Just another reason to hate religious extremists and organized religion in general...

[kandrathe]

And while Mr. Russell is certainly a more credible person than the dingbat who made the above thread, his argument that Marxism is a religion is discredited in the same way, nevertheless.

I'm sorry;

God is love
Love is Blind
Ray Charles is Blind

Ergo, Ray Charles is God.

Just because some "dingbat" as you put it, posted on a "revleft" forum, and the lefties carved him a new orifice, ergo, does not mean Bertrand Russell is wrong. Critique his words. But, don't burn his books cuz you read it on teh internetz.

[Hammerskjold]

God is love
Love is Blind
Ray Charles is Blind

Ergo, Ray Charles is God.

Ahahaha, Ok, I gotta give you a slow golf clap on that one.

Impressive judo twist, most impressive.



Though this Bertrand Russell fellow does sound like a hipster rad wannabe.

Thank Hercules there is a site like revleft* where unbiased truth can be dispensed. For a second there I thought it was just an online echo chamber where adherents can chant their holy texts, curse their evil enemies. And\or scold the doubters, haters, and betrayers.

All you neigh sayers are just straight up, hate-o-rade drinkers.

Yep. Completely different.


* The first link went 404 on me. Did it go to the 'Memory Hole', or just a simple server hiccup?

In other news, The People's Judean Front are the real enemy.

(Some parts contain swearing, but hey it's to underscore a point. And it makes me sound edgy.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

edited ps.

Found this link to be pretty funny and may contain a grain (or two) of truth.

http://trotskyite.wordpress.com/tag/revleft/

/countdown for incoming histrionics decrying that trotskyite is a wannabe commie who isn't a true believer in 5..4..3..2...

[Alram]

Is this some kind of ironic joke? When I click on the link in the original post, this is the message I get:
"This video does not exist. "

[FireIceTalon]

Seems the man who recorded the video realized how much of a clown he was, and conveniently took it down.

[shoju]

Nor did I ever say I was amazing - thats you and hammer putting words into my mouth, once again.

No, you're right. you never said you were amazing, you just continuously call other people wrong, stupid, brain dead, make wild assumptions about them, based on your wild ideas about who or what they are, and do whatever else you can to make yourself the superior, smart, educated, good sounding one, and the other person, below, and beneath you.

Yes. Clearly, it's just us putting words in your mouth. nothing else.

[FireIceTalon]

Love how you conveniently ignore the rest of my post that led up to the last part. Not to mention the hypocrisy you spew is astounding.

You and several people on here make wild assumptions and misconceptions about my views (in addition to painting all communists with a very broad brush), and turn things around to fit your own views (even if it means completely vulgarizing and being intellectually dishonest about mine). Then, when I call you or whoever out on it (since, as I stated before, if I see something said that is false about my views, I'm going critique it, and why shouldn't I?), you guys want to play the victim card and call me some elitist. I'm not buying it, man. Sorry.

[Mavfin]

Shoju, Hammerskjold, Kandrathe, etc...

You realize that you're trying to teach a pig to sing, right?

[Alram]

Is this some kind of ironic joke? When I click on the link in the original post, this is the message I get:
"This video does not exist. "

Seems the man who recorded the video realized how much of a clown he was, and conveniently took it down.

Seems that y'all are fighting about something which doesn't exist. Lol

[Hammerskjold]

Shoju, Hammerskjold, Kandrathe, etc...

You realize that you're trying to teach a pig to sing, right?

Yes, but what else am I going to do with all these unpopped, half popped, mal-popped popcorn kernels? While I still have some bread crumbs left over, I think I'm going to save them to make croutons. I'm certainly not going to throw the kernels at pigeons, they're just going to crap on my car afterwards.

Might as well make the porcine performer sing for his supper. (But that's due to my capitalist bourgeois imperialist doggy dogma.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtA-FpTZOQw

If it can be done for that documentary clip, anything is possible.
'Babe' is a documentary right?

[Hammerskjold]

Seems that y'all are fighting about something which doesn't exist. Lol

That's quite true on many levels.

However I'm probably more guilty of troll baiting than fighting, but that's a technicality.

I award you the best 'Modern Zen Koan Reply' in a thread award!*

*No cash or monetary value assigned to said award.
No warranty expressed or implied in the award.
Award valid in participating locations only, please check your local
flyer for details.

[NiteFox]

Yes, but what else am I going to do with all these unpopped, half popped, mal-popped popcorn kernels? While I still have some bread crumbs left over, I think I'm going to save them to make croutons. I'm certainly not going to throw the kernels at pigeons, they're just going to crap on my car afterwards.

Sift them out (If you're using microwave popcorn, open the bag just a little bit and pour out the unpopped kernels), and pour them into a microwave-safe bowl. Cover the bowl with a microwave-safe plate and, guess what? Put it all in the microwave again.

Link. Stubborn, unpopped kernels can be redeemed with a second chance; but you will probably get a teaspoon full of true die-hards that refuse to pop no matter how many times you radiate them.

[eppie]

Is it me, or is atheism turning into a zealous religion these days?

Not an atheist? Then you're a moral and intellectual inferior and must convert because you offend me!

The only thing I can comment is that the name atheism is wrong. It makes theism the standard.
When the world was ignorant theism was the standard, but now that most of the intellectual elite doesn't have anything with organized religions, maybe we should change the name.

[Hammerskjold]

Sift them out (If you're using microwave popcorn, open the bag just a little bit and pour out the unpopped kernels), and pour them into a microwave-safe bowl. Cover the bowl with a microwave-safe plate and, guess what? Put it all in the microwave again.

I stopped buying microwave popcorn a while back. I usually like plain, non buttered, just so I can have the option to add my own. Besides that I personally don't like the taste of microwave butter. But even the advertised plain package ones, still contains trace amount of that artificial butter for some reason. Maybe it's just the store or my local supplier.

However when I did have some, I tried that method and other similar ones, with no good result. Either they come out charred, or unscathed and seemingly stronger. Much like many a superheroes origin story.

I'm now on a more traditional stove top with oil setup, and pre-warming the oil and salt with the corn, with slightly more success. I have an air popper, but it's a chintzy one that seems to spew out kernels like Pvt. Hudson shooting his pulse rifle in 'Aliens'.

but you will probably get a teaspoon full of true die-hards that refuse to pop no matter how many times you radiate them.

Yes, absolutely, the mutant X-Factor. I'm considering starting a home based corn genetics program, inspired by a posting about M&M candies I read once on the intarwebz.

Population Genetics

Whenever I get a package of M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels.

Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the "loser" and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round.

I have found that, in general, brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theatre of competition that is the modern candy and snack food world.

Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment.

When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars Inc., along with a 3 x 5 card reading "Please use this M&M for breeding purposes."

This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free ½ pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this "grant money." I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion. There can only be one.

Author Unknown, found in a U of T BIO150 Lab Manual

[FireIceTalon]

Is it me, or is atheism turning into a zealous religion these days?

Not an atheist? Then you're a moral and intellectual inferior and must convert because you offend me!

The only thing I can comment is that the name atheism is wrong. It makes theism the standard.
When the world was ignorant theism was the standard, but now that most of the intellectual elite doesn't have anything with organized religions, maybe we should change the name.

Theism in many ways still is the standard (or at least a standard), as I explained in my response to Nite. It would be in serious error to think religion is not political or social, and it is in fact an ideological appendage of the state (i.e. the state still permits the church hold anti-gay or anti-abortion policies, in some nations religions are supported by taxes, etc). If you aren't implying that though, then disregard what I said. But although religion may be less affiliated with the "intellectual" elite nowadays, it isn't so much the case with the financial elite (and an argument could be made that the intellectual and financial elite intersect quite often since the ruling ideas in society are those made by the elite, but that is another topic).

But it is also a social thing. For many, it makes an inhumane and unlivable world seem livable by means of illusion, which is a significant reason why it remains prominent. Religion is a social construct that predates class society, and its original purpose was to attempt to explain the social phenomena that man saw around him, since a materialist explanation or the scientific method was not yet conceived. Like all social constructs, its purpose came to change when class based societies developed, and it ultimately became structured and shaped around that premise. Thus religion became extremely useful as a ideological tool by the ruling classes to preserve and strengthen their social status, to varying degrees and contexts across time and space. There was indeed a time, very long ago, when christianity upheld values very different (equality, cooperation, love thy fellow human being) then the ones it does today (patriarchy, decadence, and a whole list of other vices) - but it (and all religion in general) now just acts as the root of our self-imposed alienation in so many spheres of society (including the familial level). It is logical to believe the nature of religion would change under a classless society.

I'm not sure changing the name of "atheism" to something else at this point has any real value. It's just semantics anyway, and discussions on semantics of course, usually go off on tangents from the meat and potatoes of the issue. In my very humble opinion, anyway.

[eppie]

Sorry, i didn't really write down what point i was trying to make. My issue whit nitefox' comment ( which is one your hear a lot from religious people nowadays as well) is that by calling people atheists you suggest some kind of group structure such as you have with religions.......but this group structure is not existing. Being an atheist just means you know that gods of all kind don't exist, it doesn't mean you are part of some group.

[FireIceTalon]

Sorry, i didn't really write down what point i was trying to make. My issue whit nitefox' comment ( which is one your hear a lot from religious people nowadays as well) is that by calling people atheists you suggest some kind of group structure such as you have with religions.......but this group structure is not existing. Being an atheist just means you know that gods of all kind don't exist, it doesn't mean you are part of some group.

Ah, ok I understand now. And I agree.

Never understood the whole notion that "atheism is a religion" or why some people call it such - it just shows peoples definitions of things, is well, anything. People will swear cherries and chocolate candies are the same thing these days, just because both have a sweet taste.

[Occhidiangela]

F.I.T.

Based on your posts on the Lounge, it doesn't take much to get you upset, and evoke an emotional rant.

Read the story of "the boy who cried wolf" and ponder how it relates to your body of work.

The "butthurt checklist" is going in my kit bag for future use, and is the only thing from this thread that made it worth reading ... though kandrathe's Ray Charles joke was nice ...

[kandrathe]

Shoju, Hammerskjold, Kandrathe, etc...

You realize that you're trying to teach a pig to sing, right?

Yes, maybe it is futile.

Even though FIT ignored Bertrand Russell (and why should he care what some other brilliant atheist, and socialist thinker wrote over 100 years ago. It's not sanctioned by the Revleft crowd, so it must be dog crap.), I read it all again to be better informed why a brilliant Nobel prize winning founder of modern philosophy would pillory Marx.

In fact he wrote, "For my part, while I am as convinced a Socialist as the most ardent Marxian, I do not regard Socialism as a gospel of proletarian revenge, nor even, primarily, as a means of securing economic justice. I regard it primarily as an adjustment to machine production demanded by considerations of common sense, and calculated to increase the happiness, not only of proletarians, but of all except a tiny minority of the human race." —Bertrand Russell, "The Case for Socialism" (In Praise of Idleness, 1935, pg. 81)

What I found interesting while I read his lectures, was that BR (a pacifist) was watching world events intently at that time, reflecting on it as it unfolded. He had analyzed the pre- WWI German socioeconomic climate, watched it swing toward social democracy, then after WWI as it snapped in a nationalistic rage, back into the perversion we know as national socialism. My schism with BR is in his strict adherence to his pacifism in the face of unrestrained brutality. There comes a time when in order to save all you hold dear, you grab the gun and shoot your assailant in the face.

What FIT fails to connect is proto- Marxist undefined revolutionary goals, and their inevitable consequent carnage. Marxism stops at "Burn it down". And, has no answer for; "How does it work now that we've got ashes?"

The hard part of maintaining a diverse society is defining how we live together with respect for one another, and not as in the OP "hate" ... Even when you disagree with the other persons point of view.

I am at least still hopeful, FIT can find his way out of the smokey Bavarian beer hall, and opt to tipple a glass of fine port with the gents at Oxford. He may not be up for it intellectually, but we shall see.

[FireIceTalon]

In fact he wrote, "For my part, while I am as convinced a Socialist as the most ardent Marxian, I do not regard Socialism as a gospel of proletarian revenge, nor even, primarily, as a means of securing economic justice. I regard it primarily as an adjustment to machine production demanded by considerations of common sense, and calculated to increase the happiness, not only of proletarians, but of all except a tiny minority of the human race." —Bertrand Russell, "The Case for Socialism" (In Praise of Idleness, 1935, pg. 81)

And neither do Marxists, and I am quite confident that I speak on behalf of just about all of them when I say that. BR's interpretation of Marxism in this statement is a vulgarization and misrepresentation of Marxist thought. Being a Marxist has nothing to do with getting revenge on capitalists, and everything to do with acting in our objective class interests - Marxism provides us with a scientific framework to do that instead of just a bunch of random ideas from idealist lefties. He is trying to insert ethics and morality into it, which completely distorts the point. There is nothing in Marx or Engel's work suggesting a proletarian revolution ought to be carried out in the name of "social justice". Rather, we regard so-called concepts of "social justice" and "economic democracy" to be a intrinsic aspect and necessity of socialism as a system, but inserting morality and ethics into economics turns the objective into something subjective, and this is an error, because it results in idealism. Marxism (or any scientific system of analysis) isn't an ethical framework, nor should it be. We want socialism because it is in our class interests, not because we think its "ethical". Now, more ethical relationships between people might result under socialism (such as people no longer having to or even wanting to blackmail one another for money) but that is another topic entirely, and has little to do with why we want socialism to prevail.

Russel is at best, an "evolutionary" socialist anyways (aka a utopian socialist - one of the things Marxism is very critical of), if not just a social democrat. I think he has some interesting ideas (and there are a number of other non-Marxist thinkers who I find interesting also, like Foucault, Chomsky, Emma Goldman, Rawls, or even Thomas Paine etc), but that doesn't mean I agree with the entire framework, or think it is compatible with Marxism as a system of analysis. They have some points and ideas here and there that are valid and useful, that is what I will merit them. But as far as me thinking all his work is crap - that is a bit presumptuous, don't you think so?

What I found interesting while I read his lectures, was that BR (a pacifist) was watching world events intently at that time, reflecting on it as it unfolded. He had analyzed the pre- WWI German socioeconomic climate, watched it swing toward social democracy, then after WWI as it snapped in a nationalistic rage, back into the perversion we know as national socialism. My schism with BR is in his strict adherence to his pacifism in the face of unrestrained brutality. There comes a time when in order to save all you hold dear, you grab the gun and shoot your assailant in the face.

Thats because the SPD betrayed the workers and moved to the right by supporting the war (with renegades such as Karl Kautsky). But Marxist thinkers like Leibneckt and Rosa Luxemburg of course disagreed with this, and broke from the party to form their own party (Sparticist Movement) that remained firmly opposed to the war and in favor of proletarian revolution. So in that sense, whatever his ideas may be, BR was right to remain a pacifist - if he is indeed on the side of socialism, why would he support a capitalist war that would result in the death of thousands or more working class men and women? Comrade, the only winners of any imperialist war are the capitalist class of the nations involved - everyone else loses. While I do not agree with his overall framework regarding socialism, I certainly agree him in declining to support a bourgeois war that would leave countless workers dead, all in the name of expanding private capital and markets beyond its borders.

Fascism developed around this time by the bourgeois as a last ditched effort to prevent proletarian revolution by suppressing unions and demonizing communism, and they still use it today whenever the capitalist system is threatened.

What FIT fails to connect is proto- Marxist undefined revolutionary goals, and their inevitable consequent carnage. Marxism stops at "Burn it down". And, has no answer for; "How does it work now that we've got ashes?"

But why of course, the carnage that occurs EVERYDAY under capitalism, and has been responsible for MANY TIMES more deaths and human suffering than all revolutions (Marxist or not) combined, is acceptable. Also, where did you get the idea that revolutionary goals for Marxists are undefined? Only by not reading a single piece of work from any leading Marxist (be it the founders, or someone like Bordiga, Clara Zetkin, Luxemburg, August Bebel, Gramsci, pre-renegade Kautsky, Lenin, and so many others) could one come up with the absurd conclusion that we have no defined goals (and if you did read something, you can hardly blame the theory for your own incompetence in understanding it). And thirdly, there is no "inevitable" result of any revolution or type of social change for that matter - unless of course you subscribe to the so-called 'end of history' theory like Francis Fukuyama does, who (mistakingly) believes that capitalism is the highest possible and final achievement for humankind. Needless to say, this is an overly deterministic viewpoint.

Relating the bloodshed of revolution as a result of Marxism is pretty laughable, it's like saying Christianity is responsible for the inquisition, instead of attributing these events to the material circumstances in which they occurred. It is after all, much easier to blame ideas or theories than it is to blame the people, their actions, and most importantly, the context of the material situation. It's ironic that bourgeois thinkers decry revolution so much, but they themselves were once a revolutionary class, and will defend their revolutions (and rightfully so, since capitalism is a more efficient and overall superior mode of production when compared to slavery or feudalism) as having been necessary. Just as radical social change was unavoidable in the late 18th century when feudalism was crumbling, the same will hold true for capitalism. It's just a matter of will it take humanity down with it, when it goes. But to think the way things currently are can continue as they are without radical social change, or that this system is sustainable - THAT is utopian thinking.

I am at least still hopeful, FIT can find his way out of the smokey Bavarian beer hall, and opt to tipple a glass of fine port with the gents at Oxford. He may not be up for it intellectually, but we shall see.

Yea, I don't hang out in beer halls, and in fact, I don't drink beer either (not much of a drinker in general). You can keep your stereotypes. But if I want a drink, I prefer jack and coke, and I hope it would be on the fine gents Oxford

[Hammerskjold]

I am at least still hopeful, FIT can find his way out of the smokey Bavarian beer hall, and opt to tipple a glass of fine port with the gents at Oxford. He may not be up for it intellectually, but we shall see.

You sir, are more generous of spirit in this regard than I am.

I however, won't bet that my un-programmed, just plugged in VCR will suddenly not flash 12:00...12:00...12:00, and just magically start displaying the correct time. Or even budge one second from 12:00. No matter how long I stare at it, or talk to it.

We've seen the behaviour of said troll for a while now. It is not about commie-ism. It is not about ideology. It's about an immature humanoid\ idiot in search of an identity, a cause to belong to, some grandiose monster he thinks he can slay.

If he joined a crocheting circle instead of commie-ism for a cause, he'd still be an extremist radical rebel without a clue. He'd still dismiss previous patterns and techniques, and he'd dismiss anything\anyone that doesn't function as an echo chamber to his own extreme views.

Short and blunt version: He will end up being attracted to the most extreme radical (which is obviously the edgiest and coolest) crocheting circles*, because that's what many an immature mindset seeks.

Everybody goes through this process at one point or another, it's called growing up\maturing. Some however, gets stuck, or chooses to remain this way.

It's a dangerous place to be in, because it can signal 'fresh meat' for people\causes who are always on the lookout for new 'useful idiots'. Or he can get into an 'in way over their head' situation, but it's ok because I'm super cool radical, Marx and the power of Diuretics will save me. Pfft, save me, more like overpower the situation and prevail. Like. A. Boss.

After a while, it doesn't matter if it's his inability to see past his own bubble, or he chooses to remain in his bubble. There is such a thing as a point of no return, crossing the rubicon, burning my popcorn into ashes.

From what I've seen Raddy Mcradish is near or reached the point of calcification. It's done. The best I can hope for is he's too dumb (or dumb lucky) to get into actual serious trouble.

Despite my troll baiting, I don't actually wish the moron serious harm. Not out of any warm and fuzzies, but because he's somebody's child (at one point at least). He may or may not have\had friends. All those people will be affected should said moron get into real serious shitsky.

So even though I'm not a praying man, I do pray to Thor that trollsky luck holds out, or is too dumb to get into anything serious. Because a part of me likes throwing popcorn and crumbs at oblivious trolls.


* Tread lightly around sweet old ladies named Agnes with a thousand yard stare wielding a knitting needle. She survived things that Che' beret wearing wannabes can't even imagine.