“…the world is currently run by a generation whose upbringing has left them intellectually unable to be deal with modernity. This isn’t their fault. For someone to be in charge today, they’re more than likely to be in their 50s or 60s. Which means that when the Berlin Wall fell they were most likely already steeped in an intellectual tradition that had bedded in quite far. But what happened after 1989 was, as we all know, devastating to that tradition. The end of the bipolar world – the end of history as Fukuyama had it – and the end of the relevance of 50 years of political and military planning. Instead, things got weird. Germany was reunited in 1990, and a few weeks later, on Christmas Day, the first web server was turned on. Nearly 21 years later, and the internet has destroyed and rebuilt everything it has touched. Hierarchies have been under attack from networks for 20 years now. History certainly didn’t end, much to everyone’s disappointment.”—
Ben Hammersley’s speech to the IAAC (via new-aesthetic)
This is a great talk.
What fascinates me, though, are the people in their 20’s who think this same way because they’ve spent their entire adult lives working for companies that are older than the internet.
Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years
Everyone take a deep breath.
If you plan to bring logic and reason into most of the complaints the GOP levies against Obama, plan to be ignored. This isn’t about logic, or reason, or even reality; this is about what “should” be true, and in their minds, Obama “should” have lost because he’s the bad guy. It’s childish and stupid, but when your tag line is how “obviously the country is going in the wrong direction” despite all evidence to the contrary (to say nothing of the party platform to ignore evidence generally, and more specifically to ignore evidence for evolution and global warming) what more do you honestly expect?
At this point, expecting illogical and unreasonable irrationality from the GOP is the only logical and reasonable stance to take.
Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.
Willard Mitt Romney (via paxamericana)
This is where I would put a comment talking about how it’s important to understand that the Constitution is really old and must be interpreted to apply to situations hundreds of years later.
Also, where is marriage in the Constitution?
(via somepolitics)
If you look at the constitution closely, you can see Jefferson scribbled “no homo” in the margins on the last page.
(via stfupenguins)
The “will of the people” doesn’t enter into conversations about civil rights. The majority does not get to vote to marginalize the minority and call it fair or valid.
(via stfupenguins)
Q:also i know you'll probably say something about over population or how we don't really need to create more children considering all the children that exist without families, or even about the validity of those couples unable to have children so for over population it's true, and i'm not saying the threat to our existence is here now but it does go against nature. as for couples who cant have children, natural selection takes care of that.
Anonymous
I knew I’d get at least one comment like this. I’ve broken it down line by line below:
also i know you’ll probably say something about over population or how we don’t really need to create more children considering all the children that exist without families,
You “know” wrong - I won’t, and I won’t need to.
or even about the validity of those couples unable to have children so for over population it’s true
Also wrong: I don’t feel the need to judge the “validity” of other people’s relationships.
and i’m not saying the threat to our existence is here now
Foreboding, but okay. Aside from ourselves, neither am I.
but it does go against nature.
Huh. That’s interesting, in its complete and total inaccuracy.
Which part of “nature” are you referencing this being against? The part where gay animals actually exist? The part where gay animals also exist as monogamous couples? How can something that already abundantly exists in non-human “nature” be “against nature?” How can something that naturally occurs in all species above a certain intelligence threshold be “against nature?”
More importantly, how can something that naturally occurs in human beings be “against nature” unless you’re using some new and vacuously self-serving definition of “nature”? To be totally honest, this is such a specious argument that I’m not even entirely sure what you’re trying to communicate.
as for couples who cant have children, natural selection takes care of that.
So your entire argument for monogamy is procreation? I think you’re missing your own point here. In fact, I’d argue that if your goal is procreation and continuation of the species, monogamy is more of a threat as it inevitably leads to a limitation on human production. Hell, tossing monogamy would help solve that natural selection “issue” you mentioned earlier as it would allow the potentially positive advantageously procreative genes from one partner to not be limited by the other partner’s nonprocreative genes.
But that’s not what you’re actually saying, is it? You’re not actually making an argument for a human institution to be regulated by the “laws of nature.” You’re just inventing arguments that sound similar enough to scientific concepts that you hope they’ll convey scientific weight to invented arguments like attributing an innate morality to nature. Put more plainly: You’re obviously grasping at straws hoping that if you make enough small points that sound like they might be valid, they’ll come together into a larger one that will.
But that’s the funny thing about small points and logic: they don’t work that way. They each need to work together for a larger point to be made. Yours work at odds against each other: Disregarding the incorrect “definition” of “nature” as demonstrated above, either male/female monogamy is “against nature” for its inability to produce children (meaning that the goal of procreation is paramount, and monogamy as an institution falls apart) or the monogamous coupling itself as a social structure is paramount and therefore it doesn’t matter whether children are produced or not. You cannot have it both ways.
But you knew that. You were just hoping that if you threw enough of those straws into the air, your lack of an actual point wouldn’t be as obvious.
So I don’t need to say anything about overpopulation or the number of children that currently require families; while they’re important topics, they don’t need to be addressed to invalidate your argument. All I need to invalidate your argument is your argument, as it inevitably invalidates itself.
Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.
In other news: sky blue, fish swim, birds fly.
Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules - latimes.com
There isn’t a single logically valid, nonreligious argument against gay marriage.
Not one. And if the only argument you have is that your specific religion disapproves, well, that’s not really an argument at all; at least not in this country.
Orly Taitz loses birther case to an empty table.
My favorite headline of the day.
Birthers: When you absolutely, positively have to be the dumbest motherfucker in the room.
"Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities" as per the FBI and Justice Dept's new flyers:
- “Are overly concerned about privacy..”
- “attempts to shield the screen from view of
- others”
- “Always pay[s] cash…”
- “Evidence of a residential based internet provider…”
- “Use of anonymizers, portals, or other means to shield IP address”
- “…using VOIP or communicating through a PC game.”
- “obtain photos, maps or diagrams of transportation, sporting venues, or populated locations.”
Just in case you forgot to live in fear and suspicion, the FBI and Justice Department are here to help!
Now, to their credit, they do admit that “some of the activities, taken individually, could be innocent” but then immediately go back into bullshit mode with “and must be examined by law enforcement professionals…”
So even admittedly innocent activities “must” be examined now; because you should always default to fear and suspicion. Good citizen.
The kicker? Ending with this gem:
- “It is important to remember that just because someone’s speech, actions, beliefs, appearance, or way of life is different; it does not mean that he or she is suspicious.”
Unless their “way of life” involves being “overly concerned about privacy” - then they’re a “potential terrorist” who “must be examined.”
I would be ashamed, if I wasn’t so sure that was a “potential indicator of terrorist activities.”
If we’re willing to spend $750 billion (so far) to make democracy in Iraq possible, we should be willing to spend one-twenty-fifth of that to make democracy in America work.
After Apple’s Q4 numbers, I bet a number of politicians are going to ask why we’re expected to prioritize the entertainment industry over the tech/internet industries.
And if not, they damn well should.
Rumor has it this is the bill that SOPA will be merged with: The Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011
Yep, from the very same Lamar Smith, with 5 CA co-sponsors. When all else fails, lump the objectors together with pedophiles and/or terrorists.
So a racist, dimwitted, power-hungry hypocrite won a GOP primary?
You don’t say…
Please Pray For Jessica Ahlquist
http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2012/01/16/christian-classmates-threaten-girl-with-eternal-rape-in-hell-for-removing-prayer-from-school/
Just because she’s an atheist doesn’t make it right to make her feel unsafe or unwanted.
WWJD? Well, burn her in hell for eternity. For not believing in him. That IS what the bible says. Right? I don’t see how adding rape to eternal burning torture makes it any worse that what Jesus supposedly said if he actually existed.
-FA
If one of her classmates said “I’m going to rape and torture you” then it would obviously be punished as criminal behavior. If one of her classmates knew she was to be raped and tortured and did nothing to prevent it, they would also be prosecuted as an accomplice for failing to report the events.
So explain to me again why “My imaginary friend will rape and torture you” is protected and shouldn’t be prosecutable harassment? Whether you threaten someone or use a supernatural third party to do the threatening should be treated the same way. Your personal religious insanity isn’t a magical “get out of civilized obligations free” card that you can wave around whenever you see fit.
Let’s drop the act and stop pretending like threats of physical or emotional trauma are protected religious speech - it’s just a cowardly way of threatening someone because you’re admitting that you hope someone else does it for you.
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’
