Disgusting Dems

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Thu, 2015-10-15 06:59

Some years ago I got into terrible trouble with orthodox Objectivists who were backing Leonard Peikoff's call to vote Democrat across the board because a) socialism was dead as a philosophical force, and thus, not the concern it might otherwise be; b) Republicans were so bad the primary political imperative at the time was to "topple" them; and c) the Republicans, left untoppled, would usher in a Christian theocracy.

Last night's debate among the Democratic contenders for their party's nomination for the Presidency made it abundantly clear that socialism is no corpse, even though its stench is worse than that of the most maggot-ridden cadaver, and the primary political imperative of 2016 should be to topple the Dem-Scum. Because Republicans have been cowardly, their majorities in the Senate and the House have been useless in stopping the Obamarxian juggernaut; Dem-Scum must be kept out of the White House as well. Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton (or any of the remaining motley three) ... well, as Hillary might say, what difference does it make?! These were all unabashed socialists competing to establish who among them was the most socialistic. They were a cesspool of statism within an avalanche of authoritarianism.

Bernie has made proposals for "free stuff"—to be paid for mainly by the diabolical one-percenters—totaling 18 trillion dollars: about as much as the debt Obamarx has already run up. The others fell over backwards to aver that they too were on board with "free" health care and college tuition for illegal aliens (sorry, "undocumented immigrants") and the like. It's not enough, apparently, that the one-percenters provide 50% of all tax revenue and most of the real jobs in the economy—they are the repository of all evil and must be taxed and regulated even more (for a full explication of how the 1% sustains the remaining 99%, see George Reisman, amazon.com: http://amzn.to/1KL5R17 ).

Socialism dead? We wish!

Economic illiteracy of the candidates aside, their rallying around Hillary Clinton, Liar-in-Chief in the Benghazigate scandal, was inexcusable. Hillary, desperate to be America's first woman president, is unlikely to make it through to the nomination because the full extent of her treachery, already being investigated by the FBI, will probably be exposed by the e-mails she thought she'd deleted. Even the America in which "millennial" airheads now preponderate has not fallen so far that it will vote for a repulsive opportunist with the blood of true patriots on her hands, just because that candidate has a vagina. Has it?

Then again, perhaps the America castrated by Political Correctness has. Such an America deserves the Muslim theocracy that, thanks to Dems, is much more likely than a Christian one.


100% Connected

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- Freedom and civilization are best defended using a single water gun versus a million nuclear bombs. By those who are lazy, stupid, and high as a kite. Against those who are ingenious, ferocious, and maniacal.

Or at least it is if the high guys have truth on their side. That's all you really need. But it has the be the REAL truth. Not the pretend truth, nor something that you and 99.99% of mankind passionately believe is the truth. The TRUE truth.

Define the terms "freedom" and "civilization" accurately and the problem is almost 100% solved. Minimal effort is needed thereafter. And forever.

Kyrel

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

You're unhinged. Andrew Jackson and Edmund Burke as ignoramuses? Hardly. There are legitimate sentiments in all of those quotes. In fact, they are more grounded than the utopian stuff you get from Rand. Burke's quote is especially important. Look at what we have today. The entire Western world has forgotten the reality of evil just as Burke warned against. Even you think that "liberalism" is on the rise and will sweep the world. No, what is on the rise is the East Asian world. And what is playing out is not "liberalism" buy the high IQ and ethno-nationalism of the East Asians.

Classical Liberalism had many good things about it. But it was grounded on a flawed understanding of human nature (ie the blank slate). As a result, people in the West have this delusional view that we are at the end of history and beyond all major conflicts. We have been blinded by material abundance into thinking that our biggest challenge is to chose between strawberries and chocolates. But in fact it looks like we are headed for the 2nd Fall of Rome.

Political Know-Nothings

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

More rubbish:

* "But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

* "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884), abolitionist, orator and columnist for The Liberator, in a speech before the Massachusetts Antislavery Society in 1852, according to The Dictionary of Quotations edited by Bergen Evans

* "There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men." -- Edmund Burke

* "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." -- James Madison, Federalist no. 51.

* "Freedom is never an achieved state; like electricity, we've got to keep generating it or the lights go out." -- Wayne LaPierre, leader of National Rifle Association, USA

These people lack knowledge. The price of liberty and civilization is knowledge. There is no substitute for factual information. These great champions of fear, paranoia, unending nervousness, and high anxiety are ignoramuses and fools.

The TRUE price of freedom is a proper definition.

Straight Path

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- Altho' it's true that certain races, ethnicities, genders, and other social identity groups are naturally more inclined toward liking liberty than others -- at least to a small but important extent -- I nevertheless think most of this issue is nurture and not nature. Hence I think eventually "blank slate [ethical and political] individualism" will triumph WITH EASE. Every social group and individual flourishes best under freedom. Moreover, once true civilization is obtained, it will be maintained and held forever WITH EASE. Thus I dispute Jefferson's naïve and malicious claim about semi-constant revolution and blood-spilling being necessary to preserve liberty, as well as that "eternal vigilance" nonsense.

The key to everything is simple knowledge. It's found in Western liberal philosophy. It is NOT found in any version of Rightism or Leftism. Rand was a pure genius. She was also drop-dead WRONG -- intellectually and strategically -- to praise the Right and condemn the Left so much. The pure, clean, no-compromise, flawless Up-wing is the future of mankind.

Tallis

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I read the Tallis book too and he did make a good case that MRI brain scans are misleading. But I find myself mixed on Tallis' message. I like that he spends most of his book discrediting Leftists who are tying to use neuro-science to advance egalitarianism. Yet, I find myself thinking that he goes too far in denying the merits of neurology and evolutionary psychology.

However on the other hand, Molyneux does tend towards biological reductionism and he does take the r/K thing too far. There is some interesting data out there regarding heredity and political ideological dispositions but I'm not ready to jump on board with the idea that all politics is competing gene sets.

The next crucial step for "libertarianism" as an evolving ideology is to incorporate the massive data that is coming out of the biological sciences. I think "liberty" is going to have to be conceived as existing within a genetic context. Blank slate individualism is not going to be enough as time goes forward.

Doug II

gregster's picture

Molyneux can be a little "James T Kirk" as he puts it. He could cut some filler but I presume he's trying to be watchable for the average anarchist. I haven't finished that vid yet. Hey, sometimes your spelling is perfect; don't take it personally my (perhaps) being anal. (oops). There is justice in the world; maggots generally suffer, but not the kind of justice you and I wish to see.

Paging Raymond Tallis

Mark Hunter's picture

When I see an NMR scan in connection with politics I release the safety catch on m—

Maybe I should start over. A couple years ago I read the book Aping Mankind: Neuromania, Darwinitis and the Misrepresentation of Humanity by Raymond Tallis, M.D. and recommend it to those taken in by the prevalent neurophysiological theories. If you prefer videos go here. (Sometimes he’s tasteless.)

This is not to say that a given race on average doesn’t tend to a temperament statistically associated with that race, but leave the NMR scans out of it.

They

Mr_Lineberry's picture

are back to their disgusting best today.

The horrific feminazi Congressperson, Debbie Wasserperson Schultz, Chairperson of the Democrat National Committee, has launched a bizarre attack on Governor Nikki Haley for her response to Obama's State of the Nation speech.

The problem? the Republicans aren't "diverse" enough for Congressperson Wasserperson.

This is a Republican party which has a Presidential contest involving a Cuban, a Canadian, and even a few Americans including a Negro, a Woman (a real one), and people of Italian, Czech, Croatian, Indian backgrounds.

Quite a contrast to the two upper middle class white men and a Woman in the Democrat race.

Even more risible was Congressperson Wankerperson's claim Governor Haley was only selected to give the response because she was a Woman - forgetting the sole reason for her own elevation to DNC chairperson!

As was pointed out on Fox News today if anyone were to claim Hillary is only Democrat Presidential nominee because she is a woman - Congressperson Wankerperson would be screaming "sexism" from the rooftops.

In terms of hypocrisy, self delusion (presumably she thinks her political success is due to merit), and mendacity - as the claim isn't actually true - it is difficult to think of a worse example in recent times.

Greg

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

"And your spelling reminds me of Parille when he's drunk."

And yet I don't even have the excuse of being drunk. Beer I spell like this when sober. lol

If the United States Government created The Department of Spelling and Grammar Enforcement and Linz were put in charge and given dictatorial powers, he would line me up in front of a firing squad and shoot me. And I'm one of his biggest fans...

There is no justice in the world.

Check this out:

Hello again Bandler!

gregster's picture

"its depressing but most humans use their brains to preserve prior intellectual commitments"

Sounds like bullshit to me Doug the 2nd, but hey I haven't watched Molyneux.. And your spelling reminds me of Parille when he's drunk.

deleted

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

deleted

"It's a mishmash of emotions,

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

"It's a mishmash of emotions, rationality, irrationality, and such. New science research of the brain have proven this beyond doubt. Objectivists act like this research doesn't exist."

Yes. Excellent. Stephan Mollyneux just did a video on how the brain works especially regarding ideology. Its depressing but most humans use their brains to preserve prior intellectual commitments rather than to continually scrutinize them using logic. We are more rationalizers than rational. O'ists are too ignorant of the latest brain research and its effects on political thought. Again Molly has had videos on the Amigdilla as it regards Leftists and the r/K sexual selection strategies and how that effects politics. Biologies affect on politics is just now being understood. But orthodox O'ism does't want to go down that road because it fears its too deterministic. IMO, that's a mistake. I think if OrgOism reinvisioned itself they way stephan Mollyneaux did, they could reach far more people. But they are in what I call "purity mode"; they are stagnant. Its sad because I do love Rand and her ideas could be so much better used.

But intellectual movements are always prone to ossification. Sad times.

The Ascent of Man

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Doug -- The whole world is philosophically and culturally ascending. The Objectivist community too. Yes, it's shocking. And it's literally unbelievable, if you lack the facts, which are scattered all over the place and virtually impossible to track down on your own. But this Pollyannaish-sounding claim is also true. You need to consult the mountain of neutral, objective, unimpeachable facts, charts, and graphs in The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker (2011), and The Moral Arc by Michael Shermer (2015). There's far less Doomsday out there than you think.

Bad, Mad, and Dangerous to Know

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Nope, Neil! Guess again. The "bad boy" of Objectivism is ME. Always has been, always will be. Doug Bandler does his level best, but he's a rank amateur in comparison. And never mind what you've seen so far, I can do far worse... Evil

Bandler

Neil Parille's picture

Objectivism's "bad boy" is back!

Bandler

Tore's picture

"That is the consequence of Rand having essentially a Blank Slate humanist view of human nature which imo is her biggest flaw."

Nailed it. This erronemous view of the human brain plagues the Objectivist movement to this day. It explains why they are so god-damn weird when it comes to love and sexuality, for instance. But also in their way of fighting for the spreading of Objectivism. Just spread the ideas, and smart College professors will come around, and then teach Objectivism to students who also will come around. This might have worked if the human brain worked like a Vulcan, which it doesn't. It's a mishmash of emotions, rationality, irrationality, and such. New science research of the brain have proven this beyond doubt. Objectivists act like this research doesn't exist.

No self criticism allowed

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

I wish the O'ist movement would chide itself over past stupidities but they won't because they can't. The O'ist obsession with "the M2 imminent Christian theocracy" is the consequence of O'ism failing to identify that the Left is a religion itself. It is a secular civic religion of egalitarianism which is an outgrowth of Christianity, Kant, and Classical Liberalism itself. Leftism, specifically late stage Leftism which is Cultural Marxism (ie anti-white-heterosexual-male-ism), is the dominant ideological in-group of the West. It controls every major institution in America, including the Churches believe it or not (most Evangelicals are basically liberals even if they vote Republican).

OrgOism does't recognize this. It thinks that there is some equal threat from the Left and the Christian Right. That is false. But even deeper, Objectivism itself has some latent egalitarian elements itself as I have come to realize. That is the consequence of Rand having essentially a Blank Slate humanist view of human nature which imo is her biggest flaw. Its why O'ists give off a Leftist vibe and are so militantly irrationally anti-Christian and anti-Conservative. Most Objectivists have that "I hate my parents" vibe that Leftists have. Sadly, that's Rand's fault (I mean just look at The Fountainhead).

So, there will be no apology for the crappy political reasoning of the past. Objectivism is not yet at the stage of being self-critical. I doubt it ever will be. A new right-liberal, pro-liberty movement is needed; ie some upgrade of Rand. But that won't come from an Objectivist. O'ism is ossified at this point.

Lady S

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Not only do I hope some people will chide themselves if they indeed did vote for Obama to stave off a Christian Theocracy (ridiculous on its face), I hope they will chide themselves more for being lemmings over it.

Fat(wa) chance of that! Smiling

That is indeed...

Olivia's picture

one hell of a turnaround from the fatwa.

Not only do I hope some people will chide themselves if they indeed did vote for Obama to stave off a Christian Theocracy (ridiculous on its face), I hope they will chide themselves more for being lemmings over it. Smiling

Edifyingly hilarious ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... to read this Peikoff quote from 2013 in the excellent Mazlish article. Such a turnaround, thankfully, from the 2006 fatwa. This is true context-keeping:


"And the other thing I want to say that's going to come as a bombshell to Objectivists, and that's too bad, you can stop listening, as far as I'm concerned, I am against the immigration bill 100%, not just one clause or another, for one very simple reason: it happens to be the case that we are teetering on the edge of a dictatorship, it happens to be the case that if the Democrats continue to have or grow their political power we will be over that edge. And it happens to be the case, whether you like it or not, that of all Hispanics in America, whether they are rich or poor, self-made men or anything else, 80% are reliably and continually Democrat, so if you are talking about a bill, I don't care whether it's fair, unfair in any other respect, if you are talking about a bill that infuses into this country a massive amount of Democratic supporters and thereby guarantee the destruction of this country, that is what immigration means today. And there's no use asking me in theory what do I think, we're at the end, so it's a question of buying time, that's it."*

This:

mvardoulis's picture

(At the same time, oddly, he refrains from stating the obvious: that the War on Drugs fuels much of this carnage and many of the illegals who wreak it.) - one of the best parenthetical statements I've read all month.

P.S. Here's a link to Ed

Grant Jones's picture

P.S. Here's a link to Ed Mazlish's article that has all the "official" Objectivists in high dungeon.

http://ruleofreason.blogspot.c...

Whoa!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Well, I trawled, I saw, I crowed! Just to see this:

Yaron Brook BTW, given that we have no foreign policy, and are at war, I do not object to banning all Muslims from immigrating to US. But the likelihood of that happening is zero. Border security will not keep out Muslims, and is not intended to.

Would someone please draw the first sentence to the attention of ARI shills who missed it?! Of course, he undercuts it immediately ... with an argument from pragmatism!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????

If he really believes in banning all Muslim immigration, he and ARI should be shouting it from the rooftops (as well as clearing up how they reconcile advocating such a sensible policy while also damning "ideological screening" as "evil"), not throwing it into the mix as an aside to which he simply has no objection. To put it as I do: NOT ONE MUSLIM!!

Here's the highlight for me. This comes under the category of "nailed it"!!!!!!!

Ed Mazlish When I say you are ignoring facts on the ground, here is what I mean. You and Onkar discussed what a proper immigration policy would be for a laissez faire capitalist society. But by its nature, your discussion ignored any facts on the ground in favor of trying to derive some universal principle. You don't evaluate whether the hypothetical laissez faire capitalist society is surrounded by enemies like Israel. You don't evaluate whether the value hierarchies of the people living in that hypothetical society believe it's more (or less) important to find the next Ayn Rand from abroad than it is to protect themselves from possible invaders. You don't evaluate whether the people seeking entry are overtly/covertly hostile to individual rights; and numerous other possible facts that could impact the analysis.

You don't incorporate specific, particular facts because you are trying to derive a universalized single political policy that is "valid" for all people in all places at all times. I think this is error. Facts and context must always be incorporated into the analysis of what a proper political policy for a given people in a given place at a given time should be.

The attempt to universalize a political policy irrespective of context is not Objectivism, but an instance of searching for the intrinsically correct policy that is "right" in all contexts. I don't believe Ayn Rand taught that facts and context should be ignored in that manner.

Bravo, Ed Mazlish, whoever you are.

I'm sorry to learn that Binswanger still rules within ARI. Yaron says, "I don't *debate* people on *my* show, I present *my* views." Well, that's pathetic. Yaron's show as I understand it occurs within the purview of the ARI. If the ARI wishes to present as being open to the contest of ideas, any show within its purview should incorporate debate. Yaron's approach is just the tired old Binswangerism writ large. His show is tedium writ large as a result.

Comments! Comments!

Grant Jones's picture

Yes, you must wade through all the comments!

The immigration "discussion" was an exercise in intellectual dishonesty from the beginning. They spend a great deal of time attacking an essay written by Ed Mazlish. However, they didn't bother to invite Ed onto the show in order to let him present his views. They preferred going after a strawman than having an adult debate. I received an ARI email a few days after the "discussion" stating that "ideological screening" of immigrants is "evil." I'm not kidding.

What I find truly appalling is the degree of hypocrisy involved. Brook and Binswanger have accused those who disagree with them of being motivated by "xenophobia," "raaaaacism" and "fear." However, both these worthies live in lily-white gated communities surrounded by walls and guards. Instead of buying homes in the barrios of Anaheim, Miami, or East LA, they spent a pile of money to be walled-off from humanity in an "exclusive" private fortress. By "exclusive, of course, it is meant "non-white people can live here, they just choose not to for whatever reason." It's their money, but how they choose to spend it speaks volumes.

Yet, these same two people have contempt for working class Americans who just want what they want. They smear and attack working people as "raaaaacist" and "xenophobic" for not wanting their neighborhoods, communities and small towns turned into a third world toilets. But, these rotters will have no problem with thousands of Moslem savage "refugees" being dropped on small towns across America. They can be confident that the only "Other" they will ever encounter in their neighborhood will be cutting the grass or polishing the silver.

Oh groan!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You mean I must trawl through all the comments as well? Is it not enough that I subjected myself to the podcast? Smiling

I did note in the podcast a lot of arguments from intimidation, along the lines of "It is unimaginable to me that people supposedly committed to Objectivism could think such a thing" and the like. Fine if they gave reasons, but there were a lot of arbitrary assertions. Dismissing perfectly valid concerns about whether people from overtly alien cultures with possibly hostile agendas will assimilate as "xenophobia bordering on racism" for instance, with no back-up. It struck me (I may have said this once before) that ARI has surpassed TAS in Political Correctness. I expect both are comfortable with 200,000 Syrian refugees? Insanity!

Instead of interviewing an echo-chamber, Yaron should have invited on one of the "zenophobes bordering on racist." He should invite *me* on!! Smiling

I found his comments most

Grant Jones's picture

I found his comments most enlightening. His ad hominems and appeals to authority. "You've rejected the Objectivist theory of history." He made many broad assertions without foundation or any evidence. His claim that Ayn Rand, Objectivism and America's Founding Fathers rejected the Westphalian state system! And, don't forget that he had a good time at a Mexican restaurant in Santa Ana. So, there is no crime problem to be concerned about. He came across as a pompous ass who isn't used to dealing with actual disagreement from adults who know what their talking about. I found his floundering in the comments most revealing. And you're right, his contempt for working class Americans and their concerns was on full display. After all, if they weren't all xenophobic evaders, then they would have gotten PhDs and made a pile in order to live in a private fortress with all the rational people.

Oh yes, his gardener. His right to cheap lawn care supersedes the right of the United States and American people to their national sovereignty and a policy based on the national interest. How can anyone forget that tidbit of imbecility? Hawaii is a very long swim from Mexico. To my knowledge there aren't that many illegals here. But, by some miracle, lawns get mowed and hedges trimmed. The work is done by people who were actually born here and started their own small business on a shoestring. Happily, for local Hawaiians, they don't also have to compete with hordes of illegals who create a massive glut for unskilled labor. Or maybe, people on the mainland are just lazier and stupider than us folks on the Islands. Sticking out tongue

When it comes to Moslems he seems to be slowly, kicking and screaming, coming around to a sane viewpoint. Although, he still uses "totalitarian Islam." For the question on why Israel gets to have borders but not the US, he has a big "no comment."

Grant

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Where exactly is the meltdown? I listened to all 90 minutes but didn't hear one. I wish there *had* been one—those two are soporific! Is it somewhere in the comments?

I was dismayed to hear the lingering influence of the Peikoff fatwa that all Oists should vote Dem because the Reps would usher in a Christian theocracy (even though Leonard himself has long since abandoned that position). Yaron and Onkar are an instance where the overused "What planet are they on?" is applicable. They seem, for all their repeated use of the word "context" to have no realisation that we (and yes, we are entitled to use the collective "we" in this context—we who have a commitment to Western Civilisation that trumps even our commitment to Objectivism) are at war—we are at war with Islam. Muslims declared that war, and we must take them at their word. In that context, the norms are reversed. Muslims must be presumed to have violent intent—the onus is on them to prove otherwise. In that context, not one Muslim should be allowed to migrate to the US (or any civilised country). You can start worrying about exceptions once you've established that Not One Muslim is your default position till further notice. Muslims already there, including Muslims who are US citizens, should be diligently profiled and unapologetically incarcerated, deported or executed if found to be plotting or attempting to commit murder. This is war. Yaron and Onkar are far too wrapped up in their rationalistic wonderland to appreciate what that means.

As for the Mexican illegals, Yaron, in his cossetted comfitude, judges all illegals by his illegal Mexican gardener. I'm all for Mexican gardeners. But why can't they be legal? Yaron is oblivious to the carnage being wreaked by illegal non-gardeners. (At the same time, oddly, he refrains from stating the obvious: that the War on Drugs fuels much of this carnage and many of the illegals who wreak it.)

If Objectivism is to make headway its champions must a) have fire in their belly and b) inhabit the real world.

I know a lot of you guys

Grant Jones's picture

I know a lot of you guys don't like Facebook. But, Yaron Brook's recent immigration meltdown on his own page is, and will long remain, a classic. Enjoy.

https://www.facebook.com/ybroo...

People

Tore's picture

I like people that have that elusive quality KASS. I am sure Perigo can come up with a definition. I can't analyze it, but I feel it when I am in its prescence. 99% of my news feed in Facebook is total shit, and it is posted by the masses (I am in agreement with Nietzsche on the masses). They spend their time on Facebook posting links to horrible shit on even more horrible websites out there, the evil BuzzFeed, for instance.

Not Everybody

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

For the record, I like people of decent quality and integrity. Those of intellectual honesty and courage. College professors seem to be the best. Maybe 25% are virtuous.

Yes, everything

Tore's picture

Yes indeed: fuck everything.

Got a problem with that? Well, fuck you, then  Eye

Everything?

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

"Fuck everything," Tore? That's my philosophy! Don't say it till you've earned it, dude! Eye

Facebook

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

In defense of myself, I avoided MySpace completely -- despite almost constant pleas from friends. It enhances your social and dating life, they said! Now, I've been on Facebook lightly for a year or two, and much more intently these past three months or so. And, yes, indeed, it seems to require high self-discipline to avoid eating up monster amounts of time. Puzzled

Agreed

Lindsay Perigo's picture

While logged on, you're only reminded of how incredibly dumb, narscissistic and lame (in taste and thinking) people are, and that they think The Big Bang Theory is funny.

Couldn't agree more. There are exceptions, though—the overtly evil. Seems Faecesbook is divided up into the evil and the fathomlessly inane.

I go there just long enough to post links to my stuff, then flee. Even in such a short visit though I can absorb enough of the garbage that's there to make me suicidal/homicidal.

Fuck Facebook

Tore's picture

Break the chains, free yourselves from the shackles of Facebook. While logged on, you're only reminded of how incredibly dumb, narscissistic and lame (in taste and thinking) people are, and that they think The Big Bang Theory is funny. Fuck everything.

Facebook

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Facebook seems fun to me but -- it's truly amazing how much time it can eat up. Sad

Just Quit Facebook

Luke Setzer's picture

The costs of Facebook and many other social media sites greatly outweigh their benefits.

I quit at the end of 2013 and suddenly became a much happier person.

I rest my case

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I've always said Faecesbook, while great as an instance of admirable technology and the human mind at its best, has revealed to us the preponderance of the anti-mind at its worst on earth right now. Here's the reaction thus far on Faecesbook to this thread. Note the complete, 100% absence of a single rebuttal to a single point made in my article. This is entirely ad hominem:

Bernard Hall
I friended Lindsay Perigo on FB thinking I could keep in touch with an intelligent voice from outside my otherwise liberal/progressive echo chamber and thus keep my political bias in check.
All he does however is reinforce my confirmation bias.
He's educated and articulate but off his fucking rocker! His rants about the "evils" of Obama, socialism, welfare, the economy and Democrats are fanatical and devoid of any substance. His "thinking", (if you could call it that), is no better than any tea-partier.

Jazzy Bell Omg I couldn't even finish reading his article! What an asshole! And I understand your disappointment as I have tried the same thing with people in the hope of finding intelligence... The disappointment is often bitter.

Duncan Campbell He sounds a bit demented.

Brendan Gembitsky He is demented.. A brain is no indication of intelligence

Matthew Sharpe Wow I am pretty conservative, but that read like satire to me... Only it's his real opinion apparently. Obamarx? Wtf? What an asshat.

The debates

mvardoulis's picture

Since I've been old enough to vote, the US presidential debates have always been about how to best spend the citizens money. The latest round, in "both" parties, is even more reprehensible than I can remember. Almost every one of them appear to be bat shit crazy in addition to being career opportunists. Add a diabolically evil she-devil and its clear to me the decline of America continues, with no escape from collapse in sight. I give it a little over a decade, barring a disaster of some kind increasing the pace, and the United Police States will collapse under its own corruption. Disgusted.

Socialism

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Socialism has been in retreat over the past thirty years in China, India, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. But less so in Western Europe. And least of all in America. Sad!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.