Messages

- Agricultural Revolution
- Industrial Revolution
- Information Revolution
(possibly others)

Poking around in the history of human society, albeit superficially, it appears that the advent of each new "phase" of technology brings widespread (not necessarily simultaneous) upheavals in the makeup of civilization. Few civilizations (if any) have survived such a revolution without a fundamental transformation in class structure and/or governmental character. Each phase has far-reaching event waves that are not immediately recognized as being directly related to the technological revolution, but in hindsight are viewed as practically unavoidable consequences of a basic shift toward new social and cultural priorities.

It appears that the Industrial Revolution caused the American Civil War, the dismemberment of the British Empire, and at least one World War. Changes in the balance of trade due to changes in which goods are in highest demand lead to national and international instability, and eventually to war. Changes in a nation's (or an empire's) mechanisms for producing and consuming these goods, which form the basis of the class structure, lead to the dissolution of old loyalties and alliances. This in turn can call into question a nation's reasons for remaining a unified society at all.

I believe that the global society is in the midst of an Information Revolution, which will prove to be at least as significant as the Industrial Revolution, and maybe even as historically important as the Agricultural Revolution. We already see the beginning of a realignment in social priorities in those nations most directly effected by the digital world. And, because of the groundwork laid by the Industrial Revolution and its technological children, the Information Revolution promises to take root far more quickly than any previous technological revolution -- it even comes at a time when the Industrial Revolution has yet to fully grasp the entire planet.

The implications of this are that some of the stress we see forming cracks in societies throughout the planet may not simply be a continuation of humanity's penchant for fucking itself. It may be that we are heading into another technological revolution, but this time with the foresight to realize what is happening being far more widespread than in previous such revolutions. And with the already accelerated pace of this one, it could be that we may see very fundamental changes taking place in governments and economies not only within our lifetimes but within the fairly immediate future. At this point I would not be totally surprised to see the complete collapse or overthrow of one or more major Western governments in the next thirty years.

The coming Weird Times may not be something TGRR just pulled out of his ass, after all.

it's okay. i always read it as "Neolithic Irreligions."

hey... it isn't just mild disdain. they're not that petty. what they have to put up with is far, far worse than a little disdain. do you realize there are, literally, millions of people out there who simply refuse to let Christians tell them who to be and how to behave? I mean... sure, kill a few million Jews... no big loss, right? But there are whole churches full of people who are being deprived of their inalienable right to absolutely control the world!

You mean as in going against the mainstream, who seem to be caught up in a Christian/Muslim spag-fight/hissy fit of epic proportions?

Atheism is the new emo.  It allows intelligent and well educated people living in first world countries to feel oppressed.

Except there really is restriction, if not outright oppression, that stems from nothing but the religious superstition of the stupid.

Religion is bollocks. Whether there is a 'supernatural world' or not might be questionable (for now), but Religion, which is any system of political manipulation whose authority and validity is in unfounded declarations about unprovable ideas, is absolute and complete bullshit. So while I do not advocate atheism, because it lends itself to premature conclusions just as well as religion does, I would not oppose enforcing agnosticism on the masses, where there is a very strict system designed to eliminate religion as a motivating factor in any interpersonal relationships, public or otherwise.

Is the Horrible Troof the only truly immutable thing in the universe?

fucking ridiculous. it's obvious to me that if anyone has any moral justification (if you believe in such a thing) for purposely voting against the winner of the primary, it's whoever is supporting a candidate that wins by every imaginable measure and still loses the nomination because of party insiders.

if your person loses after trying to steal the nomination through bullshit tactics, and you get pissed off about it enough to vote against the person who won by real votes, then you're a cock sprocket and that's all there is to it.

too generous. mccain doesn't have the ability to polarize the electorate like a more conservative person would. republicans will vote for him, but not because they like him. on the other hand (assuming he is the nominee), obama will have the support of the same democrats who got a 50% vote for Gore and Kerry, plus millions of other people who would normally be sitting this election out. if it goes to the general election, i'll actually be surprised if obama doesn't win -- barring some terrible gaffe or new information, which will probably happen, because that's what always happens when America gets too close to doing something right for a change. so mathematically, it's obama. but factor in Eris, and yeah, it'll be McCain.

chicago street kids?
watchu talkin bout, willis?
watchu talkin bout?

NT: typical white women

the problem with everybody being "honest" is that even honesty is a lie. for humans, the truth is way too easy to confuse with your opinion. when you're being "brutally honest," are you really telling an objective truth, or are you telling the truth as you see it? they're two different things. humans are naturally terrible at being objective, so of course we lie and manipulate. telling me to tell the truth all the time is telling me to put too much energy into people who aren't worth it.

reforming the election process isn't going to happen until some titwank at the top of the foodchain is forced to support changing it. letting the system override voters in favor of clinton isn't going to produce much impetus to get that done unless the dems lose in a big way this year.

The reason the rules are now in question is because so many Democrats never knew that this is how the rules were written to begin with. Sure, it's their own fault for not educating themselves, but the point still stands. Most Democrats, myself among them, do not see why there should be an oversight body at all -- if there is a "virtual tie," a difference of even one popular vote should decide it, period.

As for Hillary, she isn't just asking the Superdelegates to buck the popular vote. She is also actively fishing for pledged delegates to change their vote -- people who were selected to vote for Obama, who can technically vote for Clinton instead. This is disenfranchisement of the worst possible order -- not only is it disregard for the popular vote, but a direct assault on it. It also completely negates her hypocritical demands not to "disenfranchise" Florida and Michigan voters.

voting for mccain if hillary wins is stupid.

if hillary steals the nomination, however, that does not count as "winning."

in that case, voting for mccain has nothing to do with the issues, it has to do with the principal of despising the democratic party for ignoring the voice of the voters. i, like millions of other democrats, never bothered to find out about the 'superdelegates' until they became an issue this year. and just because the rules are written such that those people can vote against the popular vote if they want to doesn't mean the rules are right.

[BUMP]

BUMP To remind this forum that this kind of n00bish shit can, on occasion, be washed out of a person.

If Hillary's 16+ years of "executive and legislative experience" qualifies her to be president, then surely my 26 years of getting fucked by people with tons of experience qualifies me to call bullshit.