Brad Sherard

So that is what a dunderhead looks like...

Thanks for sharing such a personal subject. Even among like minded people where this might seem like preaching to the choir, I imagine it can't be easy. As for the question of responsibility vs ignorance, a good tool for differentiating lack of understanding from willful wrongdoing is to note whether or not these lack of standards are universally applied or not. What I mean is, a thief is marked as evil not by the fact that he initiates violence by stealing, but because he also insists upon ownership of his own possessions. He holds two standards upon people; one for himself and one for others. He isn't some fool that doesn't understand the concept of property, thinking anyone can take anything in the immediate moment and use it. No, he knows and upholds that principle except when inconvenient. He knows better. So apply the same test to people in general. If it is ignorance, you won't see them upholding standards of behavior in others while avoiding it in themselves. Look at what your mother expects from you and ask yourself if she expects the same from herself.

Another issues with engaging a troll to set the record straight for others sake is others reading it will not just read the explicit words one writes to refute a troll. These readers will notice that fact that the writer of the rebuttal is participating with a liar as if they are not lying. To engage in debate with someone is to acknowledge a common shared goal, an interest in truth and a willingness to use the proper means to achieve it, namely reason and evidence. The very act of participation betrays those who would pretend as if there was an actual debate. When one engages a liar in a "debate", one is accepting their lie, that they are not in fact using people as a pawns in their deception. So to act in the interest of what is true, anyone who contests them in any way other than to point out that they are a liar is to participate in their illusion, accepting the lie that the troll is not a liar. People reading this interaction may not consciously see this but they will get it deep down. They will see that two people are engaged in a dishonest discussion. They will see the troll's victim claim defense of truth while ignoring truth. What will people think of this blind "defender of truth"? Will they bother to consider the arguments of a person willing to participate with a liar?

Welcome to the other FDR. If you are interested in learning more about Roosevelt, I strongly recommend a book by Fleming titled "The New Dealers' War". Fleming's approach to history is wonderful; he deals in first hand facts in a way that other historians say is an impossible ideal. He doesn't deal in data that can be cherry picked to leave a bad impression of Roosevelt, he takes direct minutes from meetings, diary entries, and provides enough information that cannot be interpreted out of context. Some of the quotes Fleming mentions are so monstrous that I am surprised they haven't made Roosevelt infamous. You will see just how well propaganda can paint evil men as saints after reading this book.

Here are some of my recent favorites: Kerbal space program - a wonderful gem for those who like engineering and making their own projects while also recklessly attaching poor little kerbals to exploding death rockets. Some of the mods make building and piloting vehicles an extremely technical process worthy of college undergrads. Antichamber - a fun puzzle game with some nice aesthetics and atmosphere. Primordia - one of my favorite story rpgs in a long while. The music is suffocating with mood.

I'm always tempted to try to find the one thing that underlies all else. I could say UPB but then that depends on epistemology and logic and such which in turn is used or discarded by one's state of mind which is understood by psychological investigation like RTR and on it goes. So perhaps a better approach is to say what struck me as most powerful and evocative. That would be Stefan's youtube video, the fascists that surround you: The climax of that argument is moving. I was overwhelmed when he declared, "That is what a sociopath would say!"

"A black-and-white position is untenable when you are up to your eyeballs in grey." I notice this bromide used often with those who reason from arbitrary and selective consequentialism; It has always disgusted me for a few reasons. It makes no argument at all. Instead it is passed down from one brainwashed person to the next, such that the implied meaning is understood without having to say it or indeed without really even understanding it. The argument is hidden, like any one who denies reality and truth but cannot outright say so without being so obviously contradictory he couldn't even take his own claim seriously. What is really meant is 'your claim is consistent and objective, I don't like your integrity to thorough reasoning so I will pose my own arbitrary standard and then mock yours whenever mine conflicts with it. There is no certainty, no truth, but I want my conclusion to be true. I will attack your conclusion for making black and white claims about reality but ignore the fact that I am doing the same as well'. It is a disgusting but helpful indication that the one writing it is not thinking at all about the words he is writing.

http://www.yuckmovie.com/ Here is one particular scene that exemplifies what the modern american public school children are given to eat: http://vimeo.com/64607150#at=0 What interests me about this is not so much the food; I'm already well aware how terrible it is(we joked as children about the FSA classification for cafeteria food being 'suitable for human consumption but not recommended'). I find the disparity of knowledge between people more fascinating. There is the younger generation and those who had grown up poor that take this knowledge for granted that even the worst fast food would be healthier and far tastier than the stuff they serve in schools. Then there is the older generations and the rich who are not aware of how bad things have become in the years since they were in school. The ossification of the 'service' of molding children by the hands of state protected monopolies on labor has become so complete now that quality is not even a consideration except in so far as it must be hidden from society. This is so obvious now that it takes an almost active will and participation with the liars to be mislead to not see how bad things are becoming. It is rather disgusting to witness the self-reinforced ignorance of these sheltered people, hiding from knowledge much like stunted Epsilons accepting the sweet nothings whispered by frauds such as Oprah and these celebrity chefs selling snake oil stories. These con artists are so unashamed that they smear their logos, brands and faces across the very products that confess their crimes. Hardly anyone even blinks an eye at this wretched behavior. All the while, children are being cast into this meat grinder where they are poisoned with bad food and worse ideas. Many I've shown this video to shrug and say 'tell me something I don't know' but others become almost hysterical, saying things like 'so and so should be fired' and 'we need such and such school investigated immediately'. I point out that is it systemic, not particular to a single school and certainly not at odds with the incentives of the system and then the response becomes 'we need a law'. I wonder if third party self defense includes truth-avoiding tools of the state who do everything they can to rationalize the sacrifice of kids at the alter of ignorant convenience.