The reason we have a tiny power elite doing whatever the hell they want is because most people either support or at least accept a system which allows them to get away with that.
What always amazes me is the sheer stupidity of those in power, presumably resulting from a sociopathic indifference to other people, who forget that there is a limit beyond which you cannot push the acquiescent majority.
Hence the absurdity of "austerity" measures in countries where there is already high unemployment and hardship: at some point, if enough people are hungry and homeless, they have nothing to lose by taking to the streets.
Those in power underestimate the power of the mob at their peril.
Having a fine Constitution didn't stop the US from illegally invading Iraq or setting up Guantanamo Bay as a torture centre.
You will have to excuse the rest of the world if it isn't overly impressed by the fact that you have a fine-sounding statement of universal human rights and freedoms.
No, that's not democracy. Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is, if 51% of the people wanted religious education, persecution of other religions, and modern crusades into the Middle East, the other 49% are stuck doing exactly those same things. That is democracy.
Democracy still tyranny--tyranny of the majority over the minority.
What we have is a republic.
BULLSHIT. Unless you have some weird form of permanent civil war you're never going to have 51% imposing themselves over 49% of the population. If your society is that split on certain issues, there will have to be a compromise, which is exactly what happens in democracies.
Majority gets what it wants, even if it means a minority is oppressed.
That's the reason why in a civilised society you try to get everyone educated to as high a level as possible, so that there is more chance of people being able to think critically and objectively.
Whereas with an oligarchy, the poorer and dumber the hoi polloi are the better.
ochlochcracy
For those who, like myself, hadn't heard this word before, it's just a knob-end's way of saying "mob rule". Whereas it is simple common sense that having the majority of people on the side of just law and order is the only way to prevent the oppression of minorities.
Democracy. Rule by the people, half of whom have IQs in the double-digit range.
Or, as Mencken put it even better: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." I rate Churchill as a better wit than Mencken.
Yes, I went to an elementary school that was explicitly Christian and anti-evolution. Didn't slow me down at all; I knew they were wrong and moved on.
It was, however, a very good elementary education.
No, it wasn't. All the time they spent on being explicitly Christian and anti-evolution was wasted when you could have been learning about comparative religion, philosophy and science. At best, those views should be restricted to the home. At worst, they should be treated as child abuse.
Parents have a right to turn their kids into uneducated idiots.
That's why most civilised countries have free, compulsory state education, and why home (and religious) schooling should be illegal.
As a parent, you can tell your kids whatever you like. It is up to society, through the state, to correct the worst excesses of stupidity and give children a chance to break the cycle of abuse that is religious teaching by being exposed to scientific and humanitarian ideas as opposed to hysterical supernaturalism.
Most American Christians are, at best, uninspired by Calvinism....
That is not true. The notion of "the elect" in Calvinism is found mirrored in all sorts of ways in US culture, e.g. the concept of "manifest destiny" and the charming notion that you are a beacon of light and freedom in a dark world.
I noticed that particular passage, too. One of the things that bothered me about his "decision making" is that spiritual healer is not the opposite of evolution or science. I can't remember a single science or math class where spiritual healers came up even once. I don't recall any lesson about how species evolve including, "therefore, spiritual healers suck". Moreover, "That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor." Who does that? I would have been driven off by the "semi-clothed" aspect, but the its not science would have never crossed my mind.
Moreover, if it worked, I would want to "use my science" to learn more about it and figure out how it works. If I just accept that it was magic, I would close my mind to learning.
Wow, why are you so closed minded towards other ideas?
It is not closed minded to be opposed to irrationalism, deliberate stupidity, racism, fascism, pointless cruelty, torture, or genocide. Not all ideas are equal.
P.S. Now I'm trying to work out what lab you are based in, but googling your name comes up with nothing much relevant for me. (Unless it's a pseudonym)
I can't believe that someone on the internet would use a pseudonym.
OTOH, malaria is primarily a problem for young people, and cancer more a problem linked to an aging population, so there's one strong argument to prioritise malaria.
But malaria affects people on other continents. Don't you know ethics only applies when you can see other people suffer personally? And it stops mattering entirely if you put on a business suit first.
Yes, because all the libertarian John Galt Silicon Valley types like Steve Jobs were real fucking humanitarians, simply by virtue of not wearing a collar and tie.
Grow up. A forty year old sysadmin wearing jeans and a t-shirt is not a daring counter-cultural freedom fighter. He just can't be bothered to dress properly.
Because I hate having to go downstairs to get my wallet every time something needs my credit card number. And I hate giving out my credit card number every time I want to buy something new.
Oh my god, my first world problems are giving me a nervous breakdown. Someone call the wambulance.
TANSTAAFL - except when it comes to bitcoins, apparently.
I'd love to see the mathematical proof that they are the only objects in existence not subject to the physical laws of the universe, such as entropy. I suppose at some point, bitcoins will be our portal to inter-galactic FTL travel.
I think you need to take a step back and remember the guy who killed his brother did it with a presumably legal BB gun, you know, that shit that fires 6mm plastic bullets?
That "shit" killed someone, we're not talking about a fucking cap gun. If he'd done it with a "legal" machete or something would it still be OK?
One incident of an airline enforcing a law against a black guy but not a white guy does not prove deliberate racism, I agree. You need to look at the big picture. I doubt an airline could be institutionally racist, since it would mean them turning away customers. The point is more about the unconscious racism of the person who accepted the white guy in a hoodie but not the black guy.
It's like how each single incident of a black person being sent to jail doesn't mean that the whole justice system is racist, it's only when you look at the extraordinary proportion of black prisoners compared to that in the general US population that you see what's wrong.
* There was no punishment forthcoming in the accidental shooting case because, after determining that there was no intent involved, and that it was, in fact, accidental, no punishment was deserved. Since there was no possibility of the parents suing themselves for damages, or that affecting the greater population, it got left at that.
If someone over the age of criminal responsibility kills someone else with a gun (or other weapon, this isn't an anti-gun point), in my book that's manslaughter unless they can prove otherwise. At a trial.
how about including more pertinent contrasts than the blindingly obvious subtext of 'he's white and she's black'? You know, contrasts like circumstance, motive, intent...?
So you think that the black girl had deeply sinister motives/intents in highly dubious circumstances, whereas the white kid was self-evidently just involved in some light-hearted play that went wrong?
Chavez I don't think goes to the level of dictator. He was elected and using elections no worse than many precincts in America stayed in power. He was definitely authoritarian though.
Yes, I think you're a pretty pathetic dictator if you rely on the democratic will of the people.
Castro and Cuba are an odd example, because they were basically forced to become paranoid thanks to the US's economic embargo and earlier attempst to overthrow Castro. They are in a similar position to Israel, i.e. with implacable enemies at very close range.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason we have a tiny power elite doing whatever the hell they want is because most people either support or at least accept a system which allows them to get away with that.
What always amazes me is the sheer stupidity of those in power, presumably resulting from a sociopathic indifference to other people, who forget that there is a limit beyond which you cannot push the acquiescent majority.
Hence the absurdity of "austerity" measures in countries where there is already high unemployment and hardship: at some point, if enough people are hungry and homeless, they have nothing to lose by taking to the streets.
Those in power underestimate the power of the mob at their peril.
You will have to excuse the rest of the world if it isn't overly impressed by the fact that you have a fine-sounding statement of universal human rights and freedoms.
No, that's not democracy. Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is, if 51% of the people wanted religious education, persecution of other religions, and modern crusades into the Middle East, the other 49% are stuck doing exactly those same things. That is democracy.
Democracy still tyranny--tyranny of the majority over the minority.
What we have is a republic.
BULLSHIT. Unless you have some weird form of permanent civil war you're never going to have 51% imposing themselves over 49% of the population. If your society is that split on certain issues, there will have to be a compromise, which is exactly what happens in democracies.
Majority gets what it wants, even if it means a minority is oppressed.
That's the reason why in a civilised society you try to get everyone educated to as high a level as possible, so that there is more chance of people being able to think critically and objectively.
Whereas with an oligarchy, the poorer and dumber the hoi polloi are the better.
ochlochcracy
For those who, like myself, hadn't heard this word before, it's just a knob-end's way of saying "mob rule". Whereas it is simple common sense that having the majority of people on the side of just law and order is the only way to prevent the oppression of minorities.
Democracy. Rule by the people, half of whom have IQs in the double-digit range.
Or, as Mencken put it even better: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." I rate Churchill as a better wit than Mencken.
Yes, I went to an elementary school that was explicitly Christian and anti-evolution. Didn't slow me down at all; I knew they were wrong and moved on. It was, however, a very good elementary education.
No, it wasn't. All the time they spent on being explicitly Christian and anti-evolution was wasted when you could have been learning about comparative religion, philosophy and science. At best, those views should be restricted to the home. At worst, they should be treated as child abuse.
Parents have a right to turn their kids into uneducated idiots.
That's why most civilised countries have free, compulsory state education, and why home (and religious) schooling should be illegal.
As a parent, you can tell your kids whatever you like. It is up to society, through the state, to correct the worst excesses of stupidity and give children a chance to break the cycle of abuse that is religious teaching by being exposed to scientific and humanitarian ideas as opposed to hysterical supernaturalism.
Most American Christians are, at best, uninspired by Calvinism....
That is not true. The notion of "the elect" in Calvinism is found mirrored in all sorts of ways in US culture, e.g. the concept of "manifest destiny" and the charming notion that you are a beacon of light and freedom in a dark world.
I noticed that particular passage, too. One of the things that bothered me about his "decision making" is that spiritual healer is not the opposite of evolution or science. I can't remember a single science or math class where spiritual healers came up even once. I don't recall any lesson about how species evolve including, "therefore, spiritual healers suck". Moreover, "That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor." Who does that? I would have been driven off by the "semi-clothed" aspect, but the its not science would have never crossed my mind.
Moreover, if it worked, I would want to "use my science" to learn more about it and figure out how it works. If I just accept that it was magic, I would close my mind to learning.
That's a pretty bold statement.
Wow, why are you so closed minded towards other ideas?
It is not closed minded to be opposed to irrationalism, deliberate stupidity, racism, fascism, pointless cruelty, torture, or genocide. Not all ideas are equal.
It's good to see that you've thought this through properly.
Laugh all you like, the guy's onto something.
P.S. Now I'm trying to work out what lab you are based in, but googling your name comes up with nothing much relevant for me. (Unless it's a pseudonym)
I can't believe that someone on the internet would use a pseudonym.
Yours etc,
Kilgore Trout.
OTOH, malaria is primarily a problem for young people, and cancer more a problem linked to an aging population, so there's one strong argument to prioritise malaria.
I'm taking a wild guess that you're under 25.
But malaria affects people on other continents. Don't you know ethics only applies when you can see other people suffer personally? And it stops mattering entirely if you put on a business suit first.
Yes, because all the libertarian John Galt Silicon Valley types like Steve Jobs were real fucking humanitarians, simply by virtue of not wearing a collar and tie.
Grow up. A forty year old sysadmin wearing jeans and a t-shirt is not a daring counter-cultural freedom fighter. He just can't be bothered to dress properly.
You're assuming the value of the bitcoins generated are equal to the cost of electricity... they might be worth more.
As you are donating your electricity to the bitcoin miner, it doesn't really matter what the cost of the electricity is from his point of view.
If I can mine one bitcoin at zero electricity cost, because enough suckers have given their electricity to me, any value it has at all is profit.
Because I hate having to go downstairs to get my wallet every time something needs my credit card number. And I hate giving out my credit card number every time I want to buy something new.
Oh my god, my first world problems are giving me a nervous breakdown. Someone call the wambulance.
I'd love to see the mathematical proof that they are the only objects in existence not subject to the physical laws of the universe, such as entropy. I suppose at some point, bitcoins will be our portal to inter-galactic FTL travel.
Truly we live in astounding times.
all new nuclear weapon development relies primarily on computer simulation
And obviously NATO/the US has no access to powerful computers for such simulations. Oh, wait...
Personally, I think that while there are nuclear weapons in existence, the more countries that have them the better.
I think you need to take a step back and remember the guy who killed his brother did it with a presumably legal BB gun, you know, that shit that fires 6mm plastic bullets?
That "shit" killed someone, we're not talking about a fucking cap gun. If he'd done it with a "legal" machete or something would it still be OK?
It's like how each single incident of a black person being sent to jail doesn't mean that the whole justice system is racist, it's only when you look at the extraordinary proportion of black prisoners compared to that in the general US population that you see what's wrong.
* There was no punishment forthcoming in the accidental shooting case because, after determining that there was no intent involved, and that it was, in fact, accidental, no punishment was deserved. Since there was no possibility of the parents suing themselves for damages, or that affecting the greater population, it got left at that.
If someone over the age of criminal responsibility kills someone else with a gun (or other weapon, this isn't an anti-gun point), in my book that's manslaughter unless they can prove otherwise. At a trial.
One will be perceived by the public as involving a bomb and one will be perceived by the public as involving a gun or possibly even a "toy."
I bet if it had been a black teenager who killed someone with a BB gun you wouldn't describe it as a "toy".
how about including more pertinent contrasts than the blindingly obvious subtext of 'he's white and she's black'? You know, contrasts like circumstance, motive, intent...?
So you think that the black girl had deeply sinister motives/intents in highly dubious circumstances, whereas the white kid was self-evidently just involved in some light-hearted play that went wrong?
There's a word for those sort of assumptions.
Castro yes, Chavez no.
Chavez I don't think goes to the level of dictator. He was elected and using elections no worse than many precincts in America stayed in power. He was definitely authoritarian though.
Yes, I think you're a pretty pathetic dictator if you rely on the democratic will of the people.
Castro and Cuba are an odd example, because they were basically forced to become paranoid thanks to the US's economic embargo and earlier attempst to overthrow Castro. They are in a similar position to Israel, i.e. with implacable enemies at very close range.