@stealthbadger You are wrong sir. Those changes didn't get started until periods of low income made the middle class nonexistent. The middle class/racism was created by the rich to protect themselves from the slaves and poor. Look into the history of socialism/unions and its effect on this country in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It wasn't until periods in which the middle class disintegrated that real movements for change in this country really took off.
I wonder how much of those advertising decisions are really a rational cost/benefit analysis or an instinctive and often irrational fear of contamination. Glenn Beck is a slimy turd that could cause damage by association but companies will often overreact to a vocal minority that to seem to pose little risk to their business. Google and Amazon do not appear to catering to these groups as much, could it be marketing more with math than instinct?
Have been watching some lectures by a man called Richard Stallman recent and find some of his opinions fascinating - would be interested to hear your thoughts on "intellectual property", the patent system and maybe even a little on the free-software movement?
I like the new style, like the old one too, though :) I agree with those tips though, maybe a little less type on screen so that people don't lose track of what you're saying. Cause you say good stuff and some people (like me) see shiny things and get distracted easily :D
Interesting argument of PC as an expression free speech.
However, you lose me at legislation (political action) as capitalistic. Legislation of the sort you're suggesting here is repressive of market mechanisms, not consistent with them.
...on an unrelated matter, this video was very hard to follow, the typed words are greatly distracting.
@UtubeMyAccountName I've asked many people to try and delineate the exact difference between government and the market, and none have been able to do so while maintaining the separation of terms necessary for a coherent and stable definition of either. As far as I'm concerned, it's because the two are necessarily intertwined (you also neglected the part where I talked about the advertisers).
@stealthbadger The difference between govt regulation of the system (free enterprise, capitalism, etc..), and market regulation of the system is force.
Ex. 'No blacks allowed' , 'Irish need not apply', etc... Govt regulation forces this business to serve black people, and/or hire Irish people, etc... Market regulation does not (financial factors may however).
I didn't see a reason to say 'I agree' with your advertisers argument. I figured not opposing would show tacit agreement.
@UtubeMyAccountName No, force isn't it - unless you count not actively pointing a gun at someone as "voluntary." Coercion is not a function of any kind of power, not of government. Also, in a situation where capital sets the rules (see Citizens United vs FEC), it's increasingly difficult between capital and government anyway.
@stealthbadger Everything govt does is coercive, all laws are backed up by force (a gun); fines, seizures, jail terms, etc...
There's no gun pointed at anyone when the market regulates trade (outside of crime), be they producer or consumer. No seller can make you buy their product, and no buyer can make you sell them your product.
I agree the fascistic (for lack of a better term) relationship between money & power is a problem. Pprecisely because it introduces force into the marketplace.
@UtubeMyAccountName Then in my opinion you're doing what every other person I've had this argument with has done, which is pare the definition of force down to nothing other than direct action, leaving out anything to do with negligence, negative action, or inaction (which - and I stress this: *if* this is the definition you are using, because I can not read your mind). If this is the case, then there is no basis of agreement between us even on fundamental principles of morality.
@stealthbadger Well I'm not making any kind of moral argument, nor was my appreciation of your argument based on any kind of morality. There are no 'fundamental principles of morality' morality is, always has been, & always will be, wholly subjective.
There's a difference between force & the threat of force, force is always an action; direct or indirect is irrelevant. If a law is passed, lawmakers themselves aren't going to enforce it directly, but they are supposed to see that it is enforced.
@UtubeMyAccountName Yes, morality is subjective and we do not agree on it. What part of that wasn't clear? If the nature and use of force isn't a moral question, then what is?
Specifically, we disagree on force always being an action. If the person who is threatened truly believes that the person making the threat has both the means and the desire to carry it out, then it is force. We take such threats into account when making decisions, and therefore it is force.
@stealthbadger Well, you argued there was no basis for us to agree, because we didn't share the same morality. This is manifestly false, since I do agree with some of your points.
I don't really understand your question of 'nature of force'. Morality is the question of right & wrong. If you force your kids to go to bed at X:XX o'clock because they have school the next day, is this a moral question?
@UtubeMyAccountName Then perhaps I misunderstood this: "There's a difference between force & the threat of force, force is always an action; direct or indirect is irrelevant."
@stealthbadger No you didn't misunderstand; force is always an action, but an action is not always force.
Ex.1 If someone puts up a sign saying 'beware of the dog', they have acted. They have not however introduced any element of force.
Ex.2 If a bully threatens to pop you if you don't give up your lunch money, that is both a threat & an action, but it is not actual force; an actual punch would be both force & action. So while the threat & the punch are both actions, only the punch is force.
@UtubeMyAccountName That works. To me, denying workers living wages is also force, but refusing to give them wages that imperil the solvency of the business (or leave insufficient profits for expansion and improvement) is not.
If you are making excessive profits, then it's simple math that you are paying below market value for one or more of your inputs.
@stealthbadger Well, this is really a different topic, but it's only force if employees have no choice in the matter. The truth is they have several. They can quit, they can work overtime, they can get a degree or certification, etc...
I'm an ops mgr at a commercial moving company, with 25 guys under me. While my guys earn more/hour then most 'unskilled labor' (hate that term). There are still those who do these things to further their careers (it's what I did myself), it's their choice.
@stealthbadger As far as so-called 'living wage's & 'excessive profits', these aren't really things an employer has direct control over.
The living wages issue is a purely monetary policy phenomenon a.k.a. inflation. This is the reason a secretary's salary of $25,000 in the 70's is worth more than a $40,000 salary today. This is not an employers fault.
excessive profits is an issue of scale. I'd need several comment boxes to explain the fallacy of this concept fully. I could send you a PM.
@UtubeMyAccountName No, we're going down the same path I've gone down many times before (albeit with some differences), and I would conveniently point out that there was a nice built-in definition of living wage: a wage commensurate with the value actually added to the end product or service.
@stealthbadger Yes but the so-called living wage only increase because purchasing power decreases.
Let's go back to the secretaries:
The salary/wage a secretary earns has gone up, while the actual labor a secretary performs (thanks to technology) has gone down (immensely). A secretary making twenty five grand in 1975 however, is actually making way more than a secretary making forty grand in 2011.
The difference is inflation, the purchasing power of each dollar is far less now than then.
@UtubeMyAccountName Excuse me? The work a secretary performs has gone down? Plus you might want to reconsider your position on inflation. Population growth alone, combined with technological improvements accounts for a good chunk of why inflation is not only a natural consequence of capitalism in the real world, but a good thing.
@stealthbadger Inflation is a natural consequence of capitalism? Then why does it occur in non-capitalistic systems as well? Population & technology account for 'a great chunk of' inflation. What???
Inflation = an increase in the money supply, period.
This results in a decrease in the purchasing power of the money supply, which results in higher prices. Capitalism, population, technology have nothing to do with inflation.
@UtubeMyAccountName Um, you do realize that money is a placeholder for value, and the change in any of the things cited above changes the total amount of economic "value" in a system, therefore changing the value of the money itself?
No, (well yes money is properly a store of value), but you're wrong about what changes its relational value in an economy.
i.e. $100 to 10,000 things = $.01 per thing; $1,000 to 10,000 = $.10 per; $10,000 to 10,000 = $1.00 per, etc.
This is inflation, more money chasing the same amount of goods; the reverse of this would be deflation (which is good). It has nothing to do with capitalism, population, or technology; only the supply of money vs the supply of things.
@UtubeMyAccountName If you don't stop pretending you're lecturing an Econ 101 student, this conversation is done. I'm really, really tired of it.
The velocity of money alone would negate your claim (because it results in effective fluctuations of the money supply without changing the actual monetary base), except that your explanation ignores that the number of things (or widgets, if you want to use Econ 101 terms) can change, such as when deflation is caused by demand destruction.
@stealthbadger There is no other way I can respond to your arguments. The things you're stating are what result from inflation & deflation, or have no actual relationship to inflation & deflation at all.
...and velocity is a measure of inflation, it is not inflation itself.
@UtubeMyAccountName You may want to re-read what you typed. If you really want the "last word," go ahead and take it, but in my opinion you have just demonstrated nicely that not only is expertise not fungible between economics and business, you also nicely prove that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
@stealthbadger There is no such thing as the last word in a debate. You have made an argument, I have made an opposing argument.
For the most part I think your arguments are interesting and thoughtful. Certain things however are not arguable. A is A as Aristotle would say. To say that A is anything other than A is simply and irrevocably incorrect.
The reason why it is usually the middle classes is because it is the lower classes that are too busy working and the upper classes don't give fuck because they profit off of the ills of society.
I disagree. It wasnt before we got unions, labour rules, free education, etc, that middle class became wealthy enough to have the time to bitch about stuff. Go 100 years back and it wasnt like that at all. No one bothered to bitch about stuff, because, well, because they didnt have the stuff for once, lol. But also because they didnt have the time.
@gulbirk You need to go back to what happened to the craft guilds after the Black Plague. While you're correct that the middle class as we know it didn't come about until quite recently, the phenomenon of middle-class strangeness and aspirations is at least as old as the 1400s, if not older.
@stealthbadger Yeah there were no peasents in The Peasents Revolt of 1381. The participents were the first incarnation of what would become the middle class and they were fighting to make sure that it would stay that way. By the 1460's the mercantile class and the yeomenry were powerful enough for the Yorkists to fight and win The 1st Wars of the Roses despite most of the nobility supporting the Lancastrians.
@crikeythesplund I bow to your knowledge of history. ^.^ You have a greater command of the specifics than I do, and am grateful for your input. *enjoyed researching what you brought up*
@stealthbadger Sure, but in the 1400s and up to the 1900s people generally had enough with looking out for themselfe and their own family. Then, in modern times, we see that suddenly people have to get involved with everything.
@gulbirk In order to generalize things that much, you have to ignore the entire rise of the merchant class, and most of the changes that took place during the Italian Renaissance. I understand the point you're trying to make - that life was not as easy then - but conclusions you're trying to draw from it just aren't true.
@stealthbadger I am not drawing any conclusions. I am stating what history shows. And history clearly shows that the apearence of welfare states and general "rich doom" did NOT come from the free market. In fact it came from the very opposite. THat people were forced to share.
@gulbirk That is a conclusion - it is not history.
The rich were forced to share because of the united pressure from both the mass of the lower classes and the growing political pressure from the middle classes. The economic growth and mercantilism of the early English Industrial Age hinged upon the merchant/middle class, and laid the groundwork for both the Enlightenment and the lack of property requirements for voting in the later United States.
@stealthbadger ""That is a conclusion - it is not history."" no, the fact that it got better after taxation and public insitutions were introduced is history.
@gulbirk Ah, I see. Now you're changing your claim - though it's incomplete, since it started getting better even before then, with the growth of the craft guilds and the labor shortages from the Plague (after all, it's simple supply and demand - you can't treat peasants as you like when there are fewer peasants to work the fields and their labor is therefore more valuable).
@stealthbadger I didnt change my claim any time. My claim is still what its always been. That the general welfare of the people came with the taxes. And yes, there have been periods of time in which the general wealth of people have been fine, never the less it was still a class difference is that sense that if you came from a lower class you couldnt "become" anything else then that, even though you could have had a decent life in terms of wealth.
@gulbirk You did, and now (if I understand you correctly) you're appealing to the aristocracy being different from the commoners, which ignores the very real facts regarding the increasing importance of economic power, which was a necessary precondition to the changes via taxation you are talking about to be possible.
Seriously, it seems to me like your position is shifting, and I'd rather not argue when I'm not even certain what if anything I'm disagreeing with. Have a good morning.
@stealthbadger Not quite. I said that if you go 100 years back or more, then you will not see (at least not in most of Europe) a general wealth that is caused by the free market.
@gulbirk It baffles me when someone claims they said something that is in contradiction to what they said higher up on the same page. Apparently you aren't going back and reading your comments, or you're assuming I can divine your intentions beyond the actual words you type. Either way, this is ridiculous. :D
@stealthbadger This was my very first comment """I disagree. It wasnt before we got unions, labour rules, free education, etc, that middle class became wealthy enough to have the time to bitch about stuff""
It baffles me how people can be willingly ignorant of history. General wealth has nothing to do with the free market. In fact, it caused the exact opposite.
You're the one bringing the free market into this (which I didn't because it's never existed, and never will *markets being reliant on social organization, whether it be government, tradition, or something else).
I think it is good that there is a fairly easily understandable framework of acceptable behaviour. People know when they are transgressing these boundaries and they know when other people are crossing the line also.
I think that a lot of people conflate PC with censorship and enforced codes of moral behaviour.
There is a vast difference between political correctness and the kind of moral rectitude that I think you are referring to with your phone campaigners.
You make some good points but fall short of proposing in any practical detail how should one go about fighting political correctness. With regards to your complaint about Pat Condell, I think you give him too little credit. Whenever I watch his videos, regardless of how much or how little I agree with their content, I see free speech at its best. His sort of a George Carlin of Youtube, but less funny. Btw, the text in your video is distracting. Consider dropping it.
@dXoverdteqprogress Actually it goes beyond telling the truth, it is about being open to the truth & accepting what one thinks they know may have no foundation in reality & being open to & promoting questioning.
@dXoverdteqprogress Freedom of speech should never be interpreted as freedom to lie. To lie is to deceive, be that to self in denial or to the world knowingly a lie is still a lie. A lie is a corruption. As long as free speech is interpreted as the right to freedom to lie & corrupt then there is not a hope in hell's chance of ever ridding humanity of its systemic core corruption. Reality is.
@dXoverdteqprogress Lies are a non consensual act of corruption, ignorance & one-true-wayism. I for one will not allow them to seek safe haven & hide in the right to express.
@Kinkspace Okay, I agree that spreading lies is dishonest and harmful. I strongly disagree though that telling lies should not constitute free speech. Sometimes truth is not transparent. It used to be a lie to say that black people were fundamentally equal to white people. I assume your extensive mention of lying is directed at Pat Condell. I don't know how much he knowingly lies, but any bullshit of his will eventually be separated from the truth he tells. How? Free speech.
@dXoverdteqprogress The sociopolitical & systemic encourage lies & the perpetuation of. People can & do make a great deal of money & gain status out of prejudice/lies is testament to the fact. Yes it needs to be addressed, I never said it didn't. I said I would not allow it to have a safe haven in claiming free speech status as it is a non consensual act & therefore a corruption of reality which effects others, & to me no one persons rights can take precedent over & above the next persons.
@dXoverdteqprogress This principle adopted will in time positively reinforce social evolution, human interactions & relationships on every level. It is a matter for social address, not legal as I believe Badge has already stated. Indeed it is the process of how to evolve from sociopolitical/systemic distortion, ignorance, corruption & failure to accept personal & collective responsibility.
@dXoverdteqprogress People are not calling it what it is, are they? That in itself is a lie, denial is a non action of negative reinforcement value & equally sustaining of a lie. Linguistics play a crucial role in behavioral learning. To date few have spoken up/acted with positive reinforcement regarding the effects of preconceived prejudices/lies. Indeed the sociopolitical & systemic foundation of lies is firmly in the camp of negative reinforcement, which only compounds the problem.
@dXoverdteqprogress For the most part I observe the majority debating "belief" they do not call out the action & non action in itself. There in lies the problem.
@dXoverdteqprogress I will add on a much wider playing field that legislation on behaviour has little effect other than pushing something out of the mainstream, alienating, subjugating & out of clear view. This is very unhealthy, any problem is sociopolitical & systemically conjoint down to the individual level. We have excessive problems because the conjoint nature of humanity & its diversity is denied by the greater majority.
@Kinkspace It is hard to respond to your extensive comments: you talk in terms too general to be addressed and covering too broad a spectrum. Perhaps you should chose a specific example which we could discuss, but not here in any case as this is not a forum. Anyway, thanks for the exchange.
@dXoverdteqprogress You may have missed the part about writing letters to politicians, regulatory agencies, and most importantly advertisers. Also, please see the first link in the description - there's only so much as far as application I can do in a video that's introducing a concept.
Also, I've gotten some good suggestions re: text, and the reaction to re-introducing it has been largely positive. It's more likely I need to change the formatting.
@stealthbadger No he's not, I'd agree with that, Badj - I reserve that particular mantle for Lee Camp. Featuring this one today at my channel. Great job.
I have a quick question. Recently here in the UK an engineer murdered a young woman. It turns out that he often used extremely violent pornography that women being abused and viciously injured.
Is there any problem in you estimation? After all, there is a free market consumer demand for this kind of pornography... When and if women are [or are portrayed as being] injured and abused for the sexual gratification of a certain faction of men is that just free speech?
(2) I don't see what the difference between being concerned about this and being concerned about Amnesty International's stands to stop violence against political prisoners. The unpalatable truth is that financially motivated entrepreneurs create this kind of porn which depicting women as just another consumable to be injured and/or disposed of for the sexual gratification because of a demand by some male consumers. It's a way to make money. The men are as manipulated as the women for cash.
@2bsirius Yep, in areas where sexual suppression is prominent you will find the sales of such excessively higher than areas where sexual suppression is far less or non existent & that violence has become a spectator sport in the areas of greater sexual suppression & less so if at all in areas with little or no sexual suppression.
Even looking internally state v's state in the US this is clearly visible.
@2bsirius No, the problem is one of sociopolitical, systemic & learned behaviour. Imho, Badge has already answered this all be it indirectly. The sociopolitical(sp), systemic(sys) etc are fundamentally flawed. Having the right to do something within the present sp/sys is mimetically projected as an entitlement. An entitlement without collective & personal responsibility. Sp & sys has failed itself in this respect, it has perpetuated the concept of entitlement without responsibility.
@2bsirius America has 7guns/adult, it does not mean everyone with a gun will murder. The emphasis of responsibility is on the individual for personal safety & responsibility. The same's true of BDSM, self regulation & accepted protocols within the lifestyle result in far less "abuse" than in the vanilla world which is steeped in non consensual acts of manipulation. In BDSM consent is the foundation of any engagement.
@2bsirius A good friend coined the Emo fetish in order to enable the necessity for consent, prior Emo's would just vomit themselves all over the shop. Now being recognized they must seek consent for interaction, non will respect them otherwise, it results in more fulfilling engagements all round.
It becomes a problem is in main stream medias "interpretation" & dabbling into that which they don't care to understand & indeed interpret as nothing more than a sexual or abusive act that sells.
@2bsirius Again this goes back to entitlement, the lack of ability to relate to people & simply apply ones own interpretation without having the basic common sense to ask questions. Judging a book by its cover & by ones own standards. Not to mention the "profit" factor. Sex & violence makes money in the main stream. The assumption that everyone should be like you & does think like you & you would only do x,y,z to abuse etc...
@2bsirius One-true-wayism, in this instance there is more profit for vanilla corps & institutions if one takes the present systemic & sociopolitical approach. BDSM for all intensive purposed has been exploited by main stream media & its not alone. If one dose not know it is polite & indeed the educated & common sense approach to ask. This approach is not supported by the present system, strike first & ask questions later if you can be bothered is. Projection is for the stupid & fearful.
@2bsirius In short they apply their own principles to something they know nothing about rather than seek to explore the in depth reality. This "attitude" is born partly out of sexual suppression... Sexual political correctness. Indeed the irony is that in the vanilla world sex is used as a manipulation tool without consent being sought, it is also a taboo. Now that's perverted! :)
@2bsirius D/s & M/s for example is not necessarily a sexual relationship, it is the dynamic itself that is of primary importance to the consenting parties. The vanilla world is preoccupied with the actual act of sex, the orgasm. This is not true of the greater majority of serious lifestyler's, to them the art of intimacy of the lifestyle, evolving & longevity is more to the point.
@2bsirius The relationship of vanilla to the lifestyle is akin to mono trying to relate to poly, they cannot. I have to say in my experience of vanilla all they are interested in is sex, what you do for a living & how much you earn etc. In my lifestyle those things are considered incidentals.
Porn does not kill or corrupt, people kill & corrupt... Which brings us right back to personal & collective responsibility.
@2bsirius Are you fucking serious? You make all these videos gushing over science and you make one of the most common errors of causation? Is it that violent pornography caused this person to kill or is it the fact that you don't like porn that wants to make it so? Do you want to also ban Catcher In The Rye because Chapman and Hinkley were both found with copies on their person after committing their crimes? You sound like that idiot lawyer wanting to ban video games
@2bsirius I'm afraid I would need to know a great deal more about the case, and would also need to know whether or not you are indirectly attacking me for a stance on porn I never took. I do believe that coercion and exploitation needs to be guarded against far, far more than it is, in all industries. Still, I do believe that John Ashcroft diverting resources from counter-terrorism to anti-pornography was an insane thing to do, and is a precise example of the overreach I was talking about.
@stealthbadger I'm not sure but I think he is referring to the Joanna Yeates murder. It should be noted that The Daily Mirror and The Sun were prosecuted and found guilty of contempt of court for reporting information that would prejudice a trial. Again I do not know the source of this persons information but I do know there was myth & sheer fabrication in the media which was successfully challenged in a court of law.
Not every question is an attack. I asked because of the behaviour of Vincent Tabak who was just found guilty of murdering Jo Yeates here int he UK.
Only after the jury delivered their verdict [yesterday, Oct 28] could it be revealed that, in the days AFTER he killed the 25-year-old landscape architect last Christmas, Tabak watched internet porn which showed men having sex with women while holding their hands around their necks. Any connection? Just curious...
(2) I can see that there are a lot of hostile responses to my question...As for Kinkspace, sorry but the media here are just today free to report this...Until yesterday, there was a gag order on all media because reporting it could prejudice Mr. Tabak's trial.
(3) As for source for this, try the BBC website for yesterday. An article by Chris Kelly. Here's an excerpt:
"Vincent Tabak viewed violent internet pornography depicting men holding women by the neck in the weeks after he killed his Bristol neighbour Jo Yeates, it has emerged."
Yes, I think PC can be a problem, but it's not the only possible problem. That's why I think it make sense to look at data and not rush to conclusions.
@2bsirius the question is better put does the increased accessibility of violent porn create more Psychopaths , I'd personally doubt that was the case as I believe psychopaths are wired different than us normals and from the little I know psychopaths normally exhibit strange behaviour at a young age long before they get into strange porn
I think the question might be if there is a lot of easily accessible violent porn is it likely that the people who access it will be influenced by what they see, and if they see women being beaten and used as targets for violence will they begin to think that is the norm?
But if you want to believe your version, no one can stop you from entertaining delusions.
@2bsirius I don't think a person of normal mind can be influenced into becoming a Psychopath ,could it tip someone over the edge ,maybe . I don't know what effect if any that sort stuff has but I'm dam sure you don't either .anyway badger was not defending porn so whatever
I think I agree with you on that. There's a similar debate about whether violent films and video games are making people more violent and this doesn't appear to be the case.
The other issue is exploitation: Is sexual exploitation in the capitalism sense of term acceptable? By that I mean using women as prostitutes and porn actress in exchange for money? If not, how is mining acceptable, it is clearly more dangerous. Building is more dangerous too.
...complex when you try to assess how freely people choose their job. It's almost impossible to quantify that using any meaningful metrics. If the only job around is a miner or a prostitute then you don't really have a choice.
Also in this UK example, I imagine the videos viewed were between consenting adults, ie the violence is staged, it's not real. If not then that's already against the law and as such has nothing to do with porn. More like directing a snuff movie!
@BlunderCity yep , it's definitely not a simple issue .I tend to think the state should have a limited role in curtailing the actions of consenting adults ,liberty needs to measured against harm and the harm that 2bsirius is referring too is the result of causation and also unproven .
Good video; money is what really rules. Have you tried to have the text in this new format on the viewers right instead of left? Give it a try, I think it would be a bit more "comfortable" to watch (learned that many years ago as a young film student, something related to reading and how the brain processes info from left to right. We are drawn to look at your face, but have to pull to the left to read the text).
@stealthbadger Good, I like the trees & the birds, especially those that squawk for center stage ;)
I'm going to skip the broader points you have raised, not because they are anything but on the nose but because they are & stand true. So I will add ;)
One of the problems I see in respect of this context is "entitlement" All laws, including the UN human rights charter etc (which I use as a door stop) Are focused on entitlement. No where is there mention of personal & collective responsibility.
Great video. This is something that we must all realize if we want to manipulate the system so that it actually starts to benefit us. Thank you. Peace.
It is Capitalism? There was me thinking that it was all down to MulturalCarxism...
Honestly, I think that political correctness is a force for good in the world, but one that is surrounded by a swamp of lies and fabrications, exaggerations and myths. Most of the horror stories you hear turn out to be made up by right wing media.
It is really just codified politeness driven by a liberal education system and increasing twitchy, post civil rights, employment law.
@gabiotta Well I do remember when 'PC' used to be called poltiness(social arena) and professionalism(the work place). That being said, sometimes 'PC', what ever it's definition, can be taken to extremes often with comedic effect. Much like anything else
@gabiotta Eh, it can go too far. My big beef with PC is that it is that I'm sick of hearing people bitch pointlessly about it - and that too many people see it as an end in itself, rather than an attempt to describe what a human being in possession of some empathy and compassion does anyway.
In my experience, the people who bitch about it are the ones who are suffering from having their bigotry restrained. They fail to understand that in educated company intent is a release valve that is unspoken but implicit in the whole system. Also that application of the system is situational. Work, home and Internet forums all have different rules.
/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE
I won't be fighting PC, but I will be active in it's continual refinement and redefinition.
A bit oversimplified, but quite true, esp. the points about needing to understand the system you're living in & what actions you can take to be effective.
Just a tiny nitpick... Capitalism and "The Free Market" are not interchangeable terms. A few times in this video you confuse the two. Complaining to advertisers is not "Capitalism at work"... it's the free market at work. Capitalism is relatively benign, and only means the private ownership of the means of production. The free market is where individual incentives come in and play a role in decision-making.
@eagleeye1975 I understand the difference, but unfortunately without tying the two together, the oversimplifications that make the video less than 20 minutes long don't hang together well. >.< It's one of the many reasons the medium kind of stinks. Also, thank you! ^.^
@26libertarian The fact that you use an outdated term like 'mullato' says a lot. A poltroon with a quatroon is still a poltroon. BTW nimrod, got a stats for how many whites have lost jobs to blacks? Don't even try using the term 'quota' since racial quotas have been banned since the Bakke decision in the 70s
I don't know because I take this stuff pretty seriously but while I don't want social regulations or culture police I can't pretend I'm ok with the HeyRuka crowd of race hierarchicalism either
I always looked at it as the three forths split because on social issues I wan't 25% positive rights and on economic 75% positive rights
In other words I want just enough regulations to be free socially or economically without someone else having the right to take it away from me
@26libertarian Cultural marxism.. gosh that term is bullshit.. And often used for conspearicy theories trying to lick there opposition with a guilt by association and often a faulty one at that.
@26libertarian How is using the power of the pocket book 'controlling' anyone? I am compelled to buy products and services from companies that support speech/actions/what ever I despise/find objectionable? Doesn't sound very 'free markety' to me
@HannibalBarca13 Thank you! They've been hating on me since "Why I'm Not a Libertarian," so I'm kind of used to it. In fact, it was their insistence on giving me lots of BS to deal with that made me decide to become a partner. That way their mumbo-jumbo rants are something I get paid to deal with. :D
@26libertarian Okay, you've started in with the bumper sticker meaningless bullshit (like "Cultural Marxism," which is meaningless). Address the major statement in the video, that political correctness is more a function of the market than it is of government, or get the fuck out.
I'm sick of being lectured about things I never said.
@stealthbadger Strip the wealth away and people become as human as the rest of us.
theoxymoronfromtexas 3 months ago
@stealthbadger You are wrong sir. Those changes didn't get started until periods of low income made the middle class nonexistent. The middle class/racism was created by the rich to protect themselves from the slaves and poor. Look into the history of socialism/unions and its effect on this country in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It wasn't until periods in which the middle class disintegrated that real movements for change in this country really took off.
theoxymoronfromtexas 3 months ago
You have a very good insight into these things, very intelligent
NihilTico 3 months ago
I wonder how much of those advertising decisions are really a rational cost/benefit analysis or an instinctive and often irrational fear of contamination. Glenn Beck is a slimy turd that could cause damage by association but companies will often overreact to a vocal minority that to seem to pose little risk to their business. Google and Amazon do not appear to catering to these groups as much, could it be marketing more with math than instinct?
JunkmanJim 3 months ago
Great video as usual Badger.
Wonder if you'd take a roundabout request?
Have been watching some lectures by a man called Richard Stallman recent and find some of his opinions fascinating - would be interested to hear your thoughts on "intellectual property", the patent system and maybe even a little on the free-software movement?
EnglishTMTB 3 months ago
I love your vids, Badger, my fave backgrounds are when you are outside, but that's because I am a tree-hugger. :-)
ChunxOfEarth 4 months ago
@HannibalBarca13
I think we come from different countries and are almost certainly using different definitions of political correctness.
SpringH33ledJack 4 months ago
BadgerBadgerBadgerBadgerBadger! Hi!
I like the new style, like the old one too, though :) I agree with those tips though, maybe a little less type on screen so that people don't lose track of what you're saying. Cause you say good stuff and some people (like me) see shiny things and get distracted easily :D
pookabun 4 months ago
Interesting argument of PC as an expression free speech.
However, you lose me at legislation (political action) as capitalistic. Legislation of the sort you're suggesting here is repressive of market mechanisms, not consistent with them.
...on an unrelated matter, this video was very hard to follow, the typed words are greatly distracting.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName I've asked many people to try and delineate the exact difference between government and the market, and none have been able to do so while maintaining the separation of terms necessary for a coherent and stable definition of either. As far as I'm concerned, it's because the two are necessarily intertwined (you also neglected the part where I talked about the advertisers).
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger The difference between govt regulation of the system (free enterprise, capitalism, etc..), and market regulation of the system is force.
Ex. 'No blacks allowed' , 'Irish need not apply', etc... Govt regulation forces this business to serve black people, and/or hire Irish people, etc... Market regulation does not (financial factors may however).
I didn't see a reason to say 'I agree' with your advertisers argument. I figured not opposing would show tacit agreement.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName No, force isn't it - unless you count not actively pointing a gun at someone as "voluntary." Coercion is not a function of any kind of power, not of government. Also, in a situation where capital sets the rules (see Citizens United vs FEC), it's increasingly difficult between capital and government anyway.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger Everything govt does is coercive, all laws are backed up by force (a gun); fines, seizures, jail terms, etc...
There's no gun pointed at anyone when the market regulates trade (outside of crime), be they producer or consumer. No seller can make you buy their product, and no buyer can make you sell them your product.
I agree the fascistic (for lack of a better term) relationship between money & power is a problem. Pprecisely because it introduces force into the marketplace.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Then in my opinion you're doing what every other person I've had this argument with has done, which is pare the definition of force down to nothing other than direct action, leaving out anything to do with negligence, negative action, or inaction (which - and I stress this: *if* this is the definition you are using, because I can not read your mind). If this is the case, then there is no basis of agreement between us even on fundamental principles of morality.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger Well I'm not making any kind of moral argument, nor was my appreciation of your argument based on any kind of morality. There are no 'fundamental principles of morality' morality is, always has been, & always will be, wholly subjective.
There's a difference between force & the threat of force, force is always an action; direct or indirect is irrelevant. If a law is passed, lawmakers themselves aren't going to enforce it directly, but they are supposed to see that it is enforced.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Yes, morality is subjective and we do not agree on it. What part of that wasn't clear? If the nature and use of force isn't a moral question, then what is?
Specifically, we disagree on force always being an action. If the person who is threatened truly believes that the person making the threat has both the means and the desire to carry it out, then it is force. We take such threats into account when making decisions, and therefore it is force.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger Well, you argued there was no basis for us to agree, because we didn't share the same morality. This is manifestly false, since I do agree with some of your points.
I don't really understand your question of 'nature of force'. Morality is the question of right & wrong. If you force your kids to go to bed at X:XX o'clock because they have school the next day, is this a moral question?
Um, 'making a threat' is an action.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Then perhaps I misunderstood this: "There's a difference between force & the threat of force, force is always an action; direct or indirect is irrelevant."
Can you explain what you meant?
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger No you didn't misunderstand; force is always an action, but an action is not always force.
Ex.1 If someone puts up a sign saying 'beware of the dog', they have acted. They have not however introduced any element of force.
Ex.2 If a bully threatens to pop you if you don't give up your lunch money, that is both a threat & an action, but it is not actual force; an actual punch would be both force & action. So while the threat & the punch are both actions, only the punch is force.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName You know what, I can see where I phrased that first comment badly.
It would have been better phrased to say that force cannot be separated from action. Then to include 'threat of force' in the argument.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName That works. To me, denying workers living wages is also force, but refusing to give them wages that imperil the solvency of the business (or leave insufficient profits for expansion and improvement) is not.
If you are making excessive profits, then it's simple math that you are paying below market value for one or more of your inputs.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger Well, this is really a different topic, but it's only force if employees have no choice in the matter. The truth is they have several. They can quit, they can work overtime, they can get a degree or certification, etc...
I'm an ops mgr at a commercial moving company, with 25 guys under me. While my guys earn more/hour then most 'unskilled labor' (hate that term). There are still those who do these things to further their careers (it's what I did myself), it's their choice.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
@stealthbadger As far as so-called 'living wage's & 'excessive profits', these aren't really things an employer has direct control over.
The living wages issue is a purely monetary policy phenomenon a.k.a. inflation. This is the reason a secretary's salary of $25,000 in the 70's is worth more than a $40,000 salary today. This is not an employers fault.
excessive profits is an issue of scale. I'd need several comment boxes to explain the fallacy of this concept fully. I could send you a PM.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName No, we're going down the same path I've gone down many times before (albeit with some differences), and I would conveniently point out that there was a nice built-in definition of living wage: a wage commensurate with the value actually added to the end product or service.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger Yes but the so-called living wage only increase because purchasing power decreases.
Let's go back to the secretaries:
The salary/wage a secretary earns has gone up, while the actual labor a secretary performs (thanks to technology) has gone down (immensely). A secretary making twenty five grand in 1975 however, is actually making way more than a secretary making forty grand in 2011.
The difference is inflation, the purchasing power of each dollar is far less now than then.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Excuse me? The work a secretary performs has gone down? Plus you might want to reconsider your position on inflation. Population growth alone, combined with technological improvements accounts for a good chunk of why inflation is not only a natural consequence of capitalism in the real world, but a good thing.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger Inflation is a natural consequence of capitalism? Then why does it occur in non-capitalistic systems as well? Population & technology account for 'a great chunk of' inflation. What???
Inflation = an increase in the money supply, period.
This results in a decrease in the purchasing power of the money supply, which results in higher prices. Capitalism, population, technology have nothing to do with inflation.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName Um, you do realize that money is a placeholder for value, and the change in any of the things cited above changes the total amount of economic "value" in a system, therefore changing the value of the money itself?
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger Good morning.
No, (well yes money is properly a store of value), but you're wrong about what changes its relational value in an economy.
i.e. $100 to 10,000 things = $.01 per thing; $1,000 to 10,000 = $.10 per; $10,000 to 10,000 = $1.00 per, etc.
This is inflation, more money chasing the same amount of goods; the reverse of this would be deflation (which is good). It has nothing to do with capitalism, population, or technology; only the supply of money vs the supply of things.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName If you don't stop pretending you're lecturing an Econ 101 student, this conversation is done. I'm really, really tired of it.
The velocity of money alone would negate your claim (because it results in effective fluctuations of the money supply without changing the actual monetary base), except that your explanation ignores that the number of things (or widgets, if you want to use Econ 101 terms) can change, such as when deflation is caused by demand destruction.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger There is no other way I can respond to your arguments. The things you're stating are what result from inflation & deflation, or have no actual relationship to inflation & deflation at all.
...and velocity is a measure of inflation, it is not inflation itself.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName You may want to re-read what you typed. If you really want the "last word," go ahead and take it, but in my opinion you have just demonstrated nicely that not only is expertise not fungible between economics and business, you also nicely prove that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName And yes, I know I'm using "fungible" badly. Sue me. :D
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger There is no such thing as the last word in a debate. You have made an argument, I have made an opposing argument.
For the most part I think your arguments are interesting and thoughtful. Certain things however are not arguable. A is A as Aristotle would say. To say that A is anything other than A is simply and irrevocably incorrect.
I do not need any expertise to understand this.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
Is this "The Wørd" from the Colbert Report?
daedamot 4 months ago
@daedamot No. o.0
I'm guessing you didn't watch the whole video, or let that initial impression overwhelm everything I said/typed?
Been doing this for a long time, the new format was the chromakey/background to make the type easier to read.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
The reason why it is usually the middle classes is because it is the lower classes that are too busy working and the upper classes don't give fuck because they profit off of the ills of society.
iGreedLimitedEdition 4 months ago
I disagree. It wasnt before we got unions, labour rules, free education, etc, that middle class became wealthy enough to have the time to bitch about stuff. Go 100 years back and it wasnt like that at all. No one bothered to bitch about stuff, because, well, because they didnt have the stuff for once, lol. But also because they didnt have the time.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk You need to go back to what happened to the craft guilds after the Black Plague. While you're correct that the middle class as we know it didn't come about until quite recently, the phenomenon of middle-class strangeness and aspirations is at least as old as the 1400s, if not older.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger Yeah there were no peasents in The Peasents Revolt of 1381. The participents were the first incarnation of what would become the middle class and they were fighting to make sure that it would stay that way. By the 1460's the mercantile class and the yeomenry were powerful enough for the Yorkists to fight and win The 1st Wars of the Roses despite most of the nobility supporting the Lancastrians.
crikeythesplund 4 months ago
@crikeythesplund I bow to your knowledge of history. ^.^ You have a greater command of the specifics than I do, and am grateful for your input. *enjoyed researching what you brought up*
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger Sure, but in the 1400s and up to the 1900s people generally had enough with looking out for themselfe and their own family. Then, in modern times, we see that suddenly people have to get involved with everything.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk In order to generalize things that much, you have to ignore the entire rise of the merchant class, and most of the changes that took place during the Italian Renaissance. I understand the point you're trying to make - that life was not as easy then - but conclusions you're trying to draw from it just aren't true.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger I am not drawing any conclusions. I am stating what history shows. And history clearly shows that the apearence of welfare states and general "rich doom" did NOT come from the free market. In fact it came from the very opposite. THat people were forced to share.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk That is a conclusion - it is not history.
The rich were forced to share because of the united pressure from both the mass of the lower classes and the growing political pressure from the middle classes. The economic growth and mercantilism of the early English Industrial Age hinged upon the merchant/middle class, and laid the groundwork for both the Enlightenment and the lack of property requirements for voting in the later United States.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger ""That is a conclusion - it is not history."" no, the fact that it got better after taxation and public insitutions were introduced is history.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk Ah, I see. Now you're changing your claim - though it's incomplete, since it started getting better even before then, with the growth of the craft guilds and the labor shortages from the Plague (after all, it's simple supply and demand - you can't treat peasants as you like when there are fewer peasants to work the fields and their labor is therefore more valuable).
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger I didnt change my claim any time. My claim is still what its always been. That the general welfare of the people came with the taxes. And yes, there have been periods of time in which the general wealth of people have been fine, never the less it was still a class difference is that sense that if you came from a lower class you couldnt "become" anything else then that, even though you could have had a decent life in terms of wealth.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk You did, and now (if I understand you correctly) you're appealing to the aristocracy being different from the commoners, which ignores the very real facts regarding the increasing importance of economic power, which was a necessary precondition to the changes via taxation you are talking about to be possible.
Seriously, it seems to me like your position is shifting, and I'd rather not argue when I'm not even certain what if anything I'm disagreeing with. Have a good morning.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger Tell me what position I changed. I dont think you follow, or understand what I even claimed.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk Are you always so demanding? Wow.
My understanding is that you first claimed that there was no effective middle class before the early 1900s.
"Go 100 years back and it wasnt like that at all."
Then, you changed that to yes, but that being unimportant because of no taxation-supported public institutions.
That's partially correct, but your time frame is wrong (and shows a lack of information about the early labor movement).
I do understand what you said, and it's incorrect.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger Not quite. I said that if you go 100 years back or more, then you will not see (at least not in most of Europe) a general wealth that is caused by the free market.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk It baffles me when someone claims they said something that is in contradiction to what they said higher up on the same page. Apparently you aren't going back and reading your comments, or you're assuming I can divine your intentions beyond the actual words you type. Either way, this is ridiculous. :D
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger This was my very first comment """I disagree. It wasnt before we got unions, labour rules, free education, etc, that middle class became wealthy enough to have the time to bitch about stuff""
It baffles me how people can be willingly ignorant of history. General wealth has nothing to do with the free market. In fact, it caused the exact opposite.
gulbirk 4 months ago
@gulbirk Ah, I see the problem now, perhaps.
You're the one bringing the free market into this (which I didn't because it's never existed, and never will *markets being reliant on social organization, whether it be government, tradition, or something else).
stealthbadger 4 months ago
This was way too slow for my ADHD-addled brain to follow. Maybe you should try to script your speeches.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
I think it is good that there is a fairly easily understandable framework of acceptable behaviour. People know when they are transgressing these boundaries and they know when other people are crossing the line also.
I think that a lot of people conflate PC with censorship and enforced codes of moral behaviour.
There is a vast difference between political correctness and the kind of moral rectitude that I think you are referring to with your phone campaigners.
PC is from college, not church.
SpringH33ledJack 4 months ago
I like the new look.
WildwoodClaire1 4 months ago
You make some good points but fall short of proposing in any practical detail how should one go about fighting political correctness. With regards to your complaint about Pat Condell, I think you give him too little credit. Whenever I watch his videos, regardless of how much or how little I agree with their content, I see free speech at its best. His sort of a George Carlin of Youtube, but less funny. Btw, the text in your video is distracting. Consider dropping it.
dXoverdteqprogress 4 months ago
@dXoverdteqprogress Drop perception & myth. Tell the truth :) It don't get any more practical than that.
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@dXoverdteqprogress Actually it goes beyond telling the truth, it is about being open to the truth & accepting what one thinks they know may have no foundation in reality & being open to & promoting questioning.
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@dXoverdteqprogress Freedom of speech should never be interpreted as freedom to lie. To lie is to deceive, be that to self in denial or to the world knowingly a lie is still a lie. A lie is a corruption. As long as free speech is interpreted as the right to freedom to lie & corrupt then there is not a hope in hell's chance of ever ridding humanity of its systemic core corruption. Reality is.
cont...
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@dXoverdteqprogress Lies are a non consensual act of corruption, ignorance & one-true-wayism. I for one will not allow them to seek safe haven & hide in the right to express.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@Kinkspace Okay, I agree that spreading lies is dishonest and harmful. I strongly disagree though that telling lies should not constitute free speech. Sometimes truth is not transparent. It used to be a lie to say that black people were fundamentally equal to white people. I assume your extensive mention of lying is directed at Pat Condell. I don't know how much he knowingly lies, but any bullshit of his will eventually be separated from the truth he tells. How? Free speech.
dXoverdteqprogress 4 months ago
@dXoverdteqprogress The sociopolitical & systemic encourage lies & the perpetuation of. People can & do make a great deal of money & gain status out of prejudice/lies is testament to the fact. Yes it needs to be addressed, I never said it didn't. I said I would not allow it to have a safe haven in claiming free speech status as it is a non consensual act & therefore a corruption of reality which effects others, & to me no one persons rights can take precedent over & above the next persons.
cont
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@dXoverdteqprogress This principle adopted will in time positively reinforce social evolution, human interactions & relationships on every level. It is a matter for social address, not legal as I believe Badge has already stated. Indeed it is the process of how to evolve from sociopolitical/systemic distortion, ignorance, corruption & failure to accept personal & collective responsibility.
cont...
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@dXoverdteqprogress People are not calling it what it is, are they? That in itself is a lie, denial is a non action of negative reinforcement value & equally sustaining of a lie. Linguistics play a crucial role in behavioral learning. To date few have spoken up/acted with positive reinforcement regarding the effects of preconceived prejudices/lies. Indeed the sociopolitical & systemic foundation of lies is firmly in the camp of negative reinforcement, which only compounds the problem.
cont...
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@dXoverdteqprogress For the most part I observe the majority debating "belief" they do not call out the action & non action in itself. There in lies the problem.
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@dXoverdteqprogress Excuse the pun :D
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@dXoverdteqprogress I will add on a much wider playing field that legislation on behaviour has little effect other than pushing something out of the mainstream, alienating, subjugating & out of clear view. This is very unhealthy, any problem is sociopolitical & systemically conjoint down to the individual level. We have excessive problems because the conjoint nature of humanity & its diversity is denied by the greater majority.
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@dXoverdteqprogress Pat Condell above & before all else is a liar.
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@Kinkspace It is hard to respond to your extensive comments: you talk in terms too general to be addressed and covering too broad a spectrum. Perhaps you should chose a specific example which we could discuss, but not here in any case as this is not a forum. Anyway, thanks for the exchange.
dXoverdteqprogress 4 months ago
@dXoverdteqprogress That is your perception, limitations & baggage... You carry it :)
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@dXoverdteqprogress You may have missed the part about writing letters to politicians, regulatory agencies, and most importantly advertisers. Also, please see the first link in the description - there's only so much as far as application I can do in a video that's introducing a concept.
Also, I've gotten some good suggestions re: text, and the reaction to re-introducing it has been largely positive. It's more likely I need to change the formatting.
Also, Mr. Condell is no George Carlin.
stealthbadger 4 months ago 5
@stealthbadger No he's not, I'd agree with that, Badj - I reserve that particular mantle for Lee Camp. Featuring this one today at my channel. Great job.
TheMercilessEye 4 months ago
Loved the H L Mencken quotation, and oh so true. :-)
ScreamsFromTheAbyss 4 months ago
I have a quick question. Recently here in the UK an engineer murdered a young woman. It turns out that he often used extremely violent pornography that women being abused and viciously injured.
Is there any problem in you estimation? After all, there is a free market consumer demand for this kind of pornography... When and if women are [or are portrayed as being] injured and abused for the sexual gratification of a certain faction of men is that just free speech?
2bsirius 4 months ago
(2) I don't see what the difference between being concerned about this and being concerned about Amnesty International's stands to stop violence against political prisoners. The unpalatable truth is that financially motivated entrepreneurs create this kind of porn which depicting women as just another consumable to be injured and/or disposed of for the sexual gratification because of a demand by some male consumers. It's a way to make money. The men are as manipulated as the women for cash.
2bsirius 4 months ago
@2bsirius Yep, in areas where sexual suppression is prominent you will find the sales of such excessively higher than areas where sexual suppression is far less or non existent & that violence has become a spectator sport in the areas of greater sexual suppression & less so if at all in areas with little or no sexual suppression.
Even looking internally state v's state in the US this is clearly visible.
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@2bsirius No, the problem is one of sociopolitical, systemic & learned behaviour. Imho, Badge has already answered this all be it indirectly. The sociopolitical(sp), systemic(sys) etc are fundamentally flawed. Having the right to do something within the present sp/sys is mimetically projected as an entitlement. An entitlement without collective & personal responsibility. Sp & sys has failed itself in this respect, it has perpetuated the concept of entitlement without responsibility.
cont...
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@2bsirius America has 7guns/adult, it does not mean everyone with a gun will murder. The emphasis of responsibility is on the individual for personal safety & responsibility. The same's true of BDSM, self regulation & accepted protocols within the lifestyle result in far less "abuse" than in the vanilla world which is steeped in non consensual acts of manipulation. In BDSM consent is the foundation of any engagement.
cont...
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@2bsirius A good friend coined the Emo fetish in order to enable the necessity for consent, prior Emo's would just vomit themselves all over the shop. Now being recognized they must seek consent for interaction, non will respect them otherwise, it results in more fulfilling engagements all round.
It becomes a problem is in main stream medias "interpretation" & dabbling into that which they don't care to understand & indeed interpret as nothing more than a sexual or abusive act that sells.
cont
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@2bsirius Again this goes back to entitlement, the lack of ability to relate to people & simply apply ones own interpretation without having the basic common sense to ask questions. Judging a book by its cover & by ones own standards. Not to mention the "profit" factor. Sex & violence makes money in the main stream. The assumption that everyone should be like you & does think like you & you would only do x,y,z to abuse etc...
cont...
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@2bsirius One-true-wayism, in this instance there is more profit for vanilla corps & institutions if one takes the present systemic & sociopolitical approach. BDSM for all intensive purposed has been exploited by main stream media & its not alone. If one dose not know it is polite & indeed the educated & common sense approach to ask. This approach is not supported by the present system, strike first & ask questions later if you can be bothered is. Projection is for the stupid & fearful.
cont...
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@2bsirius In short they apply their own principles to something they know nothing about rather than seek to explore the in depth reality. This "attitude" is born partly out of sexual suppression... Sexual political correctness. Indeed the irony is that in the vanilla world sex is used as a manipulation tool without consent being sought, it is also a taboo. Now that's perverted! :)
cont...
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@2bsirius D/s & M/s for example is not necessarily a sexual relationship, it is the dynamic itself that is of primary importance to the consenting parties. The vanilla world is preoccupied with the actual act of sex, the orgasm. This is not true of the greater majority of serious lifestyler's, to them the art of intimacy of the lifestyle, evolving & longevity is more to the point.
cont...
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@2bsirius The relationship of vanilla to the lifestyle is akin to mono trying to relate to poly, they cannot. I have to say in my experience of vanilla all they are interested in is sex, what you do for a living & how much you earn etc. In my lifestyle those things are considered incidentals.
Porn does not kill or corrupt, people kill & corrupt... Which brings us right back to personal & collective responsibility.
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@2bsirius Are you fucking serious? You make all these videos gushing over science and you make one of the most common errors of causation? Is it that violent pornography caused this person to kill or is it the fact that you don't like porn that wants to make it so? Do you want to also ban Catcher In The Rye because Chapman and Hinkley were both found with copies on their person after committing their crimes? You sound like that idiot lawyer wanting to ban video games
HeavyTrafficAhead 4 months ago
@2bsirius I'm afraid I would need to know a great deal more about the case, and would also need to know whether or not you are indirectly attacking me for a stance on porn I never took. I do believe that coercion and exploitation needs to be guarded against far, far more than it is, in all industries. Still, I do believe that John Ashcroft diverting resources from counter-terrorism to anti-pornography was an insane thing to do, and is a precise example of the overreach I was talking about.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger I'm not sure but I think he is referring to the Joanna Yeates murder. It should be noted that The Daily Mirror and The Sun were prosecuted and found guilty of contempt of court for reporting information that would prejudice a trial. Again I do not know the source of this persons information but I do know there was myth & sheer fabrication in the media which was successfully challenged in a court of law.
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@stealthbadger
Not every question is an attack. I asked because of the behaviour of Vincent Tabak who was just found guilty of murdering Jo Yeates here int he UK.
Only after the jury delivered their verdict [yesterday, Oct 28] could it be revealed that, in the days AFTER he killed the 25-year-old landscape architect last Christmas, Tabak watched internet porn which showed men having sex with women while holding their hands around their necks. Any connection? Just curious...
2bsirius 4 months ago
(2) I can see that there are a lot of hostile responses to my question...As for Kinkspace, sorry but the media here are just today free to report this...Until yesterday, there was a gag order on all media because reporting it could prejudice Mr. Tabak's trial.
2bsirius 4 months ago
(3) As for source for this, try the BBC website for yesterday. An article by Chris Kelly. Here's an excerpt:
"Vincent Tabak viewed violent internet pornography depicting men holding women by the neck in the weeks after he killed his Bristol neighbour Jo Yeates, it has emerged."
Yes, I think PC can be a problem, but it's not the only possible problem. That's why I think it make sense to look at data and not rush to conclusions.
2bsirius 4 months ago
@2bsirius the question is better put does the increased accessibility of violent porn create more Psychopaths , I'd personally doubt that was the case as I believe psychopaths are wired different than us normals and from the little I know psychopaths normally exhibit strange behaviour at a young age long before they get into strange porn
sausage4mash 4 months ago
@sausage4mash
I think the question might be if there is a lot of easily accessible violent porn is it likely that the people who access it will be influenced by what they see, and if they see women being beaten and used as targets for violence will they begin to think that is the norm?
But if you want to believe your version, no one can stop you from entertaining delusions.
2bsirius 4 months ago
@2bsirius I don't think a person of normal mind can be influenced into becoming a Psychopath ,could it tip someone over the edge ,maybe . I don't know what effect if any that sort stuff has but I'm dam sure you don't either .anyway badger was not defending porn so whatever
sausage4mash 4 months ago
@sausage4mash
1
I think I agree with you on that. There's a similar debate about whether violent films and video games are making people more violent and this doesn't appear to be the case.
The other issue is exploitation: Is sexual exploitation in the capitalism sense of term acceptable? By that I mean using women as prostitutes and porn actress in exchange for money? If not, how is mining acceptable, it is clearly more dangerous. Building is more dangerous too.
The issue becomes more...
BlunderCity 4 months ago
@sausage4mash
2
...complex when you try to assess how freely people choose their job. It's almost impossible to quantify that using any meaningful metrics. If the only job around is a miner or a prostitute then you don't really have a choice.
Also in this UK example, I imagine the videos viewed were between consenting adults, ie the violence is staged, it's not real. If not then that's already against the law and as such has nothing to do with porn. More like directing a snuff movie!
BlunderCity 4 months ago
@BlunderCity yep , it's definitely not a simple issue .I tend to think the state should have a limited role in curtailing the actions of consenting adults ,liberty needs to measured against harm and the harm that 2bsirius is referring too is the result of causation and also unproven .
sausage4mash 4 months ago
Did you just say "douche bag"?
That is a sexist term! SEXIST!!
TheLaughingOut 4 months ago
However all the notes in the background were super distracting. To break a common stereotype, I can't do two things at once.
TheTempleofNature 4 months ago
The style of this video looks awesome :)
TheTempleofNature 4 months ago
Love the cricket invasion :-3
Klingschor 4 months ago
SOOOO weird. I saw a cricket and lost my train of thought while watching your video just as you said you saw a cricket!
Took care of that problem though. :)
CrypticMantisTX55 4 months ago
I told you on skype what I think.
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
TheTruePooka 4 months ago
Love your videos. I"m glad you've made another video. I have nothing to add other than, "yay, badger."
abbynormal0ne 4 months ago
Good video; money is what really rules. Have you tried to have the text in this new format on the viewers right instead of left? Give it a try, I think it would be a bit more "comfortable" to watch (learned that many years ago as a young film student, something related to reading and how the brain processes info from left to right. We are drawn to look at your face, but have to pull to the left to read the text).
deepashtray 4 months ago
9:48 The Womens basketball team in question was Rutgers.
GingerAtheist 4 months ago
I prefer the regular old vlogging from wherever you are when u decide to pick up and talk. But this is good too.
xxxild 4 months ago
@xxxild Oh trust me, that won't stop.
These videos are too much of a pain in the ass to do exclusively.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@stealthbadger Well thanks for making them now matter how! Plus, it reminded me that I'm ditching my bank this month.
xxxild 4 months ago
@stealthbadger Good, I like the trees & the birds, especially those that squawk for center stage ;)
I'm going to skip the broader points you have raised, not because they are anything but on the nose but because they are & stand true. So I will add ;)
One of the problems I see in respect of this context is "entitlement" All laws, including the UN human rights charter etc (which I use as a door stop) Are focused on entitlement. No where is there mention of personal & collective responsibility.
Kinkspace 4 months ago
@stealthbadger You can teach me how to make a video one day then ;;)
Kinkspace 4 months ago
Great video. This is something that we must all realize if we want to manipulate the system so that it actually starts to benefit us. Thank you. Peace.
mojosideburns 4 months ago
@26libertarian You ever seen how the Right treats people who 'wander off the reservation'? Political correctness isn't just about the Left.
HeavyTrafficAhead 4 months ago
It is Capitalism? There was me thinking that it was all down to MulturalCarxism...
Honestly, I think that political correctness is a force for good in the world, but one that is surrounded by a swamp of lies and fabrications, exaggerations and myths. Most of the horror stories you hear turn out to be made up by right wing media.
It is really just codified politeness driven by a liberal education system and increasing twitchy, post civil rights, employment law.
Nothing wrong with that.
gabiotta 4 months ago 9
@gabiotta Well I do remember when 'PC' used to be called poltiness(social arena) and professionalism(the work place). That being said, sometimes 'PC', what ever it's definition, can be taken to extremes often with comedic effect. Much like anything else
HeavyTrafficAhead 4 months ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead
There is nothing funnier than transcending the occasional social convention in order to illicit a little embarrassed laughter.
The other day I dressed up a bus load of Downs syndrome young adults in Klan outfits and dropped them off in Compton.
Oh, how we chuckled once the dust had settled.
gabiotta 4 months ago
@gabiotta Pics plz, video if you have it!
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@gabiotta okay are you having a go at me? -_-
HeavyTrafficAhead 4 months ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead
No, I was just joking. Sorry, my delivery must have been a little off... :)
gabiotta 4 months ago
@gabiotta np, I was tired and should probably have gone to bed already
HeavyTrafficAhead 4 months ago
@gabiotta Eh, it can go too far. My big beef with PC is that it is that I'm sick of hearing people bitch pointlessly about it - and that too many people see it as an end in itself, rather than an attempt to describe what a human being in possession of some empathy and compassion does anyway.
stealthbadger 4 months ago 2
@stealthbadger
In my experience, the people who bitch about it are the ones who are suffering from having their bigotry restrained. They fail to understand that in educated company intent is a release valve that is unspoken but implicit in the whole system. Also that application of the system is situational. Work, home and Internet forums all have different rules.
/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE
I won't be fighting PC, but I will be active in it's continual refinement and redefinition.
gabiotta 4 months ago
@26libertarian ". Does it change anything ? No. "
Meaning that it has zero IMPACT on your life, just as I said.
impact being the key word in my original statement.....
SiriusMined 4 months ago
A bit oversimplified, but quite true, esp. the points about needing to understand the system you're living in & what actions you can take to be effective.
eumenidis 4 months ago
@26libertarian Yeah, and I like calling China Cathay and Muslims Musselmen. What ever blows your skirt up, Mary
HeavyTrafficAhead 4 months ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead Fucking hilarious!
mojosideburns 4 months ago
Oh, and as a free market capitalist, I should say... you're pretty much right on the money here in this video... :)
eagleeye1975 4 months ago
Just a tiny nitpick... Capitalism and "The Free Market" are not interchangeable terms. A few times in this video you confuse the two. Complaining to advertisers is not "Capitalism at work"... it's the free market at work. Capitalism is relatively benign, and only means the private ownership of the means of production. The free market is where individual incentives come in and play a role in decision-making.
eagleeye1975 4 months ago
@eagleeye1975 I understand the difference, but unfortunately without tying the two together, the oversimplifications that make the video less than 20 minutes long don't hang together well. >.< It's one of the many reasons the medium kind of stinks. Also, thank you! ^.^
stealthbadger 4 months ago
I think I'm going to miss the outdoors, birds interrupting videos. But this looks slick.
TheRecoveringZombie 4 months ago
@26libertarian The fact that you use an outdated term like 'mullato' says a lot. A poltroon with a quatroon is still a poltroon. BTW nimrod, got a stats for how many whites have lost jobs to blacks? Don't even try using the term 'quota' since racial quotas have been banned since the Bakke decision in the 70s
HeavyTrafficAhead 4 months ago
I don't know because I take this stuff pretty seriously but while I don't want social regulations or culture police I can't pretend I'm ok with the HeyRuka crowd of race hierarchicalism either
I always looked at it as the three forths split because on social issues I wan't 25% positive rights and on economic 75% positive rights
In other words I want just enough regulations to be free socially or economically without someone else having the right to take it away from me
Oh and Tfoot FTW!
Curas1 4 months ago
@26libertarian Race is bullshit and racism is too.. when people like Fringe and company speaks we will debunk it.
Eopyk 4 months ago
@26libertarian ..is she made of rubber too?
THEHARMONIKZ 4 months ago
@26libertarian Cultural marxism.. gosh that term is bullshit.. And often used for conspearicy theories trying to lick there opposition with a guilt by association and often a faulty one at that.
Eopyk 4 months ago
@26libertarian "Are there black people out there that hate me for being white? Yes. Do I give a fuck? No. "
Because it has zero impact on your life...
SiriusMined 4 months ago
@HannibalBarca13 agreed.
theskepticalheretic 4 months ago
@26libertarian Sorry, sorry. ._.
A little cranky today.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
Good analysis.
silverfoxcondor46 4 months ago
@26libertarian How is using the power of the pocket book 'controlling' anyone? I am compelled to buy products and services from companies that support speech/actions/what ever I despise/find objectionable? Doesn't sound very 'free markety' to me
HeavyTrafficAhead 4 months ago
Food for thought indeed.
Thx.
THEHARMONIKZ 4 months ago
I dig the green screen work.
theskepticalheretic 4 months ago
@HannibalBarca13 Thank you! They've been hating on me since "Why I'm Not a Libertarian," so I'm kind of used to it. In fact, it was their insistence on giving me lots of BS to deal with that made me decide to become a partner. That way their mumbo-jumbo rants are something I get paid to deal with. :D
stealthbadger 4 months ago
@26libertarian Okay, you've started in with the bumper sticker meaningless bullshit (like "Cultural Marxism," which is meaningless). Address the major statement in the video, that political correctness is more a function of the market than it is of government, or get the fuck out.
I'm sick of being lectured about things I never said.
stealthbadger 4 months ago
Ooooh, Purdy! Nice and sharp. Very pro. okay watching
HeavyTrafficAhead 4 months ago