US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

[FireIceTalon]

...

Since polls show that the majority of Americans now actually support gay marriage*, the Republicans stood to lose out by continuing to make it a high-priority issue. Now they can drop it.

*citation needed but I'm too lazy

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/06/08/graph...-marriage/

Argh. Republicans.... Now, if only...

• Promote Immigration - we need more hard working smart people.
• Decriminalize drug use - drug users are victims of drug sellers
• Promote cost effective clean energy - why not?
• Stop warmongering...
• Drop the whole push for Voter ID - yes, stop fraud, maybe automate past punched cards
• Fix Obamacare - stop trying to repeal it.

I'm sure I could think of more...


More of a southern red neck issue, but;

** Enough with the Confederate flags - it is a symbol of an age of slavery. Yes, you have the right to wave it, or a Nazi one, or whatever, but you also will be judged by what you are saying with that symbol.

This might be the first time EVER where I actually agree with a post of yours almost completely. I think most of the things you listed in the first part of your post is a pipe dream though, unfortunately. Especially in the case of drug use (with the exception of pot perhaps), I can't see their use being decriminalized in this country in the near future if ever - especially with for-profit prison systems in place.

Obama Care was indeed sabotaged, but it never went far enough to begin with imo.

No more war mongering? This is definitely a pipe dream under capitalism. War is far too profitable for many industries and the politicians that pander to them.

Clean energy is a great idea, but is it profitable? Sadly, probably not.

Agree 100% about the confederate flag issue also. These people may as well being flying a swastika around.

That being said, I still find your views toward working and unemployed people as being "parasites" to be abhorrent, to say the least. My anger at you in my last post has nothing to do with our difference in political views. You are obviously privileged, and would have much to lose if socialism was victorious which is why you reject it, and therefore by extension the Marxist framework. I can understand that - class relations are an objective thing. But that isn't what got me fired up - it was because of the lack of empathy you have expressed towards the poor in that comment you made, which made me furious. Poor and unemployed people are among the most oppressed, alienated, and discriminated against in our society, especially if they are women (and in particular single mothers), POC, or queer. Working class and unemployed members of the working class already have stressful, difficult, unhappy/unfulfilling and even miserable (in some situations) circumstances to begin with, without being classified in the dehumanizing narrative of them as parasites from their exploiters, who ironically are the parasites themselves.

@Leming, no, Kandrathe isn't the bigger "capitalist boogeyman" (and the fact you would even try to make a competition or comparison out of such a thing is kind of childish, don't you think?) - you didn't directly make a derogatory comment about unemployed/poor people, which is why you didn't face the same expression of anger from me. I don't really care if you think I am a crackpot or not - all I need do is watch capitalist historical development unfold and be proven correct time and again, as I (and Marxists in general) have been in the past. But putting that aside, I really couldn't care less if you are a liberal, even if I find them to be silly and utopian in general. Nor could I care less if you are republican, libertarian or even a fellow comrade. But when you make disparaging comments about the poor or any other oppressed group, yes, I am going to call you out on it, BIG time. Because that sort of thinking NEEDS to be critiqued and called out. If such stereotypes and myths go unchecked and unchallenged, they just continue to perpetuate themselves.

@Bolty - I didn't lose any argument, and in fact, I would venture to say that many of the comments in both Lem and Kan's posts only STRENGTHENED or confirmed my larger points. But, if you want to think otherwise, have it. As I said above, I need only to stand on the shoulders of capitalist history and watch it unfold.....Be as it may, Kandrathe's views toward poor and working people are pretty repugnant, and I called him out on it, simple as that. Because that sort of thing SHOULD be called out. You may not have liked the manner in which I did so, but the comment itself which I called him out on is far more detestable. Hell, if someone said such a thing to me in person, me and that person would probably be putting our knuckle game to the test!

[LemmingofGlory]

@Leming, no, Kandrathe isn't the bigger "capitalist boogeyman" (and the fact you would even try to make a competition or comparison out of such a thing is kind of childish, don't you think?)

It's facetious. This happens to you a lot.

It has nothing to do with political ideologies or whatever framework we choose to view the world in. But putting that aside, I really couldn't care less if you are a liberal, even if I find them to be silly and utopian in general. Nor could I care less if you are republican, libertarian or even a fellow comrade.

Hollow words from someone who flings political labels around with wild abandon! Heheh.

But when you make disparaging comments about the poor or any other oppressed group, yes, I am going to call you out on it, BIG time. Because that sort of thinking NEEDS to be critiqued and called out. If such stereotypes and myths go unchecked and unchallenged, they just continue to perpetuate themselves.

This is actually something that gets people into trouble big time. Trying to be the Outsider Avenger usually results in '80s-style hero decay into what we might call The Butthurt Reactionary. For instance, I've seen so many allies flip their shit because someone dropped "gay" or "retarded" or "girly" as an insult, and when the Avenger is someone to whom these labels wouldn't be applied, it's frequently an over-reaction. People in those groups can usually more eloquently, and calmly, rebut someone who's being thoughtless or cruel.

When you have to live within a minority group, you get a sense of proportionate and disproportionate reaction. You learn which fights to pick. You eventually know the essential factual details because you live them.* You get a sense of how to react to people to try to reach them, because your goal isn't to be divisive.

* You are missing these in your discussions of LGBT topics.

-Lem

[FireIceTalon]

It's facetious. This happens to you a lot.

Which is missing the point...

Hollow words from someone who flings political labels around with wild abandon! Heheh.

So you will resort to "gotcha arguments" instead of looking at the larger point I was making? How original.

This is actually something that gets people into trouble big time. Trying to be the Outsider Avenger usually results in '80s-style hero decay into what we might call The Butthurt Reactionary. For instance, I've seen so many allies flip their shit because someone dropped "gay" or "retarded" or "girly" as an insult, and when the Avenger is someone to whom these labels wouldn't be applied, it's frequently an over-reaction. People in those groups can usually more eloquently, and calmly, rebut someone who's being thoughtless or cruel.

When you have to live within a minority group, you get a sense of proportionate and disproportionate reaction. You learn which fights to pick. You eventually know the essential factual details because you live them.* You get a sense of how to react to people to try to reach them, because your goal isn't to be divisive.

* You are missing these in your discussions of LGBT topics.

-Lem

Then we simply disagree here. Using those terms in any context is reactionary, and makes the person using them reactionary - not the person the term is being applied to (whether they are a part of the discriminated group in question or not isn't relevant). Calling something "retarded" is still a discrimination against mentally disabled individuals, regardless of the context it is being used it. The same is true of disparaging comments toward queers, women, or people of color. Further, whether people in those groups can rebut said insults better is hearsay, and is not relevant to the point being made here anyways - and that is that the terms "gay" (outside of the other definition or context of being happy) or "retarded" are discriminatory words regardless of their context. They should be called out as such, by those in the targeted group and outside of it alike.

My original point at the start of this thread: This decision to legalize gay marriage is not equality, it is cultural assimilation, and nothing more. The critique here though, is not of the decision itself, but of its conceptualization to conformity within the current ruling ideology (heternormativety), and the (distorted) way that the discussion of LGBT politics is framed as a result of this dissonance.

You fail to understand the intersectionalism that exists here, and when someone uses that framework to understand something, you have the completely backwards notion that it is they who do not understand the material reality of things. The problem is not with the Marxist framework or its inherent methodology of intersectionality - the problem is, YOU, the viewer, and your incompetence in understanding how class and identity politics (whether queer, gender, or racial) are intersectional. You treat these things as being independent of each other, when they very much aren't, and thus your analysis of the circumstances of queer people is incoherent at best. Lastly, I am not divisive - as a matter of fact, I am critiquing the divisiveness that is bourgeois heteronormative hegemony. If anyone is divisive here, it would be you, since anyone who sees through the folly of your sociological analysis is just a "crackpot".

[LemmingofGlory]

Calling something "retarded" is still a discrimination against mentally disabled individuals, regardless of the context it is being used it. The same is true of disparaging comments toward queers, women, or people of color. Further, whether people in those groups can rebut said insults better is hearsay, and is not relevant to the point being made here anyways - and that is that the terms "gay" (outside of the other definition or context of being happy) or "retarded" are discriminatory words regardless of their context. They should be called out as such, by those in the targeted group and outside of it alike.

I laid out for you a warning by way of analogy: in much the same way that gay allies (for instance) may over-react, you did the same regarding "the poor" to kandrathe. The fact that you've disagreed with the aspects of the illustration is really immaterial, because what I've described can and does happen (regardless of whether you think so!), and you just did it yourself. The analogy holds. What are you going to do to avoid future meltdowns? You can't convince people that you're right, including onlookers, if your method of doing so results in such catastrophe. It's divisive. It alienates both people who might agree with you and surely those who don't.

The elephant in the room, for me, is the question: Why don't you parse indirect language? Idiomatic language, analogy, and jokes evoke serious responses instead of responses that evidence your ability to grok what's being said. It's kind of a big deal for you because you waste a lot of breath "rebutting" statements that you clearly did not understand. Do you actually have a difficulty with that kind of indirect use of language? If you do, it's not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but someone like me for whom delivery is often playful and silly is going to be difficult for you to read. I wouldn't mention it except that the thread was going fine again, and then you re-emerged as salty and sandpapery as ever.

You treat these things as being independent of each other, when they very much aren't, and thus your analysis of the circumstances of queer people is incoherent at best. Lastly, I am not divisive - as a matter of fact, I am critiquing the divisiveness that is bourgeois heteronormative hegemony. If anyone is divisive here, it would be you, since anyone who sees through the folly of your sociological analysis is just a "crackpot".

Do note that my claim that you come off as a crackpot was supported by examples of your behavior over time, and yours only. It's also strengthened by the edit you made to your last post where you rebutted Bolty for moderating you.


Not much going on this week with the thread's primary topic! kandrathe, I think you were pretty much spot on in your last post.

-Lem

[FireIceTalon]

The elephant in the room, for me, is the question: Why don't you parse indirect language? Idiomatic language, analogy, and jokes evoke serious responses instead of responses that evidence your ability to grok what's being said. It's kind of a big deal for you because you waste a lot of breath "rebutting" statements that you clearly did not understand. Do you actually have a difficulty with that kind of indirect use of language? If you do, it's not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but someone like me for whom delivery is often playful and silly is going to be difficult for you to read. I wouldn't mention it except that the thread was going fine again, and then you re-emerged as salty and sandpapery as ever.

What if that is indeed the case Lemming?

If the answer is no, then probably much doesn't change: to you guys I would just be another Marxist crackpot that has no clue what he is talking about, I disagree, and life goes on as normal, right? Correct me if I'm wrong here.

But what if the answer is yes, then what? Would I (or better yet should I) admit to this (whatever the reasons for such misunderstandings may be), and risk facing possible discrimination or being shunned because of said reasons? If there are reasons for me not understanding this type of language easily, I certainly would not be ashamed of that reason(s). However, at the same time, I doubt I would ever be comfortable or trusting enough of anyone here to share or express that information should that be the case.

Do note that my claim that you come off as a crackpot was supported by examples of your behavior over time, and yours only. It's also strengthened by the edit you made to your last post where you rebutted Bolty for moderating you.

Not much going on this week with the thread's primary topic! kandrathe, I think you were pretty much spot on in your last post.

-Lem

Let me ask you a serious question here, and I want you to be completely honest here, if I held more mainstream, acceptable, less radical views, would you still consider me a "crackpot"? Is anyone with a Marxist (or any radical viewpoint in general, for that matter) automatically a crackpot in your eyes? Ok, that was two questions, but I am truly curios.

[Bolty]

@Bolty - I didn't lose any argument, and in fact, I would venture to say that many of the comments in both Lem and Kan's posts only STRENGTHENED or confirmed my larger points. But, if you want to think otherwise, have it.

You "lost" the argument due to your tirade against another forum poster, filled with vitriol and hatred. On this site, the goal is to attack and defend ideas, not other posters.

That you have disagreements with, well, most of the posters here is fine. You're allowed to disagree with me as well. However, that post stepped way over the line of decency and had to be pruned. Note that you didn't get banned.

[kandrathe]

That being said, I still find your views toward working and unemployed people as being "parasites" to be abhorrent, to say the least.

Um. My (sarcastic) comment was regarding Karl Marx mooching off Engels. Engels was rich because of his fathers capitalist endeavors. You mistakenly generalized my critique of Marx hipocrisy to all of the poor. There are those unworthy of our sympathy who are able to participate and don't, and those who are worthy of our sympathy who cannot participate.

Here it is again so you don't have to scroll back.

I guess in order to understand, I would need to be like Karl Marx, an unemployed parasite, mooching off Friedrich Engels Jr. who was supported by his fathers textile company.

In that context you were condemning that I'm too entrenched in my privilege to understand. I would say I am not privileged any more than any other typical healthy white male American with exceptional intelligence and skills. Through my efforts I earned some money, and it was all spent on living expenses. I'm just another cog in the machinery of the economy.

{relevant to thread topic}
I am "common". But, I am sympathetic to the discriminated "uncommon" , especially when that discrimination comes at the hands of State power. The State is an expression of the "common" majority will. Thus, with same sex marriage, the struggle and decades of dialog for equality has resulted in changes to the machinery itself. The "common" mindset has changed.

The questions then are; how do I feel about being a cog in this machine? Would MORE socialism help me or hurt me? And, regardless of my benefit, how do I regard the economic system I'm in? Answers: it's a grind I begrudgingly feel I must perform or my family suffers. There are no additional benefits unless I am disabled or get older. I've explained this before; I feel like we are trapped in a bowl where the sides get steep the closer you get to upper class. Any bump in your situation causes you to slide back down to poverty. In other words, our success is taxed, while catastrophes and set backs are most often wholly ours. Due to inherent boom/bust cycles, set backs are periodic and inevitable.

I don't begrudge the small percent of taxation that is used to help those who are willing below to climb. I'm fully supportive of the pittance of taxation used to support those disabled who are doomed to wallow at the bottom of the bowl. That leaves the parasites like Marx, who are comfortable sucking off the teat at the public trough. If Marx lived in our system today, maybe the four neglected children he allowed to starve to death would have survived. Social services would have intervened.

I resent entirely the bulk of taxation that is being lobbed up to the rim of the bowl. I resent the parasites regardless of the position in this analogy. They should be helping with the burden, and we should work to minimize that burden on all.

[LennyLen]

They should be called out as such, by those in the targeted group and outside of it alike.

I'd rather people call out people who are hateful, regardless of what words they might use than people who use the term 'retarded' in general conversation.

And for the record, I'm one of the 'retarded.' I have autism. I actually use the term myself sometimes, when I'm using a poorly designed system for example, and it's frustrating me, I'm very likely to say something along the lines of "Arrgh, this is so retarded."But I can assure you I'm not trying to put myself or anyone like me down by doing so. The word has been in general usage long enough that it's just a word. Yes, it can be used in a derogatory manner, but so can any word, so should we not say anything?

The problem is not words, but the people who choose to use them as weapons. I'd rather focus on eliminating them.

[FireIceTalon]

They should be called out as such, by those in the targeted group and outside of it alike.

I'd rather people call out people who are hateful, regardless of what words they might use than people who use the term 'retarded' in general conversation.

And for the record, I'm one of the 'retarded.' I have autism. I actually use the term myself sometimes, when I'm using a poorly designed system for example, and it's frustrating me, I'm very likely to say something along the lines of "Arrgh, this is so retarded."But I can assure you I'm not trying to put myself or anyone like me down by doing so. The word has been in general usage long enough that it's just a word. Yes, it can be used in a derogatory manner, but so can any word, so should we not say anything?

The problem is not words, but the people who choose to use them as weapons. I'd rather focus on eliminating them.

You are not one of the 'retarded'. You simply have a cognitive disability - there is a huge difference which I will explain below. I commend you, btw, on having the bravery and confidence to be able to express that you have a disability here (not that I think anyone would openly discriminate against you here, but still). I sure as hell wouldn't have that confidence, if I did have such a condition.

I suppose any word can be used in a derogatory context if you put your mind to it, however, not all but some of them have negative historical context associated with them - which is what I am trying to get at. The word "retarded" falls into that category. You may not intend it to be that way when you use it, but the bottomline is, the word "retarded" has an inherently negative historical meaning in its usage. This is due to the past (and present!) discrimination and the all-too common view that mentally disabled people are somehow lesser (or viewed as an "other"), and thus often treated as such. But because people use these words in common every day language, a dissonance between the use of the word and what its material application means, develops over time. It's a matter of understanding the difference between function and appearance as I told Lemming. It may be used with an innocent intent, but you can never make it mutually exclusive from its negative historical context. Trust me, I am not trying to paint myself as some saint. I am guilty of doing it also (with other words), but I try to make it a point to not use certain words in any conversation, and so far, I think I have been pretty successful. At least, insofar as I have been able to view it from this perspective.

That is why we (should) refer to people with autism and other neurological disorders as having a disability, but not as being retarded. To call something "retarded" is to imply that being "retarded" is a negative, even if you aren't directly referring to a person(s).

Lets put it this way, it is a word I am not comfortable using, and I get uneasy if not straight up offended when that word is used, regardless of its context. Its the same way how we refer to people in other identities, be it race, gender, sexual orientation or whatever, with more politically correct terminology. If we want to refer to something in casual conversation in a negative context, there are much better words out there to choose from imo, than using words such as "retarded", "gay", etc. For instance, if a new rule at my work that I don't like is put into effect, I don't call it "retarded", I say "it sucks", or is "fucked up"

I object to the use of these words based on the same logic as I object to people waving a Confederate flag around, regardless if they claim it is a representation of "states rights" and not slavery (which of course begs the question, why did they WANT those "states rights" to begin with, but I digress). Now, you might think that is a different thing, but to me it isn't, due to the negative history associated with both. The only difference is, is that most people view that flag negatively now (as they should) but have no problem using words that have an inherently negative context to apply it to something else in regular conversation. It just doesn't make sense to me, to reject one, but uphold the other. Some might say "well, they are just words". But language is a very powerful thing! Especially when one considers how it works in legitimizing or maintaining certain power structures and social relations, or ideological narratives. The old cliche (but nevertheless true), "the ruling ideas of any society have always been the ideas of its ruling class", still applies.

[Taem]

Context. I use the word "retard" often to describe when something is moving slower than normal or even reversing trend. That is the appropriate word to use for that situation, so I don't worry about being politically correct to make a point. The ENTIRE WORLD uses nigger for those of black skin color except America, whose political correctness calls for African American, which doesn't work for a European black man as I found out the hard way... Like I said, context. EDIT: I'm very intoxicated right now so, what I say I hope is sound as good as it does while writing it.

[LemmingofGlory]

Lets put it this way, it is a word I am not comfortable using, and I get uneasy if not straight up offended when that word is used, regardless of its context.

Being offended is almost never useful. Look at how you reacted to kandrathe's sarcasm (which I assume you didn't parse as such). He wasn't even talking about what you thought he was talking about when he said "moochers."

What if that is indeed the case Lemming?

Then you would be wise to read discourse with much more caution. I'm simply curious because it is such prevalent trait that it's actually causing you difficulty in conversation.

But what if the answer is yes, then what? ... However, at the same time, I doubt I would ever be comfortable or trusting enough of anyone here to share or express that information should that be the case.

Stigma's a bitch, innit? says the gay person raised by an actual insane person.

Let me ask you a serious question here, and I want you to be completely honest here, if I held more mainstream, acceptable, less radical views, would you still consider me a "crackpot"? Is anyone with a Marxist (or any radical viewpoint in general, for that matter) automatically a crackpot in your eyes? Ok, that was two questions, but I am truly curios.

As I told you before, you could be going on about having proven P = NP instead.

-Lem

[LavCat]

Context. I use the word "retard" often to describe when something is moving slower than normal or even reversing trend. That is the appropriate word to use for that situation, so I don't worry about being politically correct to make a point. The ENTIRE WORLD uses nigger for those of black skin color except America, whose political correctness calls for African American, which doesn't work for a European black man as I found out the hard way... Like I said, context. EDIT: I'm very intoxicated right now so, what I say I hope is sound as good as it does while writing it.

Anyone else remember this thread?

niggas triangulate

As it happens I've been listening to a song, The Colored Volunteers, in which Richie Havens sings the word "nigger". I feel that is his prerogative, not mine.

By the way, I am slightly drunk, though perhaps not as much as some of us.

[FireIceTalon]

@Lem

I don't think regarding being offended as useful or not really matters. It is just a fact of life, if people use language that has an inherently negative context towards a certain identity, there will be people who get offended. This seems like a cop out to me, to try and justify the use of said language and place the blame on the people who object to its usage.

Kandrathes post, even his last reply (unsuccessfully) defending what he said, still has more than one untenable problems with it (regardless if it is directed at Marx or any other person) and I was going to type a response out for him. But I decided not to for now, because 1. it will probably just devolve into another Libertarian vs. Marxist brawl, and 2. I am too tired and lazy do so right now.

@ Taem,

I don't think the entire world outside of America uses the word "nigger", and I would bet that in fact it is more or less limited to skin-heads, neo-nazis, and white nationalist/fascist types for the most part. You know, groups that are the lowest scum of the earth. And even if it were the case of it being popular outside America, it hardly justifies its usage, in any context unless it is a critique of the word itself. To say otherwise is a completely untenable position, as well as an appeal to popularity fallacy.

[kandrathe]

Kandrathes post, even his last reply (unsuccessfully) defending what he said, still has more than one untenable problems with it (regardless if it is directed at Marx or any other person) and I was going to type a response out for him. But I decided not to for now, because 1. it will probably just devolve into another Libertarian vs. Marxist brawl, and 2. I am too tired and lazy do so right now.

FYI, I was defending nothing. I was explaining the meaning of words due to the afore discussed issues you seem to have in comprehension.

I don't really need your further arrogant critique of my point of view. It is mine. This may be a big shock, but some people won't agree with you.

[Hammerskjold]

Yes, it can be used in a derogatory manner, but so can any word, so should we not say anything?

Send your doubleplus good\bad think words to the Ministry of Truth for approval. Or to the nearest self appointed language and thought police. You can tell who they are by the perpetually offended expression and behavior they display. Kinda looks like they just bit into a lemon.

The problem is not words, but the people who choose to use them as weapons. I'd rather focus on eliminating them.

Wait, eliminating the word weapons or the people?

What's worse is when it becomes a dominant political strategy. As far as same-sex marriage goes in the U.S., it has been a dominant political strategy to oppose gay marriage even for Democratic candidates. Neither Obama nor Hillary flip-flopped until sometime in the past 3 years, and that's embarrassing considering these are Ivy League educated people who have a LOT of "real world" experience. They're not people from insular, sheltered communities repeating the cultural mores of their tiny mid-western villages. These are people who are basically spitting in the faces of their friends and expecting them to say "Okay, I get why you're doing this right now, and it's okay."

Of course, when Republican candidates do it, it's straight-up fear mongering. They're stoking the Evangelical vote. Democrats are just trying to not alienate the on-the-fence voters.

Voting blocks, courting them or a voting block trying to throw their weight around perhaps. Either way, politics at all levels are not immune to it I guess.

But the real important issue here is that this is a gay marriage law topic, and people who happen to be LGBT don't really have much to bring to the discussion. I mean come on, what because they're gay\lesbian, they have some sort of special insight? That's ridonkulous. You know what does give special knowledge to this issue, watching and hearing lots of PetShop Boys music videos.

I'm a straight dude, but I happen to be an expert on this topic. Deciphering the political message of PSB music videos in particular. Eg: Did you know, that "Domino Dancing" is actually a political allegory about nuclear war waged by superpowers state and their proxy and satellite nations?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amdaFc7O7G8

See the "girl" the actors (in a literal and political meaning) are pursuing is actually a symbol of all the good things nation states wants for itself. Peace and Prosperity. However the extreme measures and lengths an extreme ideologue or ideologist of any stripe who will pursue the "girl" can actually bring their world into ruin, no such thing as too extreme for extreme goodness, no bad methods only bad targets, the ends does justify the means.

The Domino Dancing of the title actually refers to the satellite states "falling" during the conflict and eventual nuclear outcome, as well as the steps of a nuclear launch process.

The most obvious clues dropped by PSB happens in the last 2 minutes of the video, 2:56 mark to be exact. The actors have become physical, while the "girl" is slipping away from the actors grasp, literally walking away with horses in the background. The confrontation between the actors symbolizes a cold war scenario shifting into hot. While the horses contrary to facile interpretation is not the 4 riders of apocalypse, rather the political horseshoe theory in action. The extreme ultra left end of the spectrum is indistinguishable from the extreme ultra right, despite their protestations and claims, when practiced in extreme both becomes authoritarians tyrants.

At the 3:00 mark, the lyric "I hear the thunder crashing, the sky is dark, now a storm is breaking within my heart" is not a love sick lamentation. It's PSB telling us in clear literal terms that nuclear weapons have been fired and detonated in the hot struggle between the actors on the sandy beach. The location shown is deliberate as well, for the sandy location refers to the apocalyptic end scene of Planet of the Apes. (Citation: I saw Planet of the Apes last night, so this hypothesis connects and checks out. It's not even a theory at this point, it's indisputable fact.)

4:13 mark, the actors are only shown on the reflection of the narrator\singer's sunglasses, at night. Sunglasses at night, standing around a (nuclear)bonfire on a beach. PSB is again clearly telling us what the outcome of the nuclear exchange is, a glassed wasteland (sand turns into glass when subjected to high heat conditions such as a thermonuclear explosion) with the actors no longer truly existing on the physical plane, symbolized by them existing only as a reflection on the omnipresent yet invisible narrator's sunglasses at night, illuminated by the (nuclear) bonfire.

And this is really just poli-sci PSB 101 for me. I can lecture forth about the political discography of PSB, while the music video in question plays during say, a gay\ lesbian wedding. My rates are very reasonable, and I also have a laser display module capable of showing patterns and *text of your choice.

*Text choice selections includes my own personally approved political aphorisms and quotes, ranging from Marx (both Richard and Groucho), Martin Headgear, and the ever popular Nitzy. Customized text is available for extra but still reasonable fees due to the requirement to reprogram the laser module.

FYI, I was defending nothing. I was explaining the meaning of words due to the afore discussed issues you seem to have in comprehension.

I don't really need your further arrogant critique of my point of view. It is mine. This may be a big shock, but some people won't agree with you.

Yeah, but those people are soooo obviously wrong. I mean where I live the garbage and recycling schedule alternates, so I took the recycling out one night, and I saw everyone on my block had their garbage out instead. I realized then my neighbourhood is full of morons. The next morning I found my recycling bin not picked up, while everyone else's garbage bin was taken. I realized the truth right then and there. The whole city is full of morons, and I'm the only one left with the brains to realize everyone else is obviously and stupidly mistaken.

[LemmingofGlory]

@Lem

I don't think regarding being offended as useful or not really matters. It is just a fact of life, if people use language that has an inherently negative context towards a certain identity, there will be people who get offended. This seems like a cop out to me, to try and justify the use of said language and place the blame on the people who object to its usage.

What I said to you was that being very angry when you respond to something is often a waste of energy that may be more divisive than constructive. So, yes: being offended to the point of outrage does matter when you respond. You encountered this earlier when you got modded. How are you even still confused about this? This makes no sense.


-Lem

[FireIceTalon]

Kandrathes post, even his last reply (unsuccessfully) defending what he said, still has more than one untenable problems with it (regardless if it is directed at Marx or any other person) and I was going to type a response out for him. But I decided not to for now, because 1. it will probably just devolve into another Libertarian vs. Marxist brawl, and 2. I am too tired and lazy do so right now.

FYI, I was defending nothing. I was explaining the meaning of words due to the afore discussed issues you seem to have in comprehension.

I don't really need your further arrogant critique of my point of view. It is mine. This may be a big shock, but some people won't agree with you.

Hahaha. There are also still plenty of people who hold the "point of view" that the world is also only 6,000 years old, and who don't "believe" that evolution is for real either. Their "point of view", however, is completely meaningless (not to mention erroneous).

I am not the least bit interested in "points of view", of any kind. "Points of view" are subjective perceptions of the world constructed for the sake of upholding certain ideologies, abstract moral judgements, and other meaningless philosophical mumbo jumbo. They are an independent thing from an objective description and critique of the present material conditions, and have absolutely no bearing on the real workings of the world whatsoever. The world does in fact work a certain way REGARDLESS and independent of your meaningless "personal views" or morals.

If we had an "argument" about the color of the sun, it would probably go something like this:

Kandrathe: The sun is green.
FIT: No, the sun is very obviously yellow.
Kandrathe: No, its green, because green is my favorite color!!!!
FIT: Sorry, that still doesn't make the sun is green.
Kandrathe: Its green damn it because I say so!! Don't arrogantly critique my opinion to which I'm entitled!!
FIT: .....*walks away chuckling and shaking his head*

[kandrathe]

Hahaha.

The sum total of your debate skill is mere tenacity. My view is that you post unsubstantiated crap as fact then stand by it until you are blue faced and everyone is bored of the BS. You just don't see that your dogmatic embrace of Marxism is the political equivalent of a young earther.

[DeeBye]

Kandrathe: The sun is green.
FIT: No, the sun is very obviously yellow.
Kandrathe: No, its green, because green is my favorite color!!!!
FIT: Sorry, that still doesn't make the sun is green.
Kandrathe: Its green damn it because I say so!! Don't arrogantly critique my opinion to which I'm entitled!!

This is accurate if you reverse the names.

[FireIceTalon]

Hahaha.

The sum total of your debate skill is mere tenacity. My view is that you post unsubstantiated crap as fact then stand by it until you are blue faced and everyone is bored of the BS.

Oh, the hypocrisy, lol. A libertarian calling a Marxist a 'young earther'? In the words of Galvatron, before he blasted Starscream to dust at his 2 minute coronation: "This is bad comedy". I'm gonna end this in a similar manner that Galvy did.

It is libertarians and the neo-classical, pseudoscientific economists who pander to THEIR unsubstantiated crud, that are the young earth creationists. It's funny how the models never, ever match the real world. You know why? Because libertarian models of capitalism are grounded in ideology (and a utopian ideology at that) and not in science. It only navigates within the system, it does not ever question the system itself, and therefore, the framework lacks self critique. In short, its utterly worthless in providing any explanatory power, because its all ideologically motivated.

The models are a pipe dream (with the stark exception of Somalia perhaps, too bad the place is an utter shithole) on the same level as the future return of Jesus Christ, except one with the 'invisible hand' and the other with the 'invisible man' (hint: neither one exists, nor will they ever). But even if it wasn't, I would want no parts of it anyway, because capitalism is an untenable shitfest quagmire to its core - regardless if it's the utopian models that hacks like Friedman slobbered all over; or the blood soaked real world ones that we live in, that have probably been responsible for more death, human suffering, and misery than just about anything else.

You just don't see that your dogmatic embrace of Marxism is the political equivalent of a young earther.

No, you just don't see that the dogmatic ideology of libertarianism is for deluded fools.

You are in absolutely no place to refer to anyone else as a 'young earther', when your very framework and approach is the fucking epitome of 'economic creationism'. Period.

You are beginning to bore me, though. On ignore you go, don't even bother with a reply to this post.