) a significant political act, and (2) easily achievable. If we come to a day when all information resides in the cloud, censorship will be so simple as to be invisible. No public book burnings, no jack-booted thugs breaking down doors and confiscating printing presses. No optics of any sort. Just a few mouse clicks, and the offensive work disappears. A few more, and any story that mentions the disappearance itself disappears.

Yes, I fear that too. Dystopian science fiction focuses on self-aware computers (like Skynet, or the machines in The Matrix). I don't fear this, because I think this will take a _long_ time to happen, assuming it _ever_ happens. But I do think that we can design algorithms that partially understand natural language. That seems feasible. Now combine these algorithms with micro UAVs with cameras and microphones. This could make 1984 real.

Not to mention doomsday devices. We already have biological and nuclear weapons. These two could get more potent in the future. And proliferation. Proliferation scares me. The Soviets, as crazy as they were, still had sufficient reason to not start a nuclear war with the USA. But what happens when some rogue terrorist group gets nuclear weapons? Again, this scares me.
And then there is the grey goo scenario.

But what scares me the most is human genetic engineering. Genetic screening is becoming cheaper and safer, and I think people will start to make children with IVF and eugenic selection. After many generations, this could form a race of big, strong, intelligent, powerful beings, who maybe would not even identify as humans.

But there will always be a minority (such as Christians) that will refuse to do this. They would be the naturals. So we would have a Brave New World style of dystopia.
Now, you could object that our society already has separated classes: the rich, and the rest. But the rich are a small minority, and they have few votes. So this attenuates their dominance. But in the scenario I described above, the naturals would be a _minority_, and they would be weaker and less intelligent, and also (presumably) poorer. So they would be completely dominated. And since the non-naturals do not even identify as humans (they consider themselves to be another species), they wouldn't feel much empathy towards us... This scares me. The naturals could be treated as animals.

For example, I didn't know that Vatican II had addressed the issue of government censorship. Mostly I thought it dealt with more basic matters of worship (such as eating meat on Friday, that sort of thing).

I unfortunately have never read the Vatican II documents myself, but I know that they defend religious freedom, they condemn antisemitism, and they recognize the value of other religions. Even imperfect religions like Islam have elements of Truth and can lead (inefficiently) to God. Note that the Catholic Church still teaches (and will always teach) that it is the one true religion, the one Church created by God Himself; but it recognizes the freedom to choose one's religion, the freedom to express one's religion and seek converts, and to practice one's religion in private and in public - assuming that religion does not seriously harm the common good (say, by promoting child sacrifice).

Anyway, whether or not you choose to reply, thanks for the convo.

I like debating too. I like to share my crazy ideas.

Re:Hyperbole

[Urza9814]

Of course not. They wouldn't dare say it directly. They say it by using terms like "Ground Zero Mosque" for something that is neither at ground zero nor a mosque...because "Manhattan Islamic community center" doesn't promote the associations they're after.

Re:Hyperbole

[Urza9814]

The current "hate" is of the sort "I don't want a ground zero Mosque just like a Japanese wouldn't want Disneyland Hiroshima"

Yes...if that 'Disneyland Hiroshima' was a British amusement park located in Hatsukaichi...

The "ground zero mosque" was neither at ground zero nor a mosque, but "Islamic community center in Manhattan" did not promote the associations that those who created this "controversy" were after, so they made up this "ground zero mosque" crap and were so skillful with their propaganda that most people still believe it.

Re:Hyperbole

[INowRegretThesePosts]

They say it by using terms like "Ground Zero Mosque" for something that is neither at ground zero nor a mosque

That's splitting hairs. It is two blocks from the WTC, and this fits a broad definition of "Ground zero".

Opposing an Islamic Center - let's avoid the hair-splitting about "is a Mosque! It is not! It is too!" - two blocks from the WTC is _very_ different from saying "Muslims cannot have a mosque anywhere in NYC". Conflating these two attitudes is Michael Moore level of sensationalism.

Oh, by the way: once a community of Carmelite nuns wanted to build a convent near Auschwitz, to pray for the souls of those martyred there. Jews were offended (even though the Carmelite nuns had nothing to do with the Shoah), and Pope John Paul II asked the nuns to build their convent elsewhere. Was this a sign of anti-Catholic hatred?

Re:Hyperbole

[INowRegretThesePosts]

The "ground zero mosque" was neither at ground zero nor a mosque, but "Islamic community center in Manhattan" did not promote the associations that those who created this "controversy" were after, so they made up this "ground zero mosque" crap and were so skillful with their propaganda that most people still believe it.

Please see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138413&cid=41441927

And I forgot to mention that part of the outrage was due to the grandiose of the project, its huge price tag, and it being named "Corboba" - that was taken as triumphalism.

Anyway, I don't care too much about the Islamic center itself, I am just explaining the POV of those who do care. Conflating this opposition with Nazi hate is Michael Moore level of sensationalism.