a guy murders another guy to make a gun. this bothers you
another guy serenely and publicly assembles a pound of ricin. this doesn't bother you
you don't really care about what is being made, you just care about how its being made
like i said, the guys on the manhattan project: groves, oppenheimer, breit, manley, etc.: all decent fellows
except for the fact they built the atomic bomb
again, that doesn't bother you. all you care about is the character of the guys involved
so: google is going to know everything, survey all knowledge, track everything about you
but because brin and page are decent fellows, so your mind is at ease, right?
meanwhile, me: i'm some sort of weird paranoid schizophrenic rambling on right?
their multiply stated business goal is to know everything about you, track all human knowledge. i don't have to embellish their fundamental business purpose. i simply have to state it. no paranoid conspiracy theory need be involved in my cause for concern. no leap of logic, no absurd conclusions. i am simply telling you what you already know about what they are doing, but you apparently haven't even thought about, because you like the guys doing it, right?
and when these nice chaps die or retire, here you have this massive information reaping machine. who gets the keys to that?
when microsoft's (rapidly disapearing) domination of the OS bother you so much?
you know what, i'm perfectly fine with people who trust google implicitly when they record everything they possible can about you and your world
but then i expect this blindly blissful person to also accept microsoft's domination of the os with similar peace and tranquility...or, distrust google, AND distrust microsoft (as i do)
but what i don't understand are people who freak out about microsoft... and are perfectly comfortable with google
that makes ZERO sense to me, form the point of view of the principles involved
so all i can conclude is that the average slashdot denizen has this huge blind bias
it has extensive server logs that last years (all the better to track you)
it has a monopoly on so much of the internet and all communication, and wants ever more
etc., etc. all off the top of my head
it is, by definition, completely natural not to trust a company with so much power. or at least it should be. you seem perfectly trusting of something which seeks to be so omniscient in your life, and is rapidly achieving exactly that. you, go ahead, pillory microsoft, as their power wanes as a builder of the land barge os vista, while the world goes mad for ubuntu netbooks. and you, go ahead and make excuses for google as they dominate ever more and more of the web and your private communication
there's nothing to worry about, right? nothing at all. they say "don't be evil" so they are perfectly trustworthy, right? hey, all doublespeak catchphrases are 100% true in this world, right?
so please, you worry about dying old microsoft. you know what? i'm going to worry about google. their power is vast, every day they seek to extend their reach into every crevice of your searches and communications, and they have a legion of obedient boot lickers like yourself to tell us they are perfectly harmless and reasonable
their goal is to search and know everything there is. this is the company's goal. it is explicitly stated. go search for any number of quotes by brin and page. and they are doing exactly that, explicitly. this is vast unfathomable power they are consolidating. and the incredible lie, that collosal fools like yourself swallow, is that google, with all this vast power, will always be a benign force in your life
i'm not a paranoid schizophrenic. there is no plot, no conspiracy here. sergey brin, larry page, they seem perfectly nice people. i'm sure the entire management of the company are well-meaning and good natured and ethical folks. but why do you believe this tremendous edifice which explicitly desires to be all knowing will always be in the hands of well-meaning people? the nuclear bomb was also built by men who were basically decent folks. the issue is not the people building the company, or how they build the company, but what it is they are BUILDING. google, the company, will always be in the hands of nice guys?
hey, i wish i could lobotomize myself too. a company seeks to know everything about everybody. it explicitly states this repeatedly and makes coherent incremental steps to do exactly that. and its a force for good in the world?
why is it that the slashdot hordes makes excuses when google does the same thing microsoft did as it clawed its way to power by betraying its business partners?
please note: its not 2002. google is not a darling upstart anymore. it has done, and is doing, and will do, plenty of shady things. luckily they have kneejerk sycophants like you to explain away their sleaze as perfectly acceptable. the same sleazy moves you would pillory microsoft for
i can't believe this tripe i am responding to is currently marked +5 insightful
from people who pride themselves on being immune to prejudice and propaganda, comes a mental turd sandwich of both
all aping the trendy status quo: "google gooood! microsoft baaaad!"
i have muslim friends. i have nothing against islam. there's a mosque down the street. doesn't bother me at all. i am a very tolerant person
what i don't tolerate is: intolerance. get it?
your problem is you are confusing my criticism of ultraconservative islam, with criticism of just plain islam. i am criticizing the ultraconservative, not islam
we are talking about a society where christians and hindus can't practice their religion: all the rough jobs in saudi arabia are done by indian and filipino laborers, because saudi men won't do jobs "beneath them". don't you consider freedom of religion a basic human right? and women: in saudi arabia, a woman's rights are about as good as the rights of a head of cattle
this is horrible intolerance. and its the law of saudi arabia
i can't criticize that without being a racist in your mind? really?
since when does tolerance mean you tolerate the intolerant?
since when are you a racist simply because you criticize another culture? i can't criticize saudi arabia at all? and if i do, that means i must be a racist? you really believe that?
a society is as rich as its values. this is the reason the west is so powerful, not because it has nike sweatshops in indonesia. the usa, in 250 years, has eclipsed civilizations thousands of years older, because its foundational values from the enlightenment are simply superior ways of organizing society in productivity and happiness, and valuing progress and tolerance
however, in its need for energy, the west rewards places like saudi arabia. therefore, saudi arabia has no incentive to get better values, or evolve, and remains a stultified insanity exporting (wahabbi islam) country. when soccer mom fills up her SUV, she funds ultraconservative madrassas in pakistan and indonesia via saudi arabia that teach the west is the devil and should be destroyed
if oil never existed on the arabian penninsula, the insane ultraconservative religious ideas would remain the enclave of the few tribes who remained in the desert, and the cities would be full of young progressive thinking muslims, modern-looking and clamoring for change, and achieving it. simply because there would be no artificially propped up old guard preserving medieval values that simply don't work, and keeping their young from having a society they can envision themselves as better than the one they have
oil money, petrodollars, it keeps saudi arabia frozen in time, without any need or desire to adapt better values, and it allows it to export social values which are toxic to progress and prosperity. it exports these backwards values, and funds the evangelizing of ultraconservative wahabbi islam throughout the muslim world. so when we have fusion, and the value of oil drops to squat, only then will saudi arabia begin to modernize, because only then will it have to modernize for the first time since the penninsula was united in the early 20th century and oil was discovered
but right now, saudi arabia doesn't have to modernize its value system, because it is rewarded insane amounts of cash simply for sitting on a lot of oil. to the detriment of saudi society, the detriment of poor muslim societies that are recipients of the evangelizing of well-funded ultraconservative thinking, and the detriment of the west, which is vilified by the people it pays to give them oil to run their gas guzzling cars
in this way will fusion promote peace: by stop rewarding feeble, backwards societies and their unhuman values, simply because they sit on a lot of oil
what i believe is that there is an anglo north american culture, which canada and the usa straddle
ignoring the frogs in quebec of course
but it seems to me there are more differences between say, new england culture and southeastern us culture, than between new england culture and maritime culture
and out west, or in the great plains? even much less of a difference. the difference between san francisco and vancouver, for example, seems infinitesimal (compared on a scale of something like the change in culturally unique signifiers when moving between any other similar distance in really any other part of the world)
molson and hockey don't make a unique culture, eh?
however, i am not trying to belittle canada. your political and social environment, i envy and consider superior to the usa. we need universal healthcare in the usa badly, and your fuddy duddy banking system is now the envy of all
but i just don't see much difference culturally between myself and an anglocanadian. i see more difference between myself and someone from texas, for example (disclaimer: from new england)
on the other hand, anything you might define as uniquely canadian culture should be utterly destroyed, in retaliation for giving us tom green;-)
a large country like the usa, or a confident one like the uk, the business infrastructure of distribution can wither and die in the face of the internet, and there's no perception of a threat to the very existence of british or american culture being wiped out in the adjustment period
but places like canada, or new zealand, there is a strong legal entrenchment of cultural protectionism, because there is already a perception that everyone watches american television and movies, or listens to british music, such that if "native" culture were to lose its protection, it would wither and die
i actually don't believe this, i hardly believe anything stops an artist from creating art. its not like a kiwi won't write songs again just because kelly clarkson is on the radio. it seems to me to be some sort of lack of confidence on the part of canucks and kiwis. or rather, enough canuck and kiwi politicians can be persuaded of this scare tactic by captains of dying media industries in the face of the internet
better to wallow in conspiracy theories, since that's what the audience wants
why try to tell the truth when you can sell an audience its quasireligious, foundational psychosis: western democratic governments are actually mind control agencies out to get you?
but don't worry about my tone of voice: i'm obviously "one of them" (deluded sheeple or neocon stormtrooping fascist, take your cartoonish pick)
and i walk around solving my problems with that gun
in doing so, i dramatically increase my chance for an early death, due to gun, mine or someone else's, in a thousand different ways
the issue in play is frequent usage of violence to solve problems, not what kind of weapon you have, or if you know how to use it
using your weapon more than you need to merely involves oneself in more violence, which leads one to a much greater chance of early death. on an individual level, it is better to avoid violence altogether, even if that means you submit to someone else's will. simply because, that guy who sublimated you with violence, is probably not going to be around much longer, since ten of his imitators are interested in going to toe to toe with him violently. better to live through ten short-lived tyrants than you yourself turn into a tyrant yourself with your own 15 minutes of fame. in other words: better to simply submit to and avoid the violent, then go toe to toe with them and invite your own quick death due to announcing yourself as a threat that must be violently murdered (since you announced you will not submit, you would rather fight, it becomes necessary to kill you for those interested in power through violence)
so you are wrong. "turn the other cheek" is the best personal approach to survival, in any environment, from leafy peaceful tokyo suburbs, all the way to arid badlands outside mogadishu, and everywhere in between
the meek shall inherit the earth. meaning: those who fight for violence viscerally will burn out quickly, and then more temperate and civilized fights for power can take their rightful place
politics is about power. unanswered challenges to your power are signs of weakness. this is on a public, national and international level. perception of weakness leads to actual weakness
on a personal level, say, you were punched in a bar, or mugged on the street, "turn the other cheek" is a superior philosophy. and not just because its folksy and feel good. but because its a genuinely superior approach to survival. responding to violence on a personal level with more violence usually just gets you killed eventually. responding to violence by just walking away, meanwhile, means you live to see a peaceful bar after the violent idiots kill each other
but that's not how things work on the international stage
international politics, despite weak allegories anyone can construct that don't really illuminate reality, is NOT like a fight in a bar. the problem is one of scale. lots of ideas that work in small venues of a few people don't scale up to large ones of struggles between nations of millions and complicated ideological ideas. we like to think of nations in terms of anthropomorphization: uncle sam versus comrade vladislav, mother russia versus father china. but real international struggles are not political cartoons. the flow of power and meaning to constituents of nations functions in a way completely unlike personal sleights in a neighborhood bar
"turn the other cheek" will never ever be the basis for an international policy for any large and powerful country that wants to stay large and powerful. it will work for small unimportant countries, countries whose international plicy don't matter or make any difference in the world, but it will never ever work for the likes of russia, or china, or the usa
"Of course not. My point was--and remains!--that the ORIGINS of the idea of human rights is Western, and that the foundations of the idea of RATIONALLY reaching a conception of human rights that is objectively correct and universal, is a western idea. The foundation is rooted in centuries of philosophies and philosophers that I would be happy to get into a longer discussion about, but I don't think you're really interested in that."
incredibly patronizing, condescending, and flat out historically inaccurate
i also especially love how you boil my argument for innate humanism as a conceptualization of "the noble savage"
ha! do i laugh or do i cry?
i feel like i am talking to rudyard kipling. whoever the fuck you are, you certainly channel the arrogance of "white man's burden" perfectly. did you just step out of 1890?
"I really have to say, for all of your (imho bizarre) talk of alleged universality of mores, you're really pretty damn rude"
your arrogant blind ethnocentrism deserves far worse than rudeness
but please, ignore me, i'm just a "noble savage"
the victorian age lives on!
i await your lecture to me on the merits of phrenology
can be traced back before the enlightenment to arabic, chinese, and indian lines of thought. it is part of a human whole, and was never truly isolated anyways
but forget all that. here's the real crux of the matter: the ideas of humanism are universal, and require no special effort other than just trying to be a moral person
in other words, you wish to propose to me that some herculean edifice of great western effort delivered to us a conceptualization of humanism only valid after much trial and error and deep thought
fucking bullshit
all humanism is can be understood, and is understood, by most elementary school students, the world over, in every culture, across every time period
the biggest lie religion tells us, especially judeochristian thought, is that it originates much of morality
no, it coopts it
true morality, true humanism, is organically understood by individual human beings in most societies, as a simple byproduct of simple normal human social development
if every religion and every ideology were destroyed today, simple humanism would be what would develop in its place. its the default human ideology, not the height of extreme intellectual effort and some bizarre exception (and then of course, new religions would form and new contrarian ideologies would develop, and the whole jungle of human thought would reassert itself and begin to crowd out simple humanism again)
for example, most of humanistic morality can be understood simply be putting yourself in someone else's shoes. there is no intellectual or ideological prerequisite to this mental effort. simple human empathy is exactly that: simple and human
it is certain religious, and apparently in your case, academic fools who somehow believe this great magical effort has to go in conceptualizing these very simple, face value ideas to humanism and morality. fucking bullshit. burn every philosophy book and every religious text. kindergarteners will grow up with a sense of morality and reason perfectly sound. most of morality is simple mental efforts, not deep and convoluted and evolved ones
the very notion of all men being equal is not some amazing intellectual discovery no one thought of before voltaire
it is an idea a kindergartener can enunciate, understand, and organically create. and they do, on a daily basis, in every culture on this planet, in every time period that has existed
the path to true powerful universal humanism is simply to stop prevailing ideological and religious notions from coopting and perverting simple human organic social instincts about basic simple moral ideals. it does not involve the west, or some other area, imposing something on some other area. for example, currently in iran there is a large feminist movement. this is not because of the west. this effort does not depend upon the west. if the west never existed, this movement would still exist. the feminist movement is organically and innately discovered in human beings looking at treatment of females as opposed to males and finding simple logical problems with that
now some western gasbag would talk about the evolution of western feminist movement this or that anjd spreading here and there, but its all academic douchbaggery bullshit, meant to fill tenured positions, not describe self-evident human reality
simple humanism is organic and innate and a basic byproduct of the socialization of any psychologically normal human being, not beholden to any culture. for you to posit the west as some great originator of a really simple idea is really absurd and ethnocentric
take what you wrote above, read it to any nonwesterner, and your blind arrogance is nothing but a source of humor
in fact, it is quite arrogant to say to me that an indian, or an egyptian, or a brazilian, or an indonesian, or a japanese, cannot enunciate humanism, and believe in it wholly, and conceive of it originally, in every way you think is some sort of magically and unique western conception
pure unadulterated bullshit
if you really believe that humanism as a rational and universal concept is a western conception, then you have to believe that the very conception of universality and rationality are somehow distinctly western. as if a nonwestern can't grasp those concepts like a westerner? if you believe that, this is incredibly ethnocentric of you
but i won't go so far as to call you ethnocentric. what i will say is this, and let the reality sink in:
"western humanism" is an logically invalid concept. just as invalid as "indian humanism" or "russian humanism". either its humanism, or not. there is no such thing as a regional flavor to an ideology which is foundational on universal truths. there is no such thing as a nonuniversal universality. see my drift? your entire conception is logically invalid and void of substance
please get off your high horse. there is nothing special about the west. universal humanism is a real and valid concept. i can deviate from my conception of what it is. you can deviate from a valid conception of it. neither of us are authorities. but it doesn't mean that the conception is invalid, or still somehow valid with a regional flavoring
you can talk to me about westernism
you can talk to me about humanism
but you can't talk to me about western humanism. this is like trying to talk to me about dry wetness, or bright darkness. self-contradictory terminology
and also, you can't say i am a westerner when i talk about humanism, or criticize my humanism based on western ideals
and i believe the neoconservative "bomb people for freedom" is bullshit and backfires. you can extend freedom in far more effective and subtle ways
however, the problem is that isolationism doesn't work
#1: you live on a tiny piece of rock in a giant void in space. you are not isolated, in any physical or social or material way from the tribesman in kandahar. what they think affects you. and visa versa. especially in an age of jet air travel and internet. perhaps isolationism would be valid in the days of colonialism, and you could fight for isolationism then. but even then, sailing ships were beginning to mix cultures, and i don't know how you can fight that, since that impulse is simple commerce, and people want their spices, regardless of the fact that their desire for spices destroys the validity of isolationism as an effective philosophy. and EVEN when a society chooses isoloationism, along comes admiral perry and forces your society open
#2: isolation doesn't work especially in a roomful of arrogance. that is, that islamic scholar or that chinese technocrat: they believe their ideology can be exported. the islamic fundamentalist thinks the whole world should be under a caliphate, since islam is the only valid way to live. the chinese authoritarian technocrat would like to stifle "subversive" thinking worldwide, since it just riles up the complacent zombifaction of the working chinese slave. and these arrogant beliefs have no problem disregarding your beliefs, especially since, in your silence and your isolationism, you have indicated you won't fight for what you believe, when they will
furthermore, you cannot label humanism as just a version of western arrogance. fucking bullshit. humanism is humanism is humanism. sure, you can say i don't have a lock on what humanism is, that i'm no authority and i am wrong on certain points. in no way i am saying i am authority. but humanism, the concept of universal humanism, having nothing pro-western or anti-western or anything western about it, is a real and valid concept, regardless of how wrong i might be
i would like you to look at the stock market today
its kinda low, you think?
maybe because people are afraid right now
operating in fear
as opposed to the greed lust they felt a few years back, when they were busy inflating a bubble
right?
so why did this happen?
BECAUSE THEY ROLLED BACK REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT YOU BLIND MORON
when a market is unregulated, guess what? it bubbles, and pops, bubbles and pops
why?
because the players in the marketplace are not impartial robots. they are emotional human beings
got that?
there is no such thing as a perfect market place, because it is run by HUMAN BEINGS
so it needs ot be REGULATED, to save it from bubbling and popping
furthermore, there is this hilarious belief that you don't need regulations in automobile manufacture. that auto makers, in the benevolent reading the unspoken desires of consumers, would inject billions into the investment of safety features
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
man you are bloviating fool
hey, einstein: salmonella in peanuts? melamine in chinese milk? HELLOOOO? been paying attention to the news? how did this happen: LACK OF REGULATION EINSTEIN
or is your argument tha tdeath of human beings just a perfectly valid part of market corrections?
please, run with that, you'll go far
you NEED market regulation. if you don't see that, you are blind dumb fool
you are truly a grade a market fundamentalmist moron
could you contrast that with the society you want to live in?
i don't see that we actually disagree on anything. except perhaps the belief that people from unfree societies will leave free societies alone
oh, right: islamic fundamentalist nutjobs are the product of american policies. as opposed to being products of strict religious backgrounds?
which do you believe?
darling: when you cross the rio grande, or the straights of bosporus, or the ural mountains, or the rock of gibraltar, human rights don't magically warp into some other concepts. human rights are human rights are human rights
now you don't have to agree with neoconservative bullshit "bomb them to freedom"
but surely you don't believe that when someone is unfree somewhere else in this world, that that has no effect on you, and you don't have to get involved, and the effect of lack of freedom elsewhere won't come bite you in the ass someday, WHATEVER the usa did in the cold war? (the typcial braindead way of explaining away what religious nutjobs do to the west, as somehow deserved by the west, is what the west did in the last century when fighting the soviets. please!)
lets put it this way: if the usa NEVER EXISTED, would there still be islamic nutjobs blowing up their fellow muslims?
and would it still be valid or not to fight these assholes?
in the name of the freedom you, and i, hold dear?
or do you believe only westerners deserve freedom?
i am a human being. that allegiance for me is stronger to me than being a westerner
how about you?
is the west some special club? that has no need for a human conscience to care that human beings, your fellow human beings, are not free elsewhere?
there is no objectivity in your comments. therefore, you are guilty of everything you are criticizing
based on your comments, one could find equally "substantial" criticism and judgment of the suitability of candidacy for gee, i dunno, say a conservative icon like reagan?;-) but i won't stoop that low, because i'm not going to play your lame propagandistic game
not EXACTLY explcitly parallel of course, because, one would have to swallow the blue pill and some how magically believe, for example, that experience in the california governorship is somehow more germaine to the job of the presidency than say, a senatorship
so howabout we sidestep that entire lame argument, and get right to the heart of the matter, shall we my partisan braindead friend?
that is: how about the american people decide? as they just did, according to the founding fathers wishes, in a vote? and how about their vote, and their decision, actually have more validity and meaning than your shrill blind subjective partisan judgments? as it should in a democracy?
how's that suit you you partisan sheep?
and here's another cluebat for you ms. michelle malkin: why don't you go fix your broken party and your broken conservative ideology. you LOST the election already. STOP FIGHTING SOMETHING YOU ALREADY LOST. geez! why don't you go focus on 2012 instead, where your shrill partisan gasbaggery might actually have some more use?;-)
Slashdot Mirror
trust google: fine
distrust microsoft: fine
but you either:
trust google & trust microsoft
or
distrust google & distrust microsoft
in order to remain logically coherent
feel me now?
the two following positions are logically impossible, according to any set of coherent principles you can present me:
trust google, distrust microsoft
distrust google, trust microsoft
of course
trust google, distrust microsoft
remains plausible, if you have some sort of illogical bias
a guy murders another guy to make a gun. this bothers you
another guy serenely and publicly assembles a pound of ricin. this doesn't bother you
you don't really care about what is being made, you just care about how its being made
like i said, the guys on the manhattan project: groves, oppenheimer, breit, manley, etc.: all decent fellows
except for the fact they built the atomic bomb
again, that doesn't bother you. all you care about is the character of the guys involved
so: google is going to know everything, survey all knowledge, track everything about you
but because brin and page are decent fellows, so your mind is at ease, right?
meanwhile, me: i'm some sort of weird paranoid schizophrenic rambling on right?
their multiply stated business goal is to know everything about you, track all human knowledge. i don't have to embellish their fundamental business purpose. i simply have to state it. no paranoid conspiracy theory need be involved in my cause for concern. no leap of logic, no absurd conclusions. i am simply telling you what you already know about what they are doing, but you apparently haven't even thought about, because you like the guys doing it, right?
and when these nice chaps die or retire, here you have this massive information reaping machine. who gets the keys to that?
you see no potential for abuse here?
when microsoft's (rapidly disapearing) domination of the OS bother you so much?
you know what, i'm perfectly fine with people who trust google implicitly when they record everything they possible can about you and your world
but then i expect this blindly blissful person to also accept microsoft's domination of the os with similar peace and tranquility ...or, distrust google, AND distrust microsoft (as i do)
but what i don't understand are people who freak out about microsoft... and are perfectly comfortable with google
that makes ZERO sense to me, form the point of view of the principles involved
so all i can conclude is that the average slashdot denizen has this huge blind bias
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm
google uses immortal cookies
it records absolutely everything
its toolbar is spyware
it has extensive server logs that last years (all the better to track you)
it has a monopoly on so much of the internet and all communication, and wants ever more
etc., etc. all off the top of my head
it is, by definition, completely natural not to trust a company with so much power. or at least it should be. you seem perfectly trusting of something which seeks to be so omniscient in your life, and is rapidly achieving exactly that. you, go ahead, pillory microsoft, as their power wanes as a builder of the land barge os vista, while the world goes mad for ubuntu netbooks. and you, go ahead and make excuses for google as they dominate ever more and more of the web and your private communication
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/04/1932247
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/12/1254241
there's nothing to worry about, right? nothing at all. they say "don't be evil" so they are perfectly trustworthy, right? hey, all doublespeak catchphrases are 100% true in this world, right?
so please, you worry about dying old microsoft. you know what? i'm going to worry about google. their power is vast, every day they seek to extend their reach into every crevice of your searches and communications, and they have a legion of obedient boot lickers like yourself to tell us they are perfectly harmless and reasonable
their goal is to search and know everything there is. this is the company's goal. it is explicitly stated. go search for any number of quotes by brin and page. and they are doing exactly that, explicitly. this is vast unfathomable power they are consolidating. and the incredible lie, that collosal fools like yourself swallow, is that google, with all this vast power, will always be a benign force in your life
i'm not a paranoid schizophrenic. there is no plot, no conspiracy here. sergey brin, larry page, they seem perfectly nice people. i'm sure the entire management of the company are well-meaning and good natured and ethical folks. but why do you believe this tremendous edifice which explicitly desires to be all knowing will always be in the hands of well-meaning people? the nuclear bomb was also built by men who were basically decent folks. the issue is not the people building the company, or how they build the company, but what it is they are BUILDING. google, the company, will always be in the hands of nice guys?
hey, i wish i could lobotomize myself too. a company seeks to know everything about everybody. it explicitly states this repeatedly and makes coherent incremental steps to do exactly that. and its a force for good in the world?
please! pass me some of what you are smoking!
why is it that the slashdot hordes makes excuses when google does the same thing microsoft did as it clawed its way to power by betraying its business partners?
please note: its not 2002. google is not a darling upstart anymore. it has done, and is doing, and will do, plenty of shady things. luckily they have kneejerk sycophants like you to explain away their sleaze as perfectly acceptable. the same sleazy moves you would pillory microsoft for
i can't believe this tripe i am responding to is currently marked +5 insightful
from people who pride themselves on being immune to prejudice and propaganda, comes a mental turd sandwich of both
all aping the trendy status quo: "google gooood! microsoft baaaad!"
mindless sheep
what next, phrenology?
phlogiston?
i saw chinese ghost story recently and there was a scene where clearly rotting corpses were trying to drag the main character into the cellar
there was even a transvestite tree spirit pimp of dead ghost whores
so no skeletons... but transvestite tree spirit pimp of dead ghost whores is ok?
i have muslim friends. i have nothing against islam. there's a mosque down the street. doesn't bother me at all. i am a very tolerant person
what i don't tolerate is: intolerance. get it?
your problem is you are confusing my criticism of ultraconservative islam, with criticism of just plain islam. i am criticizing the ultraconservative, not islam
we are talking about a society where christians and hindus can't practice their religion: all the rough jobs in saudi arabia are done by indian and filipino laborers, because saudi men won't do jobs "beneath them". don't you consider freedom of religion a basic human right? and women: in saudi arabia, a woman's rights are about as good as the rights of a head of cattle
this is horrible intolerance. and its the law of saudi arabia
i can't criticize that without being a racist in your mind? really?
since when does tolerance mean you tolerate the intolerant?
since when are you a racist simply because you criticize another culture? i can't criticize saudi arabia at all? and if i do, that means i must be a racist? you really believe that?
turning all of california into beachfront real estate
thereby boosting house values, and saving the economy
we need someone to fly around the earth real fast to make it rotate backwards and reverse time
a society is as rich as its values. this is the reason the west is so powerful, not because it has nike sweatshops in indonesia. the usa, in 250 years, has eclipsed civilizations thousands of years older, because its foundational values from the enlightenment are simply superior ways of organizing society in productivity and happiness, and valuing progress and tolerance
however, in its need for energy, the west rewards places like saudi arabia. therefore, saudi arabia has no incentive to get better values, or evolve, and remains a stultified insanity exporting (wahabbi islam) country. when soccer mom fills up her SUV, she funds ultraconservative madrassas in pakistan and indonesia via saudi arabia that teach the west is the devil and should be destroyed
if oil never existed on the arabian penninsula, the insane ultraconservative religious ideas would remain the enclave of the few tribes who remained in the desert, and the cities would be full of young progressive thinking muslims, modern-looking and clamoring for change, and achieving it. simply because there would be no artificially propped up old guard preserving medieval values that simply don't work, and keeping their young from having a society they can envision themselves as better than the one they have
oil money, petrodollars, it keeps saudi arabia frozen in time, without any need or desire to adapt better values, and it allows it to export social values which are toxic to progress and prosperity. it exports these backwards values, and funds the evangelizing of ultraconservative wahabbi islam throughout the muslim world. so when we have fusion, and the value of oil drops to squat, only then will saudi arabia begin to modernize, because only then will it have to modernize for the first time since the penninsula was united in the early 20th century and oil was discovered
but right now, saudi arabia doesn't have to modernize its value system, because it is rewarded insane amounts of cash simply for sitting on a lot of oil. to the detriment of saudi society, the detriment of poor muslim societies that are recipients of the evangelizing of well-funded ultraconservative thinking, and the detriment of the west, which is vilified by the people it pays to give them oil to run their gas guzzling cars
in this way will fusion promote peace: by stop rewarding feeble, backwards societies and their unhuman values, simply because they sit on a lot of oil
are you being ironic?
you think the maritimes, great plains and vancouver will stay together?
break further up?
or merge with the great southern evil?
i always thought it would be neat to have one big country from guatemala to greenland
put the capital in detroit, for example, to mollify canadians
or, do you think the frogs are just always malcontents, and will never truly break up canada?
i can tick off significant kiwi influences on my life off the top of my head
but the closest i've ever come to new zealand is mindanao, philippines
and i think your keas are adorable, your wetas not so much
you shouldn't belittle kiwi culture, its a bigger deal than you think
just stop diddling the sheep, will ya? ;-)
what i believe is that there is an anglo north american culture, which canada and the usa straddle
ignoring the frogs in quebec of course
but it seems to me there are more differences between say, new england culture and southeastern us culture, than between new england culture and maritime culture
and out west, or in the great plains? even much less of a difference. the difference between san francisco and vancouver, for example, seems infinitesimal (compared on a scale of something like the change in culturally unique signifiers when moving between any other similar distance in really any other part of the world)
molson and hockey don't make a unique culture, eh?
however, i am not trying to belittle canada. your political and social environment, i envy and consider superior to the usa. we need universal healthcare in the usa badly, and your fuddy duddy banking system is now the envy of all
but i just don't see much difference culturally between myself and an anglocanadian. i see more difference between myself and someone from texas, for example (disclaimer: from new england)
on the other hand, anything you might define as uniquely canadian culture should be utterly destroyed, in retaliation for giving us tom green ;-)
a large country like the usa, or a confident one like the uk, the business infrastructure of distribution can wither and die in the face of the internet, and there's no perception of a threat to the very existence of british or american culture being wiped out in the adjustment period
but places like canada, or new zealand, there is a strong legal entrenchment of cultural protectionism, because there is already a perception that everyone watches american television and movies, or listens to british music, such that if "native" culture were to lose its protection, it would wither and die
i actually don't believe this, i hardly believe anything stops an artist from creating art. its not like a kiwi won't write songs again just because kelly clarkson is on the radio. it seems to me to be some sort of lack of confidence on the part of canucks and kiwis. or rather, enough canuck and kiwi politicians can be persuaded of this scare tactic by captains of dying media industries in the face of the internet
better to wallow in conspiracy theories, since that's what the audience wants
why try to tell the truth when you can sell an audience its quasireligious, foundational psychosis: western democratic governments are actually mind control agencies out to get you?
but don't worry about my tone of voice: i'm obviously "one of them" (deluded sheeple or neocon stormtrooping fascist, take your cartoonish pick)
and i walk around solving my problems with that gun
in doing so, i dramatically increase my chance for an early death, due to gun, mine or someone else's, in a thousand different ways
the issue in play is frequent usage of violence to solve problems, not what kind of weapon you have, or if you know how to use it
using your weapon more than you need to merely involves oneself in more violence, which leads one to a much greater chance of early death. on an individual level, it is better to avoid violence altogether, even if that means you submit to someone else's will. simply because, that guy who sublimated you with violence, is probably not going to be around much longer, since ten of his imitators are interested in going to toe to toe with him violently. better to live through ten short-lived tyrants than you yourself turn into a tyrant yourself with your own 15 minutes of fame. in other words: better to simply submit to and avoid the violent, then go toe to toe with them and invite your own quick death due to announcing yourself as a threat that must be violently murdered (since you announced you will not submit, you would rather fight, it becomes necessary to kill you for those interested in power through violence)
so you are wrong. "turn the other cheek" is the best personal approach to survival, in any environment, from leafy peaceful tokyo suburbs, all the way to arid badlands outside mogadishu, and everywhere in between
the meek shall inherit the earth. meaning: those who fight for violence viscerally will burn out quickly, and then more temperate and civilized fights for power can take their rightful place
politics is about power. unanswered challenges to your power are signs of weakness. this is on a public, national and international level. perception of weakness leads to actual weakness
on a personal level, say, you were punched in a bar, or mugged on the street, "turn the other cheek" is a superior philosophy. and not just because its folksy and feel good. but because its a genuinely superior approach to survival. responding to violence on a personal level with more violence usually just gets you killed eventually. responding to violence by just walking away, meanwhile, means you live to see a peaceful bar after the violent idiots kill each other
but that's not how things work on the international stage
international politics, despite weak allegories anyone can construct that don't really illuminate reality, is NOT like a fight in a bar. the problem is one of scale. lots of ideas that work in small venues of a few people don't scale up to large ones of struggles between nations of millions and complicated ideological ideas. we like to think of nations in terms of anthropomorphization: uncle sam versus comrade vladislav, mother russia versus father china. but real international struggles are not political cartoons. the flow of power and meaning to constituents of nations functions in a way completely unlike personal sleights in a neighborhood bar
"turn the other cheek" will never ever be the basis for an international policy for any large and powerful country that wants to stay large and powerful. it will work for small unimportant countries, countries whose international plicy don't matter or make any difference in the world, but it will never ever work for the likes of russia, or china, or the usa
"Of course not. My point was--and remains!--that the ORIGINS of the idea of human rights is Western, and that the foundations of the idea of RATIONALLY reaching a conception of human rights that is objectively correct and universal, is a western idea. The foundation is rooted in centuries of philosophies and philosophers that I would be happy to get into a longer discussion about, but I don't think you're really interested in that."
incredibly patronizing, condescending, and flat out historically inaccurate
i also especially love how you boil my argument for innate humanism as a conceptualization of "the noble savage"
ha! do i laugh or do i cry?
i feel like i am talking to rudyard kipling. whoever the fuck you are, you certainly channel the arrogance of "white man's burden" perfectly. did you just step out of 1890?
"I really have to say, for all of your (imho bizarre) talk of alleged universality of mores, you're really pretty damn rude"
your arrogant blind ethnocentrism deserves far worse than rudeness
but please, ignore me, i'm just a "noble savage"
the victorian age lives on!
i await your lecture to me on the merits of phrenology
wait, let me go wax my moustache
what a fucking ideological fossil you are
pfffffffffft
can be traced back before the enlightenment to arabic, chinese, and indian lines of thought. it is part of a human whole, and was never truly isolated anyways
but forget all that. here's the real crux of the matter: the ideas of humanism are universal, and require no special effort other than just trying to be a moral person
in other words, you wish to propose to me that some herculean edifice of great western effort delivered to us a conceptualization of humanism only valid after much trial and error and deep thought
fucking bullshit
all humanism is can be understood, and is understood, by most elementary school students, the world over, in every culture, across every time period
the biggest lie religion tells us, especially judeochristian thought, is that it originates much of morality
no, it coopts it
true morality, true humanism, is organically understood by individual human beings in most societies, as a simple byproduct of simple normal human social development
if every religion and every ideology were destroyed today, simple humanism would be what would develop in its place. its the default human ideology, not the height of extreme intellectual effort and some bizarre exception (and then of course, new religions would form and new contrarian ideologies would develop, and the whole jungle of human thought would reassert itself and begin to crowd out simple humanism again)
for example, most of humanistic morality can be understood simply be putting yourself in someone else's shoes. there is no intellectual or ideological prerequisite to this mental effort. simple human empathy is exactly that: simple and human
it is certain religious, and apparently in your case, academic fools who somehow believe this great magical effort has to go in conceptualizing these very simple, face value ideas to humanism and morality. fucking bullshit. burn every philosophy book and every religious text. kindergarteners will grow up with a sense of morality and reason perfectly sound. most of morality is simple mental efforts, not deep and convoluted and evolved ones
the very notion of all men being equal is not some amazing intellectual discovery no one thought of before voltaire
it is an idea a kindergartener can enunciate, understand, and organically create. and they do, on a daily basis, in every culture on this planet, in every time period that has existed
the path to true powerful universal humanism is simply to stop prevailing ideological and religious notions from coopting and perverting simple human organic social instincts about basic simple moral ideals. it does not involve the west, or some other area, imposing something on some other area. for example, currently in iran there is a large feminist movement. this is not because of the west. this effort does not depend upon the west. if the west never existed, this movement would still exist. the feminist movement is organically and innately discovered in human beings looking at treatment of females as opposed to males and finding simple logical problems with that
now some western gasbag would talk about the evolution of western feminist movement this or that anjd spreading here and there, but its all academic douchbaggery bullshit, meant to fill tenured positions, not describe self-evident human reality
simple humanism is organic and innate and a basic byproduct of the socialization of any psychologically normal human being, not beholden to any culture. for you to posit the west as some great originator of a really simple idea is really absurd and ethnocentric
take what you wrote above, read it to any nonwesterner, and your blind arrogance is nothing but a source of humor
in fact, it is quite arrogant to say to me that an indian, or an egyptian, or a brazilian, or an indonesian, or a japanese, cannot enunciate humanism, and believe in it wholly, and conceive of it originally, in every way you think is some sort of magically and unique western conception
pure unadulterated bullshit
if you really believe that humanism as a rational and universal concept is a western conception, then you have to believe that the very conception of universality and rationality are somehow distinctly western. as if a nonwestern can't grasp those concepts like a westerner? if you believe that, this is incredibly ethnocentric of you
but i won't go so far as to call you ethnocentric. what i will say is this, and let the reality sink in:
"western humanism" is an logically invalid concept. just as invalid as "indian humanism" or "russian humanism". either its humanism, or not. there is no such thing as a regional flavor to an ideology which is foundational on universal truths. there is no such thing as a nonuniversal universality. see my drift? your entire conception is logically invalid and void of substance
please get off your high horse. there is nothing special about the west. universal humanism is a real and valid concept. i can deviate from my conception of what it is. you can deviate from a valid conception of it. neither of us are authorities. but it doesn't mean that the conception is invalid, or still somehow valid with a regional flavoring
you can talk to me about westernism
you can talk to me about humanism
but you can't talk to me about western humanism. this is like trying to talk to me about dry wetness, or bright darkness. self-contradictory terminology
and also, you can't say i am a westerner when i talk about humanism, or criticize my humanism based on western ideals
simply because i don't confuse the two. YOU do
and i believe the neoconservative "bomb people for freedom" is bullshit and backfires. you can extend freedom in far more effective and subtle ways
however, the problem is that isolationism doesn't work
#1: you live on a tiny piece of rock in a giant void in space. you are not isolated, in any physical or social or material way from the tribesman in kandahar. what they think affects you. and visa versa. especially in an age of jet air travel and internet. perhaps isolationism would be valid in the days of colonialism, and you could fight for isolationism then. but even then, sailing ships were beginning to mix cultures, and i don't know how you can fight that, since that impulse is simple commerce, and people want their spices, regardless of the fact that their desire for spices destroys the validity of isolationism as an effective philosophy. and EVEN when a society chooses isoloationism, along comes admiral perry and forces your society open
#2: isolation doesn't work especially in a roomful of arrogance. that is, that islamic scholar or that chinese technocrat: they believe their ideology can be exported. the islamic fundamentalist thinks the whole world should be under a caliphate, since islam is the only valid way to live. the chinese authoritarian technocrat would like to stifle "subversive" thinking worldwide, since it just riles up the complacent zombifaction of the working chinese slave. and these arrogant beliefs have no problem disregarding your beliefs, especially since, in your silence and your isolationism, you have indicated you won't fight for what you believe, when they will
furthermore, you cannot label humanism as just a version of western arrogance. fucking bullshit. humanism is humanism is humanism. sure, you can say i don't have a lock on what humanism is, that i'm no authority and i am wrong on certain points. in no way i am saying i am authority. but humanism, the concept of universal humanism, having nothing pro-western or anti-western or anything western about it, is a real and valid concept, regardless of how wrong i might be
i would like you to look at the stock market today
its kinda low, you think?
maybe because people are afraid right now
operating in fear
as opposed to the greed lust they felt a few years back, when they were busy inflating a bubble
right?
so why did this happen?
BECAUSE THEY ROLLED BACK REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT YOU BLIND MORON
when a market is unregulated, guess what? it bubbles, and pops, bubbles and pops
why?
because the players in the marketplace are not impartial robots. they are emotional human beings
got that?
there is no such thing as a perfect market place, because it is run by HUMAN BEINGS
so it needs ot be REGULATED, to save it from bubbling and popping
furthermore, there is this hilarious belief that you don't need regulations in automobile manufacture. that auto makers, in the benevolent reading the unspoken desires of consumers, would inject billions into the investment of safety features
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
man you are bloviating fool
hey, einstein: salmonella in peanuts? melamine in chinese milk? HELLOOOO? been paying attention to the news? how did this happen: LACK OF REGULATION EINSTEIN
or is your argument tha tdeath of human beings just a perfectly valid part of market corrections?
please, run with that, you'll go far
you NEED market regulation. if you don't see that, you are blind dumb fool
you are truly a grade a market fundamentalmist moron
could you contrast that with the society you want to live in?
i don't see that we actually disagree on anything. except perhaps the belief that people from unfree societies will leave free societies alone
oh, right: islamic fundamentalist nutjobs are the product of american policies. as opposed to being products of strict religious backgrounds?
which do you believe?
darling: when you cross the rio grande, or the straights of bosporus, or the ural mountains, or the rock of gibraltar, human rights don't magically warp into some other concepts. human rights are human rights are human rights
now you don't have to agree with neoconservative bullshit "bomb them to freedom"
but surely you don't believe that when someone is unfree somewhere else in this world, that that has no effect on you, and you don't have to get involved, and the effect of lack of freedom elsewhere won't come bite you in the ass someday, WHATEVER the usa did in the cold war? (the typcial braindead way of explaining away what religious nutjobs do to the west, as somehow deserved by the west, is what the west did in the last century when fighting the soviets. please!)
lets put it this way: if the usa NEVER EXISTED, would there still be islamic nutjobs blowing up their fellow muslims?
and would it still be valid or not to fight these assholes?
in the name of the freedom you, and i, hold dear?
or do you believe only westerners deserve freedom?
i am a human being. that allegiance for me is stronger to me than being a westerner
how about you?
is the west some special club? that has no need for a human conscience to care that human beings, your fellow human beings, are not free elsewhere?
there is no objectivity in your comments. therefore, you are guilty of everything you are criticizing
based on your comments, one could find equally "substantial" criticism and judgment of the suitability of candidacy for gee, i dunno, say a conservative icon like reagan? ;-) but i won't stoop that low, because i'm not going to play your lame propagandistic game
not EXACTLY explcitly parallel of course, because, one would have to swallow the blue pill and some how magically believe, for example, that experience in the california governorship is somehow more germaine to the job of the presidency than say, a senatorship
so howabout we sidestep that entire lame argument, and get right to the heart of the matter, shall we my partisan braindead friend?
that is: how about the american people decide? as they just did, according to the founding fathers wishes, in a vote? and how about their vote, and their decision, actually have more validity and meaning than your shrill blind subjective partisan judgments? as it should in a democracy?
how's that suit you you partisan sheep?
and here's another cluebat for you ms. michelle malkin: why don't you go fix your broken party and your broken conservative ideology. you LOST the election already. STOP FIGHTING SOMETHING YOU ALREADY LOST. geez! why don't you go focus on 2012 instead, where your shrill partisan gasbaggery might actually have some more use? ;-)
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox