Infuriating

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-ASbU7Qxug

and 100% worthy of criminal charges, as well as charges of civil rights violations if it is as it appears.

On Today's Episode

of the Washington D.C. dog and shony po,

SYRIA...... will they? won't they? should they? will the American people stand for it? will the world community?

stay tuned....


LOLz

Glenn Beck arguing for a "global test"

as John Kerry argues for unilateral intervention.

Life so funny.

There is a tendency

to crave and desire for others to present palatable realities to you in the most appealing, and convincing manner possible.

On Anonymous Comments

The reason why they are important just crystallized.

What do they tell you to never discuss with polite company?

Religion and politics?

Why?

Should be self-explanatory, but is outside current scope.

Anonymous comments allow us to engage in these "discussions"/"debates"/"conversations" that we THINK we want to have, but the desire to have the "d"/"d"/"c"'s is usually rooted in a delusion regarding their potential usefulness and outcome.

We know the thoughts we've had, and we think that if others hear them, they will certainly be convinced of them. When that does not happen, it may be as a result of a "legitimate opposing viewpoint" or an "illegitimate opposing viewpoint" at which point the presumption becomes recursive, but no less delusional.

Yes, there may be certain cases where we will convince others, but in most cases we will not. We simply want to hold onto that delusion because, like everyone else ever, we want to be the worshipped leader bringing salvation to a thankful people, helping them escape the ignorance they had suffered under due to the lies and myths they had been told.

So when that doesn't happen, we have to reconcile it, and, even in the case of "legitimate opposing viewpoint", dissonance is the natural verbal fight response.

As long as we are anonymous online, we can leave that blob of thought and conflict and frustration and embarrassment and ignorance and delusion behind when we venture out into the real world. And we'll never know when we're coming face to face with those we may have done battle with, allowing us to maintain cordiality which otherwise may not be possible.

Non-anonymous situations prevent this, and they are destined to fail, because they are implemented by people operating with the same sort of delusion that described above by individuals engaging directly in the "battle". But now they are saddling the participants with a paper trail of these interactions which they never
(and this word has rarely been used as legitimately as in this particular case), EVER can erase.

Is that a good thing? Of course not. If someone chooses to engage in this process under their real name of their own free will, God bless 'em. I think they'll regret that and I believe that partly because I believe the entire process is ridiculous and delusional. But even if they don't come to the same conclusions about the overall process, I expect most to regret that they are no longer able to get past the mistakes of their past in any sense, because those mistakes remain available to be investigated and uncovered by anyone who is motivated enough to look.

This is not to minimize the reality of the problem of trolling. It is real, and it is annoying, but it is not solved by "real name" commenting, and "real name" commenting has the far more legitimate danger of overflowing into offline life. You know, the one that actually matters. Obviously people run the risk of others tracking them down in order to do them harm.

But this brings us to the border cases.. In some cases, "trolls" are simply defined as "those who hold a different opinion from the one a specific organization is attempting to put forth". This, of course, is an entirely useful form of troll, as long as it involves genuine opposition focused on the topic at hand. People dislike these trolls because they infringe upon the comforting delusions of unanimity and omniscience. These "trolls" are actually the only thing that make comments sections useful. But there is also another borderline case.

We all liked to poke our brother or sister when we were young. We still like to do that, and we like to do it with others as well. Sometimes we feel a need to annoy someone else because they have annoyed us. Maybe we disagree with the way they dealt with someone else. Maybe we disagree with their overall outlook on life. So we needle them and we poke them a little to stir them up. We find it funny. Those who are least tolerant of such needling are probably least tolerant of the previous kind of troll as well, the eminently useful kind, and their motivation is usually the same. They don't like anyone saying anything that challenges their worldview and their ego. They want to control others.

The final kind of troll has absolutely no value and shouldn't be tolerated. These are online stalkers who carry on a habitual pattern of verbally abusing individuals who are internalizing the abuse. These people actually want to hurt others. When there is a threat of violence involved, that is not trolling. That is a threat of violence and is a completely different animal. But the troll who constantly attacks others, specifically those who can't defend themselves and are being emotionally hurt by the interaction, is a problem. On the one hand I think it's up to every single person who chooses to engage in this silly game of online banter to become immune to this variety of trolling, and as long as everyone stays anonymous, I believe this expectation is justified. But once a real identity is involved and others are intentionally engaging in hurtful activity, even without direct threats of violence, a line is crossed and the situation requires remedy.

So there is a line and it deserves recognition, but it is fairly easy to identify and the focus should be kept on incidents that clearly cross that line. Other than that, "trolling" is part of interaction. When we are online we feel a greater freedom to test ideas in a variety of ways, including  possibly pushing them beyond where we currently believe they legitimately could go. By testing those boundaries and processing the responses, one can learn more about a topic, opinion, philosophy, etc. than they otherwise could if they simply wanted to remain within the framework of "accepted wisdom" and in the silly games of politics and debate, these opportunities to push boundaries are really the only useful part of the entire endeavor.

I think I'll just post this without proof reading because it's so fucking long and I don't feel like it and I think it will be an interesting test, as I will probably have the most vile things to say to the author upon reading it again and finding the various grammatical and logical mistakes that certainly exist therein. And then I can practice the art of conveying the information in the least offensive, most productive manner possible because that should probably always be the goal, but I certainly don't want anyone else determining for me where that line should be drawn.

Or knocking on my door when they think I've crossed it.

ASSUMING that

comedies are worth 4 stars, and I think they can be, "The World's End" gets 4 stars.

Fellas, well effing done.

OH MY GOD IF OBAMA HAD A SON...

wwwwwwwwwwwwoooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


http://libertyunyielding.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Luna.jpg

there is an even better picture that was just on CNN showing one of the turds with a fur hat on and at first glance i LITERALLY thought "DAMN, that looks JUST like Obama."

Banning Anonymous Comments

is a fundamental misreading of the dynamic in more than one way.

I don't doubt that Bush...

"allowed 9/11 to happen". I just doubt that he knew exactly what kind of attack would be involved (the briefing aside).

All the available information indicates that he would have relished the opportunity to "react" to a terrorist attack given the additional power and stature he would be granted. He was, after all, a narcissistic dry drunk from the circles of power, harboring delusions of grandeur, with a plan to invade Iraq regardless. I just assume that he assumed it would be a small-scale attack with minimal casualties. The size of the attack was probably just gravy for that homicidal maniac and his surrounding cast of homicidal Zionist bureaucrat chickenhawk nerds.

"Now nobody's gonna say nothin to us.. if they do we'll fuckin destroy 'em," he most likely said.

Side note, anyone who argued in defense of his finishing the "My Pet Goat" photo op should never be listened to on any issue ever again. Defending his behavior that day is cognitive dissonance in the purest sense - similar to Obama voters who protested Bush spying as authoritarian and dictatorial but defend Obama spying and drone striking as perfectly justifiable. Is same. Is human brain making sense of the world in the most convenient ways possible. "This interpretation fits nicely." File->Save.

Transcriptions from video

are not to be relied upon.

In the vast majority of cases where a video (with audio) has a transcription of the audio laid over the video, the transcription has mistakes. I would say the percentage approaches 80%, and this is only from the brief, several minute excerpts that are showed on news clips.

In almost every instance, the mistake is essentially one of confirmation bias, where the transcriptor interprets a statement in a way that would be consistent with his/her organization's overall interpretation of events, and with the overall narrative being presented.

I shudder to think of what this means for court transcripts, but I haven't seen an egregious example of a court transcript mistake yet, so perhaps they are more reliable than most, which, of course, they should be.

Irony

Black people prejudge police officers as a group because of the isolated experiences they've had with individual officers.

Charles Blow agrees!

"The ends do not justify the means"

well said, Charles....or paraphrased at least. LOL.

now SWALLOW WHAT THAT MEANS like a big boy, or run and hide from that unpalatable truth. your choice.

Schizophrenia seems to essentially be

dissonance without bound.

I could imagine

intellectual influences being viewed as and treated like drugs in the future. Civilization isn't quite ready for all the various "truths" available to it now. Of course it will always find a way to survive, regardless, but one potential adaptation may be the willing avoidance of certain influences, even if those influences are simply digital words on a screen.

Would "teaching" this approach result in the same sort of unintended consequences as it does with drugs (ie. the forbidden fruit attraction)? Aye caramba. What a minefield.

Changing stripes

Partisan media outlets change stripes in the 2nd term.

Fact.

Of course the definition of "changing stripes" is the question here.

How does President Obama feel about

his kids speaking ebonics? (btw, how ironic would it be if someone argued that the term must be capitalized? LMMFAO)

He cool wit dat?

If not, why not?

Now, those of you who disagree with the inevitable reason he would give as a response, who still hold onto this counterproductive, destructive pride in NOT speaking correctly, STFU and listen to what your president is saying (he ain't mine for rizzle). It's one of the very few things he is right about.

Congressional demarcations of the term "journalist" would mean

war.

Negativity alert

I don't respect anyone who watches or cares about the Kardashians.

Isn't it funny?

that we sometimes say, "Stop yelling at me. I'm not a child."

As if...

When was the last time

you hesitated to believe a rumor that you found attractive for one reason or another?