Today...

[Sbrideau]

Well today I got Fallout 4, but my graphics cards setup can't handle it (the rest of the computer  can). Guess I'll have to upgrade the graphics cards (currently dual GTX 550ti in SLI) earlier than I wanted to do it, and not for the card that I wanted. Was going for the 980ti ($900 CAD), waiting until the prices lower in 2016, but might go for an 9** series card still but much lower instead so I can play recent games with higher fps. Currently going 25 to 45 fps on Fallout 4, while going 90-120 on GTA5 at the same resolution.

 

That sucks.

 

At least I just got a new job that pays $8k more per year than my last job.

[Tim]

Living in Canada I struggle finding anything online that is cheap. [bleep].

Australia called.

[Lower Levelled]

Time, do you know many Americans that have permanently moved to aus?

[RpgGamer]

I'm eventually moving to either Canada or denmark. I like denmark better, but it's way further and includes a stronger language barrier

[The Observer]

Well today I got Fallout 4, but my graphics cards setup can't handle it (the rest of the computer  can). Guess I'll have to upgrade the graphics cards (currently dual GTX 550ti in SLI) earlier than I wanted to do it, and not for the card that I wanted. Was going for the 980ti ($900 CAD), waiting until the prices lower in 2016, but might go for an 9** series card still but much lower instead so I can play recent games with higher fps. Currently going 25 to 45 fps on Fallout 4, while going 90-120 on GTA5 at the same resolution.

 

That sucks.

 

At least I just got a new job that pays $8k more per year than my last job.

I purchased a GTX 970 on sale for cheap. Runs it beautifully.

[Noxx]

Spent the last week in Vegas. Still tired as shit. Going to Greece for a week in 2 days, then back to Vegas straight after for another week. Been one of the craziest months of my life. 

 

Oh and i read the other day that apparently South Africa's president (Jacob Zuma) is the highest paid most inefficient president in the world. [bleep]ing disgusting. But i also saw that the Democratic Alliance is getting a lot more votes. Historically it was predominantly whites who voted DA, and black would vote ANC. But a lot of the black folks are finally seeing what poison the ANC has become. I think it's still only the lesser educated black people living in the rural areas who'll be voting ANC. They're still brainwashed into thinking that "whites are building an army to slaughter the black". 

 

I still have zero hope for SA to ever become relevant again. They'll be Zimbabwe #2 in no time at all.

[Arceus]

Spent the last week in Vegas. Still tired as shit. Going to Greece for a week in 2 days, then back to Vegas straight after for another week. Been one of the craziest months of my life. 

 

Oh and i read the other day that apparently South Africa's president (Jacob Zuma) is the highest paid most inefficient president in the world. [bleep]ing disgusting. But i also saw that the Democratic Alliance is getting a lot more votes. Historically it was predominantly whites who voted DA, and black would vote ANC. But a lot of the black folks are finally seeing what poison the ANC has become. I think it's still only the lesser educated black people living in the rural areas who'll be voting ANC. They're still brainwashed into thinking that "whites are building an army to slaughter the black". 

 

I still have zero hope for SA to ever become relevant again. They'll be Zimbabwe #2 in no time at all.

Don't worry, we have a few hundred congressmen here who are highly paid and also horribly inefficient...

[Major Dash]

I accidentally shipped ~200 cockroaches to my old address instead of my current one. 

[Noxx]

 

Spent the last week in Vegas. Still tired as shit. Going to Greece for a week in 2 days, then back to Vegas straight after for another week. Been one of the craziest months of my life. 

 

Oh and i read the other day that apparently South Africa's president (Jacob Zuma) is the highest paid most inefficient president in the world. [bleep]ing disgusting. But i also saw that the Democratic Alliance is getting a lot more votes. Historically it was predominantly whites who voted DA, and black would vote ANC. But a lot of the black folks are finally seeing what poison the ANC has become. I think it's still only the lesser educated black people living in the rural areas who'll be voting ANC. They're still brainwashed into thinking that "whites are building an army to slaughter the black". 

 

I still have zero hope for SA to ever become relevant again. They'll be Zimbabwe #2 in no time at all.

Don't worry, we have a few hundred congressmen here who are highly paid and also horribly inefficient...

 

Well he recently spent R246m on renovating his estate. That's like $17.5m. He claimed his estate is a national landmark, or whatever. Yeah... that's his justification. They're apparently also planning to buy him a R4bn (~$280m?) private jet for "improved intercontinental transportation". Apparently their chartering option is no longer reliable and has introduced certain risks. All the while half (probably 75%) of his country is living in poverty. There are power outages every day. "Load shedding" as they like to call it. It's disgraceful. I don't think it's at all rational to compare any political in NA or EU to the piece of human garbage that is Jacob Zuma. South Africa's uneducated, rapist president. 

 

Thank the [bleep]ing lord i don't live there anymore.

[RpgGamer]

South Africa is definitely a shit hole with on of the highest crime rates around. America would be the same if not for its militarized police force

[Estonian dude]

Why is a militarized police force a good thing?

[Ember]

.

[Noxx]

South Africa is definitely a shit hole with on of the highest crime rates around. America would be the same if not for its militarized police force

America would never be anywhere close to South Africa. The laws and the whole political system is a preventative factor. But more importantly the US is a much more educated country. I know there are parts of the US where people are uneducated as all hell, but even they're more educated than a large number of South Africans. It's so hard to explain the concept to someone that has never been to South Africa. And no matter how i try to word it, it'll come off as racist. It's something you'll only understand if you've lived in Africa. 

 

I'm sure i've said this before, but back when we were still living in South Africa my sister asked the main one day who she voted for in the election that year. She told us she voted ANC. My sister started asking her questions about why she voted ANC when all they do is promise, but never deliver. When all they have done to the country since they day the ANC started governing was destroy the country little by little. She, the maid, told us that people go to their camps (http://thephoenixsun.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Soweto-1.jpg) and threaten them. They are told that if they don't vote ANC they're kids are going to get raped and murdered. If they don't vote ANC a white man will come kill them and take everything from them, etc. She's uneducated. I don't think she ever went to school. If she did it was only a school that taught you how to read and write. So she didn't know any better. So election after elections he voted ANC. She'll teach her kids to do the same thing, and so on. 

 

You're telling me the US would be the same if it wasn't for a militarized police force? Hardly doubt that. 

[Veiva]

America would never be anywhere close to South Africa. The laws and the whole political system is a preventative factor. But more importantly the US is a much more educated country.

The majority of the US who vote (upwards of 60% of the population on presidential elections; much less any other time) do so against their interests. To be blunt, the typical Republican or Democratic candidate is bought and paid for, from local government to federal, by special interests groups. In fact, involvement in local elections is becoming more of an issue as Congress gets little done due to contrarian partisan politics, making money in local politics have a better return. The mass media is owned by moneyed interests and will push a similar agenda across liberal (essentially anything other than Fox) and conservative (essentially Fox) outlets; opinion trumps reality in either side.

 

Regarding education: it's going to get worse in the US. The education monopolies, like Pearson and McGraw-Hill, have no interest in providing excellent education materials or environments. Their money comes from contracts and elimination of competition. Without free market forces, the only other option is government intervention... but these companies essentially own school boards and legislators, so regulation is not an obstacle. Conservative legislators work towards privatizing education via various avenues, which will impact middle-class and below dramatically, worsening public education to the point of comicality. Liberal politicians do no better, otherwise education reform would be an issue, but it's not; Obama continued the failed policies of No Child Left Behind.

 

Erosion of liberty is a slow process. In the Western world, tyrannies and dictatorships and other authoritarian governments are built piece by piece, not overnight. They are made possible by political apathy, but also fear and hatred and desperation. To think the United States could never become comparable to the next USSR or Third Reich (yes, I'm invoking Godwin's law; be edgy and inform if you want) is laughable. The alienation of various inalienable rights ensured by the Constitution in the name of terrorism or crime and the polarization of political discussion is inherent.

 

Choosing between the bog-standard Democrat or Republican, especially in federal elections, has as much effect on outcome as choosing between a red cyanide pill and a blue cyanide pill. And to be blunt, it's the American population's fault. If you vote based on ignorance, you're to blame. And if you refrain from voting, you are also to blame.

 

So it goes.

 

I'd like to note the internet, if used properly, enables relatively easy checking for any average Joe or Jane. Media can only be used as a point to begin research. With adequate research skills, filtering credible information from crap is not exceedingly difficult, just time consuming at most (cue retarded statements like "logic can be used to come to wrong conclusions" and other hot air; tell me something I don't know! Pedantry based on semantics is asinine; people rarely care to read my posts as-is, I'm not going to make them longer). However, research tends to end up being "find the first result that confirms my bias," if any research is done at all. With popular search engines adjusting results based on personal bias, this becomes more of an issue, as well. What a time to be alive.

[obfuscator]

Choosing between the bog-standard Democrat or Republican, especially in federal elections, has as much effect on outcome as choosing between a red cyanide pill and a blue cyanide pill. And to be blunt, it's the American population's fault. If you vote based on ignorance, you're to blame. And if you refrain from voting, you are also to blame.

This strikes me as somewhat unfair. You say the two options are the same (I don't disagree) and voting for them is bad. You also say not voting is bad. So, what other option is there?

 

I also have to say that although the US is far from a perfect place in general, it's quite silly to suggest that it's anywhere near a place like South Africa. Oddly enough it seems to be mainly North Americans who don't realize how good they have it making these ridiculous assertions.

[Arceus]

I suppose your options would be toss your vote to a third party with no chance of winning and try to convince others to do the same and make a statement or vote for one of the "less bad" candidates during the primaries...and yes, (most) of us do have it pretty good. Regardless of who is elected, it won't have too much of an effect on me personally, but for a lot of others it may well be devastating.

[Veiva]

 

Choosing between the bog-standard Democrat or Republican, especially in federal elections, has as much effect on outcome as choosing between a red cyanide pill and a blue cyanide pill. And to be blunt, it's the American population's fault. If you vote based on ignorance, you're to blame. And if you refrain from voting, you are also to blame.

1) This strikes me as somewhat unfair. You say the two options are the same (I don't disagree) and voting for them is bad. You also say not voting is bad. So, what other option is there?

 

2) I also have to say that although the US is far from a perfect place in general, it's quite silly to suggest that it's anywhere near a place like South Africa. Oddly enough it seems to be mainly North Americans who don't realize how good they have it making these ridiculous assertions.

 

 

1) Those aren't the only two options (voting for establishment or not voting at all). It's misleading or ignorant to claim otherwise. There's plenty of immediate actions you or me or anyone else can take, such as getting involved in local politics. This means not only voting, but attending city hall meets and contacting officials with concerns. Organize with local efforts that align with your views to spread your message more efficiently. Contacting existing legislators, even if they are seemingly contrary to your views, to personally voice your concern. Politicians, for good or bad, can only listen to those who speak.

 

However, these efforts require individual effort. And while existing systems (primarily economic and political) inhibit feasibility of individual effort, life for most Americans is not so terrible that they are unable to commit some time to bettering society via civic duty.

 

2) Knowingly or not, you just vomitted the same notion that Darrel Issa (richest congressman, of Republican affiliation) did back in May :). Simply because others have it worse does not absolve those who have it better. Also "North Americans?" I'm sure Mexican citizens in towns ravaged by cartels (themselves caused largely by American policies) are so much better off, right? It's easy to deflect issues by saying "it could be worse" or "it is worse over there!" but it's not productive or honest.

 

I suppose your options would be toss your vote to a third party with no chance of winning and try to convince others to do the same and make a statement or vote for one of the "less bad" candidates during the primaries...and yes, (most) of us do have it pretty good. Regardless of who is elected, it won't have too much of an effect on me personally, but for a lot of others it may well be devastating.

Like many proven processes that occur around us (evolution, climate change, geological processes...), erosion of liberty is a slow process. Many reject it's happening because it's so gradual. Sadly they're wrong.

[Noxx]

 

America would never be anywhere close to South Africa. The laws and the whole political system is a preventative factor. But more importantly the US is a much more educated country.

 

I'd like to note the internet, if used properly, enables relatively easy checking for any average Joe or Jane. Media can only be used as a point to begin research. With adequate research skills, filtering credible information from crap is not exceedingly difficult, just time consuming at most (cue retarded statements like "logic can be used to come to wrong conclusions" and other hot air; tell me something I don't know! Pedantry based on semantics is asinine; people rarely care to read my posts as-is, I'm not going to make them longer). However, research tends to end up being "find the first result that confirms my bias," if any research is done at all. With popular search engines adjusting results based on personal bias, this becomes more of an issue, as well. What a time to be alive.

 

You're asking people who live in a house made of zinc plating, people who probably don't even know how to switch on a computer, to use the internet and do research on whom they're voting for. So in this case, internet is irrelevant. As an added bonus, these people are probably told the reason they don't have internet is because the white man doesn't want them to have it. "So vote ANC if you want internet."

[Veiva]

 

 

America would never be anywhere close to South Africa. The laws and the whole political system is a preventative factor. But more importantly the US is a much more educated country.

 

I'd like to note the internet, if used properly, enables relatively easy checking for any average Joe or Jane. Media can only be used as a point to begin research. With adequate research skills, filtering credible information from crap is not exceedingly difficult, just time consuming at most (cue retarded statements like "logic can be used to come to wrong conclusions" and other hot air; tell me something I don't know! Pedantry based on semantics is asinine; people rarely care to read my posts as-is, I'm not going to make them longer). However, research tends to end up being "find the first result that confirms my bias," if any research is done at all. With popular search engines adjusting results based on personal bias, this becomes more of an issue, as well. What a time to be alive.

 

You're asking people who live in a house made of zinc plating, people who probably don't even know how to switch on a computer, to use the internet and do research on whom they're voting for. So in this case, internet is irrelevant. As an added bonus, these people are probably told the reason they don't have internet is because the white man doesn't want them to have it. "So vote ANC if you want internet."

 

 

I wasn't referring to South Africa in regards to the utility of the internet. My post was framed on the United States in particular about authoritarian decline being a possible outcome given sufficient politicking. After all, you said the United States could never spiral into a political situation like South Africa. But ok. I can't stop you from reading what you want from my post.

[obfuscator]

1) Those aren't the only two options (voting for establishment or not voting at all). It's misleading or ignorant to claim otherwise. There's plenty of immediate actions you or me or anyone else can take, such as getting involved in local politics. This means not only voting, but attending city hall meets and contacting officials with concerns. Organize with local efforts that align with your views to spread your message more efficiently. Contacting existing legislators, even if they are seemingly contrary to your views, to personally voice your concern. Politicians, for good or bad, can only listen to those who speak.

 

However, these efforts require individual effort. And while existing systems (primarily economic and political) inhibit feasibility of individual effort, life for most Americans is not so terrible that they are unable to commit some time to bettering society via civic duty.

I don't deny there are plenty of ways to be involved in politics. However, your comparison specifically dealt with voting decisions, not political activism. How would you recommend someone vote to not be, as you say, "at fault" for the current situation?

 

2) Knowingly or not, you just vomitted the same notion that Darrel Issa (richest congressman, of Republican affiliation) did back in May :). Simply because others have it worse does not absolve those who have it better. Also "North Americans?" I'm sure Mexican citizens in towns ravaged by cartels (themselves caused largely by American policies) are so much better off, right? It's easy to deflect issues by saying "it could be worse" or "it is worse over there!" but it's not productive or honest.

When I said North Americans, I was referring to the western world section of North America; so yes, in large part Mexcio does not apply.

 

You're also correct in saying that it's not necessary useful to just say "it could be worse". However, when you're specifically comparing two countries that are miles apart in terms of quality of life/individual freedom, it's a useful point to bring up that such a comparison isn't fair or realistic.

 

Incidentally, the latter half of my post wasn't directed at you.

[Veiva]

I don't deny there are plenty of ways to be involved in politics. However, your comparison specifically dealt with voting decisions, not political activism. How would you recommend someone vote to not be, as you say, "at fault" for the current situation?

Because of various reasons outside of the influence or control many younger voters currently, it's a matter of researching existing candidates and voting for the ones best aligned with their interests. I cite Sanders, who is rejected as being an outsider despite being the most progressive and forward thinking of any candidates (Republican or Democrat), and thus any vote for him is wasted because Clinton will assuredly claim the nomination (do note this is the popular view espoused by "the establishment" [whoever they are], not my view). Largely because Clinton being nominated is currently a self-fulfilling prophecy because of this logic; the mass media does its part to promote Clinton and ignore Sanders. However, media is only given its powers by individuals absolving their own intellectual autonomy to some varying degree, which is counter-productive because the media is under no obligation to be honest or intelligent.

 

There are many occasions where an ideal candidate isn't an option. In some cases, it could be due to the ideal candidate not gaining a nomination or some other eligibility requirement. In others, it could be because nobody of note is running. Either options result in no choice on part of the voter, but most importantly, these situations most often arise due to current voting policies. A reformed ballot system (there's been plenty of proposals in Congress recently that are more than adequate) and campaign finance reform would fix a majority of these issues.

 

And yes, there are occasions where you are damned if you do (vote against your interests in a textbook case of lesser of two evils scenario) and damned it you don't (simply refuse to vote in such a case). Progress isn't made in a vacuum, and idealism is only so useful. I do believe, given advances in technology and social/individual movements, a utopian society is possible in somewhat near future (perhaps even within some 100 years), especially if the massive growth seen in the last 20 years (mid-90s to now) compared to the 20 years before that (mid-70s to the mid-90s), and so on, is of any indication.

 

Here's an anecdote: I think capitalism is essentially the only feasible economic model currently, despite communism being my utopian choice. Communism has criteria that aren't currently possible (absolving political and economic autonomy in such a way no person or group has power over another and human labor being replaced by completely autonomous methods), so implementing communism in its idealistic entirety would be impossible and disastrous (and it's why USSR was only communist in name, and barely at that). Similarly, capitalism would have been disastrous in feudal societies because the technology (i.e., means of production) didn't exist or wasn't viable, making feudalism a necessary evil. And in this modern era, social efforts must be implemented to prevent the side-effects of capitalism (concentration of wealth leading to massive political influence by a small minority of the population [the cliche 0.1% number]), which is some form of social democracy. However, if the necessary criteria for communism were made possible (namely an incomparably [to humans] advanced and proven general-purpose artificial intelligence in combination with total automation of all typically human positions [this includes everything from software developers to mechanical engineers to retail salespersons and custodians]), continuing with a regulated capitalistic economy and having current government influence (i.e., humans in power over other humans) would be a very poor choice, much like forcing capitalism on a feudal society.

 

And you can create many scenarios where a choice, despite being the least wrong, is regardless the most right. For example, the classic case of an otherwise innocent someone either having to starve and die or steal food from someone else. In an ideal world, the scenario shouldn't occur, but the world is far from ideal, and while stealing food from someone who has it (and this someone is perhaps only slightly better off and would be tangibly impacted by being burgled, who knows) isn't an all-around moral choice, it's a necessary action. Still wrong, but less wrong than starving.

 

But at the end of the day, voting isn't the only factor. Being an informed voter and speaking to representatives is a part of the system that typically only the very richest seem to take part in, despite it being available to everyone. Politicians listen to their supporters, for good or bad. If the 0.1% absolved from taking part in politics, while the 99.9% replaced them, politicians wouldn't be listening to the 0.1% :). However, the majority do little to nothing, while the very small minority entrench themselves in gaming the system. Sanders highlights this very well with his large campaign funds donated by the common person and the hopeful youths who attend his rallies.

 

tl;dr: Often times a poor choice is the only choice. Progress isn't made out of rainbows and unicorns. However, there's many other actions that can be taken within the system to increase viability and promote progress, even if it's contrary to some idealist views. Such is life.

 

When I said North Americans, I was referring to the western world section of North America; so yes, in large part Mexcio does not apply.

 

You're also correct in saying that it's not necessary useful to just say "it could be worse". However, when you're specifically comparing two countries that are miles apart in terms of quality of life/individual freedom, it's a useful point to bring up that such a comparison isn't fair or realistic.

 

Incidentally, the latter half of my post wasn't directed at you.

I see. I had wrongly concluded it was referring to my post (evidently). Sorry for that mistake.

[Estonian dude]

USSR was in no way communist society. Not even in name. I doubt a single person believed after 1950's that there was anything inherent to communism happening around here.

Unless they didn't know what it meant.

 

But there's a nice saying here about the Soviet times, it goes like this: "We pretended to be working and the government pretended to be paying us," which illustrated the reality here pretty well.

 

Communism would be an ideal society, but we are not technologically advanced enough yet.

 

And truly, in my short life I have seen public rights being revoked in the US and here in Estonia.

[Veiva]

USSR was in no way communist society. Not even in name. I doubt a single person believed after 1950's that there was anything inherent to communism happening around here.

Unless they didn't know what it meant.

 

But there's a nice saying here about the Soviet times, it goes like this: "We pretended to be working and the government pretended to be paying us," which illustrated the reality here pretty well.

 

Communism would be an ideal society, but we are not technologically advanced enough yet.

 

And truly, in my short life I have seen public rights being revoked in the US and here in Estonia.

 

In the United States, center-right (such as Obama) are painted as communists/socialists (socialism and communism is used interchangeably here too often). Now imagine the reaction if (or hopefully when) Bernie Sanders became the Democrat nominee. He's a self-avowed social democrat. The Fox News headlines write themselves.

 

I hold that Joseph McCarthy, the man who spearheaded an extreme centralization to the political right, was an extremely unpatriotic man. He did more damage to the United States, and political freedom in this country, than the USSR could have ever dreamed of. In his case, finding Soviet spies was meaningless compared to the extensive damage he did to viable political positions. Prior to the red scare, socialism was by no means a dirty word (and neither was communism). One of the greatest American novels, a historical fiction about the common man entitled The U.S.A. Trilogy by Dos Passos, has a large focus on workers and socialism in the turn of the century--if it were written 20 years later, it would have never been published.

[obfuscator]

USSR was in no way communist society. Not even in name. I doubt a single person believed after 1950's that there was anything inherent to communism happening around here.

Unless they didn't know what it meant.

 

But there's a nice saying here about the Soviet times, it goes like this: "We pretended to be working and the government pretended to be paying us," which illustrated the reality here pretty well.

 

Communism would be an ideal society, but we are not technologically advanced enough yet.

 

And truly, in my short life I have seen public rights being revoked in the US and here in Estonia.

Uhh, the USSR was governed by the Communist party. So yes, in name, it was a communist country.

[Estonian dude]

It might have been that in the name for you Americans, but as I said, in here nobody for one second believed we had communism.

It's the same as calling North Korea a democracy, in that it is democracy in name only.