|
William Bear posted:Today, President Obama came to North Carolina State University to give a speech. As one of the attendees, I was waiting in line when a group of people handed one of these to me. At first I thought they were connected to the event. Their website is nice; if you like blogs then I hope you also like Ayn Rand Fetishism: quote:Whenever Ayn Rand’s name is mentioned on the Senate or House floor, prepare to cringe. It’s hard to say which is more disgusting — statist Democrats depicting her as the devil incarnate or statist Republicans citing her as an inspiration. This quip by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin is an artful combination of both. Statements such as this always demonstrate a horrendous misunderstanding of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, morality, economics, and of the real world that Durbin implores us to observe.  Don't you statists see? Taxation is theft. Consent of the governed? Never heard of it.And in case you were feeling worried, don't be, they're endorsed by Ron Paul.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
So College Libertarians are like College Republicans, plus a smugness gained by believing themselves above the bipartisan system? I guess that's why I love to read their material.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Go figure they try to make it look like an official handout, probably be refused en masse if they didn't. How many bets there's a shitload of those things in cans by next week? Although to be fair: William Bear posted:
Compromising with your guys current Republican party is a thing that's wrong. Those fuckers should be run out on rails but are instead voted for by 47%+ of your country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
William Bear posted:Today, President Obama came to North Carolina State University to give a speech. As one of the attendees, I was waiting in line when a group of people handed one of these to me. At first I thought they were connected to the event. Part of me wants to go out of morbid curiosity to see what these people look and act like in real life but the intelligent part of me realizes that they will probably ask for contact info and probably never stop bothering me. EDIT: I mean young crazy libertarians, I've met plenty of the old crazy ones. One of the old crazy ones has Cartman as a hero and believes that a lot of the things he says on South Park are serious messages from the creators and not jokes. Dyz fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
password is taco posted:Or in this case, the possibility of having to pay to use your xbox or youtube (which probably won't happen anyway?)! We are so oppressed! Does it mean have to pay your ISP? Because that could happen. But pay Google for Youtube? Never. They're an advertising company. And you've always had to pay for xbox live? And it's a contract with a private company anyway?...Are they talking about the government charging for xbox and youtube? Amendment 28 The Congress shall pass no law infringing the free use of xbox and youtube, so that the American people may play CoD and watch a dude get kicked in the balls (aka life liberty and the pursuit of hapiness, ever heard of it?) FOR FREE Pass this around!! If everyone passed it to just 3 people they knew, it would make it around America 100 times in 100 seconds!!! Have the courage to share or just delete and shut up!
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
William Bear posted:So College Libertarians are like College Republicans, plus a smugness gained by believing themselves above the bipartisan system? I guess that's why I love to read their material. This is all libertarians. StealthArcher posted:Go figure they try to make it look like an official handout, probably be refused en masse if they didn't. How many bets there's a shitload of those things in cans by next week? The odd thing is I feel like their target audience (Republicans) would look at the cover then throw it out without even opening it. Seems like a conflict of interest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Their website is nice; if you like blogs then I hope you also like Ayn Rand Fetishism: The irony of edgy college 'libertarians' worshiping Ayn Rand and calling their political opponents 'statists' is that Rand hated, hated, hated anarchists and libertarians. In fact, she hated pretty much everything, she was a very hateful person. But she reserved a special level of hate for anarchists and libertarians. Granted, that's mainly because 'anarchist' and 'libertarian' were terms used to refer to far-left anti-capitalist ideologies for most of her lifetime, and didn't take on their current meanings until fairly recently, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:The irony of edgy college 'libertarians' worshiping Ayn Rand and calling their political opponents 'statists' is that Rand hated, hated, hated anarchists and libertarians. In fact, she hated pretty much everything, she was a very hateful person. Not serial rapists and murderers, though! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
So when I was in the military, I had this one Chief that I thought was a really cool guy. He eventually retires and becomes a crazy paranoid Tea Partier. What is it about these type of people that feel they must post/share 20 pictures a day and have them ALL be political? You look at his news feed and he never posts anything about himself or what's going on in his life. He never posts pictures of himself or his family. It is ONLY political posts.  He is the red name. The blue and green names were former coworkers of mine. Blue name was/is a computer programmer so as you can guess, he sometimes leans libertarian (though he rarely gives a poo poo about politics). What is it about computer programmers that makes them lean libertarian? I've seen far more libertarians in the time when I was in that field than any other field.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:What is it about computer programmers that makes them lean libertarian? I've seen far more libertarians in the time when I was in that field than any other field. Most computer programmers are wealthy men. Society generally regards us as intelligent, which can lead to a willingness to presume expertise in areas that we do not actually know anything about. Further, we are socialized to highly value "rationality" and "logic". This often leads to a highly mechanistic worldview coupled with a willingness to dismiss social sciences--let alone the lived experience of marginalized groups--as "emotional" and hence worthless. No one is less willing to examine their biases than someone whose self-image is based around rationality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:What is it about computer programmers that makes them lean libertarian? I've seen far more libertarians in the time when I was in that field than any other field. They tend to be white dudes from middle/upper class families in the suburbs, same with engineering. They also do have decent paying jobs that do require learning a skill. Put everything together and you wind up with "Well I did fine by myself, why can't you. Stop punishing me for my success." e: also, people drawn to computers and models and such as kids and for jobs may not exactly be "people" people, which could reduce their empathy for people they don't know in general which would probably make them lean more conservative in their economic outlook. There's the argument to be made as well that it's a field that once you're in it does in fact does reward based mostly on actual skill and ability. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Further, we are socialized to highly value "rationality" and "logic". This often leads to a highly mechanistic worldview coupled with a willingness to dismiss social sciences--let alone the lived experience of marginalized groups--as "emotional" and hence worthless. I never really got the whole 'rationality/logic and mechanistic worldview leads to libertarianism'. Seems to me if you believe in a mechanistic, deterministic universe, free will goes right the hell out the window. Wouldn't such a view promote considering all the factors, history, and chain of events that goes into a person's state in life and choices they make, and probably be more left leaning? I say this because that's pretty much how I turned from young adult libertarian shitheel to socially conscious leftie- a few discussions with philosophers and a high level courses on cognition and neuroscience kind of dismantles the whole concept of buck-stopping responsibility and free will.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Most computer programmers are wealthy men. Society generally regards us as intelligent, which can lead to a willingness to presume expertise in areas that we do not actually know anything about. Further, we are socialized to highly value "rationality" and "logic". This often leads to a highly mechanistic worldview coupled with a willingness to dismiss social sciences--let alone the lived experience of marginalized groups--as "emotional" and hence worthless. I shall be the first communist programmer. ALL OF MY VARIABLES ARE GLOBAL.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:I never really got the whole 'rationality/logic and mechanistic worldview leads to libertarianism'. Seems to me if you believe in a mechanistic, deterministic universe, free will goes right the hell out the window. Wouldn't such a view promote considering all the factors, history, and chain of events that goes into a person's state in life and choices they make, and probably be more left leaning? You can only make that switch if you're willing to question and overturn your assumptions. Most people are not, and are particularly unwilling when they believe they are already perfectly free from bias. Look at, for instance, Objectivism: the whole "philosophy" is based on the claims that 1) everything is either objectively true or false and can be worked out based entirely on logic, and 2) Ayn Rand's personal biases are obviously and inarguably objective facts. On another level, a mechanistic worldview can let one abstract away the suffering of others. Then you can say things like "food stamps cause unemployment because hunger is a good motivation to find a job". Too many people (not just computer programmers for sure) get into a mindset where their goal is to optimize numbers like GDP, unemployment %, inflation, etc. and forget that those metrics are only useful insofar as they relate to quality of life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:I shall be the first communist programmer. My classes have no use for private variables, only public.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:What is it about computer programmers that makes them lean libertarian? I've seen far more libertarians in the time when I was in that field than any other field. It's a job where you imagine something and then make it happen*. The results of that can end up being very large or influential, with pay that potentially reflects this, all of which lends itself very nicely to the belief that anything is possible if you put your mind to it. *which also applies to art, obviously; the big difference is getting paid for it. If it were easier to make bank by drawing pictures I'm sure a lot of talented artists would be bootstrap worshipping shitlords too Renaissance Robot fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
It's everyone's favorite conservative Twitter that no one knows about except for psychopaths. If you want to go nutso over an actual policy position, have at it. On the other hand, judging a person like this merely based on the fact their husband is on TV with a -D after his name scares the poo poo out of me. It should be noted the stone age Michelle is currently dragging back in to has already happened to second poster since one of his Facebook photos shows his overweight self in a baggy grey T-Shirt. So obviously he's a terrible person. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Joshmo posted:It's everyone's favorite conservative Twitter that no one knows about except for psychopaths. If you want to go nutso over an actual policy position, have at it. On the other hand, judging a person like this merely based on the fact their husband is on TV with a -D after his name scares the poo poo out of me. Michelle in nice attire: "How dare she look like an elite!" Michelle in street clothes: "How dare she not look like an elite!" There's no winning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Ha, holy hell that reminds me of last week. Someone reblogged something from some racist, gun nut group that was a picture with the same message, except it showed Jacuqueline in a posted photo for a magazine and Michelle Obama cheering at a basketball game with her arm raised. Someone I'm friends with then reblogged it and was like "It's one thing to not like Obama, I'm not really a fan of him either, but when you're posting racist poo poo like this, just go ahead and unfriend me, ect, ect." And then the most glorious 70+ comment war happened over whether it was racist, sexist, armpits, JFK conspiracies, JFK's infidelity, Hillary's lock to win in 2016, Republican demographic problems, gun nuts, everything. I wish I had taken screen shots of it before the person who posted it deleted it. But like 2 days into it someone she's barely friends with went on rampage on how it's not racist nor is the person who originally reblogged it and she was in fact the real racist for saying it was racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:Michelle in nice attire: "How dare she look like an elite!" Also that photo looks like JFK and Jackie at some official function (and judging by her outfit fall or winter) while Michelle is wearing casual summer clothes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Also that photo looks like JFK and Jackie at some official function (and judging by her outfit fall or winter) while Michelle is wearing casual summer clothes. "I'm just sayin...."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Never take someone's bait and call them out on dumb poo poo because then they get a great "I just thought it was interesting"/"It was just a joke, lighten up" option select.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Never take someone's bait and call them out on dumb poo poo because then they get a great "I just thought it was interesting"/"It was just a joke, lighten up" option select. Well, I'm mostly retarded and turning my thoughts into coherent writing is something I'm hopelessly weak at, so I did just that. I said that all the people we know are well-known wearers of bespoke wool clothing in the summer, and not dressed exactly like she is. I added that if I wore a suit to work, I'd obviously be better at my job. I was told to go buy a suit. Someone else said that you can still for warm weather and still look the part of the First Lady, even on vacation, when you're supposed to be off the clock, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Got a good one here that has been going around, anyone seen this one yet? http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/83-numbers-from-2013-that-are-almost-too-crazy-to-believe My personal favourite is This loving Thing posted:#3 As society breaks down, the government feels a greater need than ever before to watch, monitor and track the population.  AS SOCIETY BREAKS DOWN
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Got a good one here that has been going around, anyone seen this one yet? Don't take my word on this, but I'm pretty sure violent crime in the US has been steadily decreasing for the past several decades, there's certainly no 'societal breakdown' in progress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Most computer programmers are wealthy men. Society generally regards us as intelligent, which can lead to a willingness to presume expertise in areas that we do not actually know anything about. Further, we are socialized to highly value "rationality" and "logic". This often leads to a highly mechanistic worldview coupled with a willingness to dismiss social sciences--let alone the lived experience of marginalized groups--as "emotional" and hence worthless. Anecdotal, but I got into a heated argument with a fellow ComSci friend of mine over this image:  The flaw with the proof is naturally that anything divided by 0 is undefined, but he went on this long, almost-crazy rant about how "when did we start to accept x/0 is always undefined" and that "we should look past what the books tell us" and "how dare you tell me that mathematicians are better at coming up with proofs than me". There's definitely a streak of individualism that runs through the profession if you let it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Anecdotal, but I got into a heated argument with a fellow ComSci friend of mine over this image: Only response is "PEMDAS you stupid gently caress".
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Anecdotal, but I got into a heated argument with a fellow ComSci friend of mine over this image: Actually the flaw is that 10^2 != 10+10 edit: never mind I am bad at math I am not a book fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:Actually the flaw is that 10^2 != 10+10 No. That's not what is happening there. Try doing it in reverse. There's a name for it in algebra, I forget what. (x+2)*(x-2) = x^2 + x - x -2 ^2
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:Actually the flaw is that 10^2 != 10+10 x^2 - y^2 = (x+y) (x-y) EDIT: I was on Math Team in high school and we'd occasionally do these kinds of "proofs" with variables instead of all numbers and try to spot at what point the "proof" included a div/0 error or the like. Kugyou no Tenshi fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Stew Man Chew posted:Only response is "PEMDAS you stupid gently caress". Not really, in algebra you sometimes have to do stuff in weird orders to get stuff into the right form. I'm thinking there's a way to rewrite this proof to get a result of 0=n, where n is undefined. Edit: I mean 0/0 = n Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
The real problem with this is that as soon as you 'prove' 1=2 you've proved that all math is meaningless at which point you throw your proof out the window or math out the window, I know which one I'll keep.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Isn't the flaw that he's taking (10-10)/(10-10); ie 0/0, and setting it equal to one (while trying to prove it equals 2)? The proof contradicts itself. If 0/0=2, then that cancellation would lead to 2(10+10)/10, meaning that 0/0=4, which contradicts the previous assumption, etc. If you assume 0/0=1 as part of a proof that 0/0=2, I don't find it particularly convincing. Rogue0071 fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:Isn't the flaw that he's taking (10-10)/(10-10); ie 0/0, and setting it equal to one? The proof contradicts itself. The flaw is literally that he thinks that 0/0 = 0 and that div/0 doesn't create an undefined case. Nothing more complex than that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Kugyou no Tenshi posted:The flaw is literally that he thinks that 0/0 = 0 and that div/0 doesn't create an undefined case. Nothing more complex than that. In order to do that cancellation in the fourth step, you'd have to assume that (10-10)/(10-10) = 1, ie that 0/0=1. If you assumed that 0/0=0, then you'd get 0 * ((10+10)/10) or 0. It's academic because of the failure to realize the latter, but I don't think he assumes the former.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:Isn't the flaw that he's taking (10-10)/(10-10); ie 0/0, and setting it equal to one (while trying to prove it equals 2)? The proof contradicts itself. If 0/0=2, then that cancellation would lead to 2(10+10)/10, meaning that 0/0=4, which contradicts the previous assumption, etc. Agreed. Intuitively, I could use that same step to "prove" that ( (50934829)(10-10)/(1)(10-10) ) = 50934829, i.e. everything = everything else, since both the numerator and denominator are still 0.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Rogue0071 posted:In order to do that cancellation in the fourth step, you'd have to assume that (10-10)/(10-10) = 1, ie that 0/0=1. If you assumed that 0/0=0, then you'd get 0 * ((10+10)/10) or 0. Ah, poo poo, I missed that. But this guy probably didn't think like that either, to be honest. He just canceled because you cancel. I think I tried too hard to think like he did, and now I feel dumber for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
If I'm remembering my number theory right could you not also just say "the number 1 exists between 0 and 2, they can't be equal."? Of course you can then just "prove" 0=1 and like the guy above said all math becomes meaningless. Sorta related but it is pretty entertaining doing a .999...=1 proof on somebody who's never seen it before and watching their brains implode.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Hello, this isn't related to silly emails or... math, but On The Media just did a short podcast about VileRat on their tl;Dr podcast. It looks like it's a lot about Eve online, but On The Media is a Good Thing and it's nice hearing things that aren't crazy propaganda about him. Link here: http://www.onthemedia.org/story/11-rip-vile-rat/?utm_source=local&utm_media=treatment&utm_campaign=daMost&utm_content=damostviewed
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
I think Vi Hart goes into this exact sentiment about 2 minutes and 30 seconds into this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINfzxSnnIE
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 06:52
|
|
