BaconForAllah

They're another useful tool for the left, once legislation is passed/society says "ok get married who gives a shit" then there's no remaining action to take, ergo many of them grab hold of the leftist checklist and get in line with Approved Opinions to remain part of a/the "cause," otherwise it's just waking up each day, being gay and living your life. Who would want that! It's the problem with so many "movements," if there's any real results they will be insufficient by incentive; the protestors often have nothing else to do or offer, they'll just keep upping the ante and it gets more and more statist/extreme. Patrick Moore's recent description on FDR about the Greenpeace maniacs is another good example, as is current third-wave feminism and even the AIDS group trying to stir scares in the porn industry in California and bring in more regulation (of an already highly and efficiently self-regulated industry).

malcolmgladwellbookgenerator.com is dabes

Just to follow up, I was talking to someone who offered this: "This is Canada, if you don't like it you can go to another country, no one's forcing you to stay here, just like you aren't forced to shop at Walmart or McDonald's. Countries are all private property holders living in anarchy among one another, you already have anarcho capitalism." I wasn't sure how to reply.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2016/01/11/when-philosophy-lost-its-way/

LOL @ your Greenwald quote. A maniacal war-mongerer who calls anyone critical of Islam a bigot, all while serving the Islamists in their quest to punish girls for the crime of going to school, talking about free speech. Might as well quote Kurt Waldheim on the evils of the SS while you're at it, what a joke.

Yeah, unfortunately the jihadis have had the question of using force against people answered for them since around 1400 years ago.

Wow, a reddit atheism-tier zinger. Go get em Professor False Equivalence! I really do fear the Jains detonating their... sandals? Donnadogsoth is correct about Islamism. The problem with libertarians/ancaps is they fall into the masochistic trap of leftists where walking and chewing gum become a challenge: They're against Western foreign policy, and against the insanity of jihadism... buuuut the latter are mostly brown people who are just mindless automatons responding to the former, so can't blame em, it's our fault! (See David Stockman's recent blog post, a work cognitive scientists could use for Dunning Kruger testing, nevermind masochism on a level I didn't think libertarians could reach, as well as proving Sowell's Intellectuals' thesis perfectly). It's very difficult to believe that people really believe they'll explode themselves on a bus and be welcomed by Allah, especially when many of those people are highly educated and well-to-do individuals and nothing close to this hilarious leftist narrative of poverty and emasculation (if only they'd listen to Scott Atran and play more soccer, no more bombs!). Yet that is precisely the case, and no level of self-loathing will change it, sorry sympathizers.

Can't wait for the masochistic leftist/ancap maniacs blaming France for the attacks. Must have been imperialism, must have been foreign policy, blah blah they're just responding to us having bases on their holy lands! Hey check out Ron Paul's "reading list"! Haven't ID'd the bastards yet. Gee I wonder if it's the Jains, or the Amish, or kids that have been playing too much CS GO.

Excellent, rambling and all. She's young, she into veganism and if you watch her other "How people make $1000s in social media" video she wishes to talk about gender equality and other pretty standard progressive/hippie tropes as well (she's only 18 or 19) so she obviously hasn't been engaged in philosophy and self-knowledge until now. This would be something of her snapping point and I'm glad for her, it's really pathetic when people have been reading and studying like on this forum for years dismiss or think little of someone like her, who's potentially at the starting point of her intellectual journey. You guys claiming she's whining about her perfect life are clueless. She's talking about the facade of this life she lived and how all of social media is a business (which has me recalling Seinfeld's response to Kramer about not knowing people could wake up from comas: "I didn't know it was possible not to know that"). That people actually think social media is anything but companies selling products/services is what her now enraged friends, models, etc. are probably pissed off about. They appeal to young kids (mostly teen girls), who still live in delusion that they tap on their phones and see beautiful pictures and send messages to one another and that's all there is to it. This girl's at least trying to wake the substantial portion of that demographic that she has [had] connections with up to the reality, I think that's great.

So CEOs, business people, etc. are vilified constantly by the leftists. Raise taxes on the evil wealthy, they have more than enough, on and on we hear. Now across many podcasts, interviews, articles, even books-- I can't recall a leftist of whichever Occupy or Sanders or general progressive strain ever saying "Jerry Seinfeld doesn't need 80 million/year from Seinfeld syndication, that is completely unethical and he is a monster for hoarding all that money." Whichever token celebrity site you are unfortunate enough to click on, the range is from 50 to 80 million from my checking that Downey made from the recent Avengers film (and it was possibly even worse than the Iron Man ones, a feat in itself). Friends stars still get something like 15-20 million/year each residual income from the series. Hugh Laurie was making 700K-1M per episode on House in the late seasons. Seinfeld and David still earn ~$80M/year residual income via Seinfeld royalties (how ironic for David to have played Sanders on the recent SNL!). Dr. Dre sold Beats to Apple for whatever large sum and is nearly a billionaire now. Before exposing himself as a fraud, the NBC News guy Williams was earning 10M/year. Name your professional athlete being paid massive sums, tons and tons more examples we can all of course give. I am interested in knowing why none of these people are ever the targets of leftists. Where are the "Lebron James doesn't need more mansions" chants? When David Boaz was selling his recent book, he was on John Stossel's show and talking about how people don't see business people doing magical flashy things every day, so my hunch is that of course with it not being sexy like the entertainment and athletic fields, business people aren't seen as direct sales like celebrities. Samsung teams are having meetings today and tomorrow to work out the Note 6 and S7 designs and marketing; we won't be seeing those until mid 2016 as tangible items we can trade our cash for. Is it as simple as that? Flashy vs not sexy? Thanks for any input.

Men do all that but also trade up. I don't think either Jolie or Aniston are attractive (just a couple of ironing boards that couldn't hold a candle to any sampling of women at a mall but fit the safe skinny white boring profile media sells), but Pitt certainly traded up to at least a more attractive woman and one who likely shares many more values with him and is far more accomplished in her personal life (again at least from his view). Aniston collects her $20M/year from Friends passive income and is probably detached from reality outside of her gated home perimeter while Pitt is helping with housing in Louisiana, Jolie is doing her UN work and adopting poor kids etc.

He had an affair and a child from it. Her pictures are available. If someone can sell me on him trading up to her from Maria, I'm all ears/eyes. Otherwise, why did he do it? What from all of this r/k theory, biological cues, etc. can we use to understand his affair?