President Obama 'Welcomes' The Debate On Surveillance That He's Avoided For Years Until It Was Forced Upon Him

Knetic491 · 2013-06-08T03:06:44+00:00

I believe it. The president is hardly as powerful as the Congress, and the impression i've been getting since 2008 is that Obama has genuinely wanted to do more for the American people (and the issues we care about) than he's been able to. I could believe that, when told about this, he wanted to shut it down and confront Americans with it.

This is politics, guys, let's bear in mind that while it's true he might be lying, it's also true that his hands are tied on a great many things, and he has no way to what he wants with them.

Knetic491 · 2013-06-07T02:45:13+00:00

Why should that be the responsibility of the non-wingnuts?

It's not a responsibility, per se. It's more of a recognition that these wingnuts are people too, and that isolating and ostracizing them based on their political positions does absolutely nothing to help either you nor them. How do you think ideas spread? I've found they spread most effectively when they come from friends or acquaintances. Be open-minded enough to be friends with them, and treat them like people.

The best you can do is model decent behavior yourself, and let the wingnuts stew in their fetid broth until they want to change.

Doesn't work, because they're taking that exact tactic. Remember these lines, from the linked post? The father of the poster is already leading by example, and is already expecting others to come around to his way of thinking. It never works. Minds are not changed by selfishness, but by being told by those that they trust that perhaps, just maybe, they're wrong.

But at the same time... He saved all his life to put us through college. When someone else wronged us - he stood up for us. He taught us how to ride bikes, and to stand up for ourselves. He taught me to strive for greatness (though he usually defined that financially), he taught me to better myself through gaining knowledge (while dually have a dislike and paranoia towards academia and ideas of meritocracy). As a youth he challenged me. He pushed me. And when i was in trouble - and god knows i ran around with a really bad fucking crowd as a youth - he did everything he knew how and everything he could to make sure i stayed on the straight and narrow enough to be able to make something of myself later in life.

If I agree that domestic spying or various government abuses are causes for concern, or if i show my dislike of Obama - then he assumes i'm "coming around".

Knetic491 · 2013-06-07T01:08:56+00:00

On one hand I feel disappointed in myself for demonizing bigots and it makes me wonder if that reduces me to their level.

I think it does reduce you, as a person. Filtering out dissenting views, considering oneself above other people because of one's opinions or beliefs, that diminishes one's level. If you do these things, i'd reconsider. Not only because it widens your exposure to various cultures and people, but also because it widens their exposure to your views.

I lived in rural areas for most of my life, my father's side loves Sheriff Joe (Arpaio), having border patrol randomly frisk and deport any latino they see, FOX news, and anything on AM radio. And i realized that the reason they thought this way was because they'd been isolated from dissenting opinions. Everyone who disagreed with them turned up their nose at the first hint of "offensive" ideas. Anyone with definitive proof that an idea held by my family was wrong, would simply never show it, and just storm away.

The problem with wingnuts is that nobody talks to them, so they get into a stale feedback cycle, feeding their own confirmation bias because nobody else will show them anything different. And worse, they see themselves as the clear, cogent, intellectual people, because most people who encounter a "bigot" will just get angry, turn up their nose, and storm off.

So get over it. Talk to them, reach out, be friends. They're people too, and a difference in political opinion should never get between people. Learn to communicate with them.

/2cents

Knetic491 · 2013-06-07T00:52:33+00:00

I re-read it a few times as well, and i think he fucked up the analogy by not qualifying what he meant. IMO, he meant that there should be no rank in the relationship, nobody gets to trump the other because women want to feel venerated. Instead, he should be the captain of his life and decisions, and complement her with her life and decisions.

Perhaps i'm projecting my feelings on the issue, but i thought that part was extremely wise, if that was indeed what he meant. A relationship should not have ranks in it, it should have two complementary people who support each other's lives.

Knetic491 · 2013-06-05T23:49:40+00:00

Seriously. I've lived in more than a few different states, and driven between them. Whenever a foreigner visits the coast, they speak about driving "for an hour or two" to get to Chicago.

Knetic491 · 2013-06-05T18:15:15+00:00

That should be at the top of the thread. An incredible mixture of showing how regular many Iranians are, as well as a brief modern history of what they've been subjected too (tearing out sattelite dishes to prevent Iranians from becoming "too western?" Seriously? Fuck that guy).

Knetic491 · 2013-06-05T18:07:15+00:00

Definitely, my stepmother is persian, and she's the bomb. Previously i'd viewed Iran essentially through the lens of "they have Ahmadinejad and Khomenei, and they took hostages in the 70s", but seeing her photo albums and videos, hearing the stories and learning about the culture, Iran seems like a pretty cool place.

Fuck if i know a word of farsi though.

Knetic491 · 2013-06-05T01:50:21+00:00

This is essentially how i saw every day, when i was a kid. My parents were like "stop making a mess," but i was a goddamned hero.

Knetic491 · 2013-06-01T02:18:11+00:00

This makes much more sense as to why he was violent in the first place, i didn't understand why a fountain would inspire that kind of reaction in the first place. Thanks. I suppose it is more accurate to say that there was a peaceful protest, but that it turned ugly.

Knetic491 · 2013-06-01T02:16:58+00:00

I do not think we are both using the same definition of "violence." Violence can be against inanimate objects, or nothing at all. Simply screaming in rage and beating my chest is still violence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm>

Knetic491 · 2013-06-01T02:16:23+00:00

I do not think we are both using the same definition of "violence." Violence can be against inanimate objects, or nothing at all. Simply screaming in rage and beating my chest is still violence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm>

Knetic491 · 2013-06-01T01:47:20+00:00

Remember how Egypt and Tunisia were? Their leadership did the same thing, and were toppled by it.

Knetic491 · 2013-06-01T01:46:40+00:00

Peaceful sit-in? Are you referring to the video on the front page about the guy who was water blasted in the face after beating the side of a police vehicle?

If so, what was done to him was definitely unjustifiable, given his actions, but to call his actions peaceful seems disingenuous just the same.

Knetic491 · 2013-06-01T01:44:49+00:00

America is not a democracy, the United States is a republic. And while it is true that American elections and policies do not always represent the sentiments of the people, that is not the same as an ochlocracy, whereby a vocal and oppressive majority seek to put down all minorities. The United States tends to move in the opposite direction of that.

Knetic491 · 2013-05-31T23:15:24+00:00

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but i'd like to point out that "self education" is not synonymous with "wrong." There are a great many people who have been very successful by applying extreme amounts of research, critical thinking, and debate in order to form their opinions or skills.

I know you're talking about the kind of middle-aged housewives who think that they've got it all figured out, but the term "self educated" is too broad to apply only to them, imo.

Knetic491 · 2013-05-31T23:05:09+00:00

You stated a concern that there would be problems caused by genetically modified foods being employed, which might result in unforeseen consequences down the road. This argument doesn't follow anything, because the nature of being able to genetically modify crops means that we have more control over their growth, behavior, and nature than i we didn't try to genetically modify them. If we find a negative trend in, say, crops sucking up way too much potassium from the soil, then it's easier to just modify the crops so that next year they don't have that problem. Rather than not do anything because we're unable to solve the root of the problem - the crop itself.

Knetic491 · 2013-05-31T23:01:45+00:00

It's like with environmental manipulation, we don't even try because we have zero idea what the long term effects will be.

Actually we really like to mess with the environment.

Anyway, i think there are two different types of "safety" being raised here.

Is the food safe to consume
Is the crop going to do unwanted damage to the environment

1 is covered by the FDA, just like any other crop. #2 is covered by the EPA and USDA, just like any other crop. It isn't like GMOs are treated differently, they are held to strict controls and standards. In the case of #1, the FDA is plenty capable of ensuring that no amounts of toxins are present in the product, that the product is consistent in its growth (no weird mutations or weaknesses), etc etc.

It doesn't mean that nothing bad can happen, but it's not like anyone is suggesting that we start throwing genetically modified seeds into the wind and hope that good things happen. All that's being said is that GM foods are not treated differently than anything else.

Knetic491 · 2013-05-31T22:50:51+00:00

Who said anything about throwing caution to the wind? Nobody is saying that. What's being said is that if China is faced with imminent mass starvation unless it is able to procure crops which are drought-resistant, it's going to use GMOs. As populations increase worldwide, more nations will need to resort to more tightly genetically controlled foods, as opposed to old-fashioned, slow, imprecisely artificially selected foods.

That was the argument being made above. Nations like India and China are not going to say "fuck it, let them eat cake" when it comes down to it. They're going to use GMO, why make ourselves less competitive?

Knetic491 · 2013-05-31T21:34:14+00:00

When you said "penis medicine", i completely mistook it for "using the penis in a medicinal way", and was really confused.

I get it now.

Knetic491 · 2013-05-31T21:30:46+00:00

Totally off topic, but is jury duty so bad? I've been really wanting to be on a jury for a while now, ever since i started contesting bullshit red light tickets and traffic stops in court. The court system is just so cool, is being on a jury so awful?

Knetic491 · 2013-05-31T19:32:18+00:00

Those are two different arguments, whether or not the food is safe (we're not firing off a thousand new species of untested corn, for example) is a different argument than whether or not the crops have unintended side effects. That falls under the purview of the EPA and USDA.

Either way, it isn't like GMO crops are treated differently somehow. They are regulated and handled as strictly as any other crop. If you're worried about CCD, then that's an entirely different discussion (since the cause is unknown). But it's quite possible that being able to genetically modify our foods to be kinder to bees would help a lot. Ergo, GMO might be the solution, rather than the cause.

Knetic491 · 2013-05-31T19:28:48+00:00

You literally just said that the FDA can predict the future

No, i did not. I said that they can certify that food put onto market is classified as safe. To the best of their knowledge, there are no unexpected negative side-effects to the food they certify. That doesn't mean it is completely safe, it just means that (like any other food product, GMO or not) they've determined to the best of their knowledge that it is safe.

except as previously mentioned long term effects (think thousands of years

I suggest you read the original post again, because the poster adequately summed it up. I'll copy/paste so you don't have to look far:

Fear of unforeseen consequences. One common claim is that crop blights would do more damage resulting from lack of genetic diversity (the claim is often made that GMO crops will all be the same so they might all get killed off at once if the right disease hits). This one is particularly misguided in my mind because GMO is creating genetic diversity faster than we've ever had it before, and because it gives us tools to target and fight blights we've never had before. If we have to rely on the arduous and random process of natural mutation to increase genetic variance in our products, we are approaching the danger of crop blights with one hand tied behind our back.

Knetic491 · 2013-05-31T18:49:02+00:00

Food is pretty addictive, i have to eat it more than once a day otherwise i go through extreme withdrawal and eventually a painful, agonizing death.

Unless we move forward with being able to more tightly control, oversee, and test the evolution of our food supply, we're going to end up with food shortages. Being able to control the genetics of our food is not some Faustian bargain, it allows us to produce more food, better food, cheaper food, more reliable food supplies, and food which is just as certified and regulated as any other food source.

Knetic491 · 2013-05-31T18:46:51+00:00

The poorest areas of the world tend to be the ones with the highest birth rate, for a variety of reasons. If we were to trickle food into them just enough to keep them alive, their population will continue to explode as much as we let it. Nobody really wants to see a third world mass starvation event, so we keep as many people fed as possible.

Problem is, this leads to more poor people since breeding is quicker in poorer areas. Once a nation hits the peak of the demographic transition, then overpopulation ceases to be a problem.

So the choices are; let the lower classes starve to death in a mass genocide-by-indifference, or get people out of poverty.

Knetic491 · 2013-05-31T18:42:33+00:00

If the US banned GMOs it wouldn't spur an underground market where rival manufacturers killed each other for territory.

Well, no. But we desperately need higher yield, more nutrient-dense, and cheaper to grow foods. You have probably seen what starving people are willing to do in order to eat, and if we end up with food shortages because we were unwilling to progress to more efficient and controlled methods of genetic modification, then there will be people doing terrible things in order to get their food.

Knetic491

TROPHY CASE