All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

If it is decided that certain classes of citizens should lose their right to vote, then who makes that call? If it is decided that people must pass a test before gaining the right to vote, then who writes that test? Who grades it?

I personally find Neo-Liberals/Neo-Conservatives too naive to vote; indifferent to the violence, misery, exploitation, pollution and economic decay their thinking has caused us over that past several decades. If I were to write a political literacy test, these people would fail it.

Would this be fair?

The human mind is excellent at rationalization. Do something that you know to be wrong and within a fraction of a second, your mind has already come up with several ways justify or dismiss the wrong doing. We all do it, and in most cases it is a fairly innocent process, but when you get a mass of humans using this process collectively to justify taking action against another class of people, that's how fascism is born.

Pre-WW2 Germany was filled with normal, rational people, whom for whatever reason, were able to rationalize violence, conquest, bigotry and genocide.

But that was a long time ago, right?

If you take away the prism of patriotism and the divine right of American exceptionalism, haven't we already rationalized the violence of war in the Middle East and the conquest of their natural resources? Haven't we already rationalized bigotry towards labor, the poor, Muslims, African Americans, Mexicans, gay people and liberals? Haven't we already rationalized the genocide of Native Americans and residents of Iraq, Afghanistan, Chile, El Salvador, Columbia, Vietnam....? Aren't there people already in the process of rationalizing future violence and conquest in Iran?

I know it makes people on this site uncomfortable to discuss fascism, or the possibility that America is taking steps in that direction, but if you take off the patriotic blinders, the signs are there.

This is how it starts.

>> ^dag:

I would say no. It's an adaptation of our brains that makes us better hunter gatherers but that's it.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Here is something to chew on, is color an actual property of light, or a property of minds. IE, does color exist outside of minds as a real property.



I agree, completely>> ^BoneRemake:

Its like that question about a tree falling in the Forrest, you don't have to experience the light to know it is made up of the different bands.


Right, it could be shown that light has different wavelengths outside of a minds ability to understand it. But it isn't necessary that light wavelengths be colorful; the visual experience of 475 nm isn't necessarily blue more than it is the flavor strawberry. It is perhaps a trivial distinction for some, but minds are very interesting me.

I think I am approaching a logical construct that would also deconstruct space and time in the same fashion as color. Now, just have to construct the ACTUAL reality...no problem

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I would say no. It's an adaptation of our brains that makes us better hunter gatherers but that's it.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Here is something to chew on, is color an actual property of light, or a property of minds. IE, does color exist outside of minds as a real property.

Now I want a prism too! Great post!

I am going to go get me a prism right now so I can have the power to split light.

Did you wake up the neighbors laughing as you wrote that?

Not a bit of it. The NBP have a history - as an organization - of racism and advocating violence. This is the NEW BP organization I'm talking about - not the BP (which is different). The NBP site here is plainly motivated by race from start to finish. Just look at thier objectives. Every single one of thier objectives is filled with racial terms. Stuff like, "Black police officers are black men first and police officers second..." and "100% opposed to white takeover of the inner city" and "we affirm that governments, corporations, and white private citizens ... have enslaved, discriminated against, robbed, and disenfranchised our people in ... countless ways" sure sound like racist terms to me.

http://www.newblackpanther.com/newsite/92.html

Being a 'racist' means you look at things through a prism of race. It cannot be denied that the NBP organization is racist. 100% through and through. But I can find no Tea Party organization that makes race a major platform of its goals or objectives or even talks about race at all. Show me the quote from an official spokesperson who is authorized to speak for the Tea Party that is making these so-called racist statements. There is no such animal.

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx
http://theamericanteaparty.org/

Small government. Free Markets. Constitution. Fiscal responsibility. What's absent? Race. The Tea Party opposes POLICIES, not color. I don't get how so many people who otherwise seem reasonable can fall for such a blatantly obvious lie. The last time I saw this level of blind, wilful idiocy was the defense of Bill Clinton's perjury and the whole "It's only about sex" bilge.

And you need to learn to seperate the message from the messenger wulf. Just because the HuffPo is a neolib leftwing haven doesn't mean they don't get some of thier facts right. Just like Breitbart is a neocon rightwing bastion and sometimes does really good reporting alongside their screeds.

The site I linked is clearly a right wing bunch, and some of their stuff is good and some of it isn't. But the videos in the main page are what they are and show the ugly face of racism - and it ain't in the Tea Party. "Minister" King Samir Shabazz is what the link says. The NBP organization's leader is Malik Shabazz - also a known anti-semite, racist, and mysoginist. Samir talked about the killing of 'cracker babies' and the closest Malik ever got to repudiating it was saying he 'didn't agree in that context'. Nice.

The NAACP issues charges of racism at the Tea Party with no evidence but unverified comments from random, unidentified kooks. At the same time they ignore clear, blatant racism from orgs like the NBP. And then they wonder why no one takes them seriously anymore.

No one let this man into a prism store! This is how metaphysical pseudo-sciences get started.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sky arts, pink floyd, prism, primrose hill' to 'sky arts, pink floyd, prism, primrose hill, great gig in the sky' - edited by therealblankman

Reporter: So, Mr. Ford, can we get the Model A in another colour?
Henry Ford: Sure, you can get it in Any Colour You Like, as long as it's black.

chilaxe,

I'm not interested in the psychology of the combatants, but rather the psychology and 'spin' of those viewing it, my own meta spin (that this video makes some white people feel comfortable in their pre-judgments) included. None of us are even remotely objective, and those who claim to be (lookin' at you Ayn) least of all. We see everything through the deforming prism of our own minds. Life experiences, upbringing, family, nurture, nature, culture, media, etc. inform how we view the world, which explains how a simple glass of wine can, at the same time, be a nice treat during a meal, a life-destroying addiction or the metaphorical blood of a supernatural being.

The various rationalizations behind the 'taking of sides' is what I find interesting about this particular internet phenomena. At its heart, this video is about one person kicking the shit out of another, but the defining descriptors in the comment section vary significantly from person to person: black vs. white, old vs young, big vs. small, short vs. tall, innocent baystander vs. shit talking jerk, racist white man vs. black guy, two crazy guys, etc... . We all bring our own baggage to the vague narrative of this fight, leading us to many different conclusions and many different meanings.

I'm not trying to say anyone is right or wrong. I'm not trying to patronize. Just making the point that there are highly subjective reasons we believe the things we believe, which have little to do with rationality or logic. Being aware of this is a good thing.

Lucky760, this is precisely what I mean by not being able to view this ad outside of your own cultural prism. You're clearly not a cricket fan, and I'm guessing you're American? Windies fans are celebrated around the world for the way they spectate, and Australians are certainly not stereotyped (not even by ourselves) as quiet, civilised reasonable cricket fans.

To the audience the ad was marketed to, it portrays a fan who's gone to his home game and found himself in the opposition cheer squad. How to get out of this awkward situation? Share your lunch, and make sure it's KFC because everyone loves it.

I'm not saying it's champagne stuff, but I am saying that is what they intended. Now, how a multinational brand managed to overlook the internet and its reinterpretation elsewhere is beyond me.

By saying he was sorry for the way people interpreted his comments he at least admitted he fecked up by commenting the way he did and I think that's the best you can hope for.

I didn’t accept that kind of logic when Bush was the screw up, and I don’t accept it from Obama. You can’t fly off the handle over rumors and get a free pass because you’re President. The bigger, better man is the one that takes the responsibility and consequences that come with owning up to mistakes and letting the chips fall where they may.

He came down on the cop. THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE'S RACIST!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0723092gates1.html

Gates has no leg to stand on. There were multiple eye witnesses, an open radio recording of the whole incident, and two other officers (1 black 1 hispanic) who agree that Gates was being offensive and disorderly. Gates was the one that dragged race into this.

The very KINDEST interpretation is that Obama was racist ‘in favor’ of Gates. Why Obama say the police ‘acted stupidly’ when he already admitted he knew NOTHING about the circumstances? Simple. (1) Gates is black and (2) the police arrested him. For a guy like Obama who looks at things through a prism of race, that’s all he needed to know.

Maybe you aren’t willing to admit that Obama also has NEGATIVE prejudices against white people. Fine. But it is inarguable that Obama is willing to give some people a free pass from responsibility because of their color. That’s still racism in my book.

The trick to improving race relations is sensitivity to other people's feelings

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8&feature=PlayList&p=08AD9A396E6640CB&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=24

Here’s a great video showing EXACTLY how Gates could have just defused this whole situation very easily and simply. Gates violated rules #2 (use common sense) and #5 (be polite). I’d say he also violated #6 (stay away from crazy friends) except that HE was the crazy one.

If Gates had just said, “Yes officer, here’s my ID. Sorry you got called out here for nothing,” then everything would have been just fine. No arrest. Everyone’s happy. But no, he has to throw a fit, insult the officer, and become disorderly.

It seems to me that the way to improve race relations here is for Gates to keep his ‘feelings’ to himself because his feelings made him into a freaking idiot. The officer never did a single thing to warrant being called a racist except to show up at the door. But to the racist idiot Gates, "white cop at my door" automatically means "I'm being persecuted because I'm black!". And the racist President Obama agrees with him.

qm:
I'm not IN that prism, but I know of it.
It's right next to the conservative thought-prism created by mainstream media, Hollywood garbage and government schools.
I'm in the other room, the one way way down to the left.
Last time I checked though, seemed like one was winning with floydian splendor and the other dim and dying.

//analogies are fun

My faith in humanity is waning.

QM: instead of piling onto the rants against you, I'll just say that you are fucking out of your head. That about sums it up. No need to actually attempt to respond to your vagaries about 'agendas' and 'prisms' and other non-debatable crazy talk. Any group of people who target another group for murder is worth knowing about, regardless of their political leanings.

It happens when someone taps on the glass outside the liberal thought-prism created by mainstream media, Hollywood garbage and government schools.

So outside of news, fiction, and school (government school? is that like public school?) what is there? Faux News, propaganda, and Christian school? Reality has a liberal bias.

But black on black crime is no joke, consider these statistics, from infoplease.com and Wikipedia.

5 Safest Cities:
Ramapo, NY                 72.54% white / 17.04% black
Mission Viegjo, CA       83.15% white / 1.15% black
O'fallon, Mo                 95.32% white / 2.24% black
Newton, MA                88.07% white / 1.97% black
Brick, NJ                      95.81% white / 0.99% black

5 Most Dangerous Cities:
New Orleans, LA        67.25% black / 28.05% white
Camden, NJ                53.35% black / 16.84% white
Detroit, MI                  81.6% black / 12.3% white
St. Louis, MO              51.2% black / 43.85% white
Oakland, CA              35.66% black / 23.52% white

Coincidence? I don't think so.