In The News

[The PredBen]

I'm very sorry the people of Haiti live in such shitty conditions. Really, I am. People live in shitty conditions in Haiti, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Mumbai...the list goes on and on. That author is nothing more than a self-righteous whiner. I am well aware that people suffer in this world. But how exactly am I supposed to go about helping, other than donating via charity? And before you say, "Go volunteer with these organisations and work yourself", you have to remember the average simply can't do that. They have responsibilities and priorities of their own need they must tend to. That author is saying "f**k your priorities, the poor black kid in another country is starving so you need to stop what you're doing and help him instead". Sorry buddy. I'll help that poor kid when I know I am able to do so without it negatively affecting me.

For the record, Bill Gates aside, the super wealthy tend to be among the least charitable and compassionate people on the planet. I agree that the Average Joe shouldn't be forced to donate their money to poor kids in some other country. But the country's elite should at the very least be helping the poor in their own nation, and often times they don't.

Why? Because "muh feelings"?

Well, maybe they should care about these people, if they hope to stay in power. I mean, look at what happened to the Tsar in Russia. He and his fellow nobles showed either hostility or indifference to the vast majority of their population. And that allowed the downtrodden commoners to be manipulated by Lenin and his lieutenants.

And besides, what's wrong with putting the species above the individual, especially once the individual is already set for life? If I have children, I don't want them to inherit a broken world, even if I'm not around to experience it.

[Deathbearer]

All this idealism is nice and all, but hilariously unrealistic.

It's not idealism, it's rationality. It's what people are great at but just don't realize yet. We're always seeing and hear people yelling and bullshitting but most of the time when people sit down and talk reasoning happens.

Great at rationality? If that were the case we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have. The fact is that individuals can be rational, but when people group up that quickly flies out the window. And we've all found ways to group ourselves, be it through religion, race, nationality, whatever. That's not likely to change.

[The PredBen]

All this idealism is nice and all, but hilariously unrealistic.

It's not idealism, it's rationality. It's what people are great at but just don't realize yet. We're always seeing and hear people yelling and bullshitting but most of the time when people sit down and talk reasoning happens.

Great at rationality? If that were the case we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have. The fact is that individuals can be rational, but when people group up that quickly flies out the window. And we've all found ways to group ourselves, be it through religion, race, nationality, whatever. That's not likely to change.

I actually agree with you. People's loyalty to their race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, political affiliation, or whatever, is often much stronger than any loyalty to a greater good.

[whiterabbit]

All this idealism is nice and all, but hilariously unrealistic.

It's not idealism, it's rationality. It's what people are great at but just don't realize yet. We're always seeing and hear people yelling and bullshitting but most of the time when people sit down and talk reasoning happens.

Great at rationality? If that were the case we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have. The fact is that individuals can be rational, but when people group up that quickly flies out the window. And we've all found ways to group ourselves, be it through religion, race, nationality, whatever. That's not likely to change.

I actually agree with you. People's loyalty to their race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, political affiliation, or whatever, is often much stronger than any loyalty to a greater good.

Unfortunately that is the case. Gotta unlearn what we have learned. Well can't change anything unless you try.

So what are you guys most loyal too? I'll admit that I am American and Democratic, moestly.

[The PredBen]

I'm an American, not aligned with any political party. Kind of hard to describe what I'm loyal too. Generally those who have been loyal or kind to me. On a larger scale, I guess I am loyal to some ideas. Not really attached to any political group or anything.

[whiterabbit]

Yea larger things, even concepts, like doing what is best even though it may not always be right.

[The PredBen]

Yea larger things, even concepts, like doing what is best even though it may not always be right.

What exactly do you mean by the above?

[whiterabbit]

More abstract ideas. Essentially taking a few risks every so often. Like how we used to go to the moon.

edit: well I guess this type of idea isn't really practical for the conversation.

[DoomRulz]

I'm very sorry the people of Haiti live in such shitty conditions. Really, I am. People live in shitty conditions in Haiti, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Mumbai...the list goes on and on. That author is nothing more than a self-righteous whiner. I am well aware that people suffer in this world. But how exactly am I supposed to go about helping, other than donating via charity? And before you say, "Go volunteer with these organisations and work yourself", you have to remember the average simply can't do that. They have responsibilities and priorities of their own need they must tend to. That author is saying "f**k your priorities, the poor black kid in another country is starving so you need to stop what you're doing and help him instead". Sorry buddy. I'll help that poor kid when I know I am able to do so without it negatively affecting me.

For the record, Bill Gates aside, the super wealthy tend to be among the least charitable and compassionate people on the planet. I agree that the Average Joe shouldn't be forced to donate their money to poor kids in some other country. But the country's elite should at the very least be helping the poor in their own nation, and often times they don't.

Why? Because "muh feelings"?

Well, maybe they should care about these people, if they hope to stay in power. I mean, look at what happened to the Tsar in Russia. He and his fellow nobles showed either hostility or indifference to the vast majority of their population. And that allowed the downtrodden commoners to be manipulated by Lenin and his lieutenants.

And besides, what's wrong with putting the species above the individual, especially once the individual is already set for life? If I have children, I don't want them to inherit a broken world, even if I'm not around to experience it.

The rich are not the people holding political office. That's what a politician does. Also, the Soviet Union was a whole other beast, culturally and politically. People were starving in the streets and real change was needed. The situation in the West isn't so dire nor is it likely to be.

Nothing wrong with putting yourself beneath society but you're not obligated to do so. That kind of mentality reeks of entitlement.

[The PredBen]

I'm very sorry the people of Haiti live in such shitty conditions. Really, I am. People live in shitty conditions in Haiti, Egypt, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Mumbai...the list goes on and on. That author is nothing more than a self-righteous whiner. I am well aware that people suffer in this world. But how exactly am I supposed to go about helping, other than donating via charity? And before you say, "Go volunteer with these organisations and work yourself", you have to remember the average simply can't do that. They have responsibilities and priorities of their own need they must tend to. That author is saying "f**k your priorities, the poor black kid in another country is starving so you need to stop what you're doing and help him instead". Sorry buddy. I'll help that poor kid when I know I am able to do so without it negatively affecting me.

For the record, Bill Gates aside, the super wealthy tend to be among the least charitable and compassionate people on the planet. I agree that the Average Joe shouldn't be forced to donate their money to poor kids in some other country. But the country's elite should at the very least be helping the poor in their own nation, and often times they don't.

Why? Because "muh feelings"?

Well, maybe they should care about these people, if they hope to stay in power. I mean, look at what happened to the Tsar in Russia. He and his fellow nobles showed either hostility or indifference to the vast majority of their population. And that allowed the downtrodden commoners to be manipulated by Lenin and his lieutenants.

And besides, what's wrong with putting the species above the individual, especially once the individual is already set for life? If I have children, I don't want them to inherit a broken world, even if I'm not around to experience it.

The rich are not the people holding political office. That's what a politician does. Also, the Soviet Union was a whole other beast, culturally and politically. People were starving in the streets and real change was needed. The situation in the West isn't so dire nor is it likely to be.

Nothing wrong with putting yourself beneath society but you're not obligated to do so. That kind of mentality reeks of entitlement.

I agree the situation in the West isn't anywhere near that dire. But it can be a slippery slope, that's all. And the reason I mention the rich is because most politicians seem to be bought out by corporations, or at least pass a lot of laws in their favor. But you're right, my issue is not with the rich, but more with the politicians who are easily corruptible. Corruption, of course, is something you have to deal with in a capitalist, democratic society, which makes me question if democracy is really all that great anyways.

[DoomRulz]

I really hope you're not implying corruption is something that only affect capitalist democracies because if you are, every communist leader throughout history is currently holding on line one and would like to have a word with you.

[Valaquen]

Corruption, of course, is something you have to deal with in a capitalist, democratic society, which makes me question if democracy is really all that great anyways.

Thomas Carlyle didn't think so, but benevolent dictatorships are few and far between. A Cincinnatus unfortunately isn't born every generation.

I really hope you're not implying corruption is something that only affect capitalist democracies because if you are, every communist leader throughout history is currently holding on line one and would like to have a word with you.

Capitalist, Communist, whatever ideology, elites always find a way. I remember one of Che Guevara's remarks when visting the Soviet Union and being presented with silver cutlery: "Is this how the proletariat eat in the Soviet Union?" The Soviets quickly soured on him and vice versa.

[DoomRulz]

Yeah, exactly. The only difference though (at least generally speaking) is that a corrupt democracy still allows for elections. A communist government won't so there's no hope of change, short of a revolution.

[whiterabbit]

The phrase government for the people by the people, should be retitled government for the masses by the masses and whatever mass is large enough kills off all the rest. That's kind of what pulling all the money into one itsy bitsy location is. Slowly starving off other areas till the blood vessel that feeds them snaps. Looking for the silver lining though, once enough people are cut off eventually that 1% will grow to 2% until were left with 100% or one single albino engineer like in Prometheus.

[The PredBen]

I really hope you're not implying corruption is something that only affect capitalist democracies because if you are, every communist leader throughout history is currently holding on line one and would like to have a word with you.

I'm not. However, everybody living in the West is aware of the evils that come with communism. I'm just making the point that capitalism is just as bad. And I'm no supporter of communism, I just believe that some aspects of socialism should be integrated into the U.S., where I live.

Yeah, exactly. The only difference though (at least generally speaking) is that a corrupt democracy still allows for elections. A communist government won't so there's no hope of change, short of a revolution.

But what's the point of elections if they don't do anything? If all the political parties in a capitalist democracy are subservient to the same corporations, having elections isn't going to produce a change. You'd still need a revolution. And yes, I do believe at least in the United States, that the majority of the politicians are under the thumb of one corporation or another.