Sickening. Had to stop after "He's just another guy, we forget that."

Yeah, they seem to forget a lot of things.

How are people this fucking idiotic

I was fairly shocked to see that reaction as well, especially with a picture of Bush hugging a kid that's clearly terrified and uncomfortable about it. And tons of comments going "Wow, I know my hugs and that's a real hug!!".

I think the default subreddits are beyond help. You've got over 2 million people subscribed in /r/pics and all the less savvy Reddit users are among them. Reddit has grown so big that you really get all kinds of people. Over in /r/canada, not even a default subreddit, I find myself arguing with people that defend Fox News. /r/politics is a marketing tool of the democratic party (Obama circlejerk) and no meaningful discussion happens there.

The days of Reddit being a site of like-minded people is long gone, if it ever existed. I suggest you find subreddits that you appreciate and that have a good level of discussion, unsubscribe from the trash subreddits and use /r/all when you want more general interest links. This at least prevents you from being bombarded with utter crap unless you're actually open to it.

I feel you, completely, it just seems that the bullshit is taking over more and more of the site. I am surprised that I don't find pro-military shit in redditgonewild at this point.

Also, I think I am frustrated because "they" are "winning". And I fucking hate that shit.

Everytime there is a millitary post in any subreddit it immediately becomes a soldier circlejerk. So fucking annoying. They are too god damn stupid to argue with.

True that. i know several people who went into the army. complete morons. people go into the army because they have nothing else to offer the economy besides a trigger finger and a mind thats been shut off

A lot of them had to see their friends die or live in fear that they would be killed almost every day, and the only thing you have to say about them is that they're idiots?

Its a voluntary army. There's no reason they or their friends have to die. If they did a little more critical thinking on the motives of the army and were more skeptical of joining it, they wouldnt be dead or in emotional pain. i wish the best for all people, including troops. unfortunately troops kill people so that makes it hard for everyone else at times. and it would be best for the troops if they never became soldiers. and yes, i do think people who join armies are tribalistic idiots. Im aware its offensive.

Hey, you're actually right. I never thought of it that way.

Amen. I'm relieved at times to see how many people are awake enough to see that the politics in the US are little more than theatrics. But then again, I am torn asunder to witness people still holding the view of that man being anything less than an easily manipulated d-bag.

Any administrator or president that represents a regime whom have openly advocated "theatre conflicts abroad," needs to be burned at the stake.

I'd cite, but really, dear friends, if your views contradict my statements, do some digging. I implore you.

Politics is more than theatrics. It is propaganda and deception to give the voters the illusion that they have some sort of input to or control of the process. But your point is well taken.

I'll agree there. I liken it to American Idol.

Candidates get on stage, perform their routine and then you, as a viewer sitting at home, take in all of the edited material and contrived bullshit to make a decision on who you'd like to vote for to make it to the next round. Is it reality? No. Does it come across as though it is? Yup. Or at least it's made in a manor to make you believe it is.

This whole idea that the two party system is honest and fair is of course, a complete farce.

The rigging of GW's election should have had people kicking in the doors of officials around the nation. It met little to no resistance. And then people were surprised when he was reelected.

Guhbuhdurrrr....

I can't find the words to express my feeling of complacency with the whole situation. It's the age old maxim: you get what you pay for. And in a society that's peppered with hypocrisy and corruption, who the hell would be put in a position to represent you fairly? Fucking no one.

Even /conspiracy is starting to be polluted with quotes and image links.

Yep, then someone comes along that proves the quote on the pic is invalid. Peeing in the pool.

I think the default subreddits are beyond help.

Exactly this. Default subreddits have a ton of less informed users, bots, people gaming the system, etc.

I have spent my morning talking with people about building a new home for those of us that distrust what has become of Conde Naste/reddit in general, and how best to accomplish that. The actual site build and infrastructure wouldn't be an issue. If replicating reddit were our desire, that is easily accomplished, but is that what we want? I think the time has come to jump ship and leave Conde Nasty with their monetized user base. I would love to help make that happen.

This will almost certain happen at some point, but it will take a monumental act of stupidity on the part of Conde Naste of the scope of the Digg debacle to drive a large mass of subscribers away.

I don't think anyone wants a large mass of reddit's usersbase. The large mass is the problem. Every site suffers from this. Initially you want to attract as many users as possible, and then they come, and you realize just how stupid the majority of your fellow human beings are. At that moment any loyalty or passion you had for your site goes out the window and your only concern is how to manipulate and take advantage of your userbase to realize a monetary return. TBH, if I owned reddit, I'd suck whatever money I could out of these idiots and sell the site to South Korea or some shit.

To ignore the views of others is as foolish as others ignoring your views, wether you like it our not that mass of "less savvy" people you wish to seperate from are the mass. You will always be wrong (socially) regardless of the factuality of your propositions as long as the mass remains "less savvy".

I have nothing against other views, quite the contrary. I have a problem with the level of discussion in these places, it's either a circlejerk or nothing longer than one line gets upvoted.

As for the less savvy, there will always be those that are more and those that are less, that's just reality. It's not like we can have everyone always on the same level, so I don't really see your point there.

r/alternatenews....just plugging that here.

holy crackers how short the attention span of this country is..

edit: LOOK A GOLDFISH!!

Relevant

[deleted]

I agree. There's nothing more appealing in a man that you voted for who can possess both plausible deniability for atrocities committed and photos like this to shoot down anything that could contradict their preconceived notion.

Look what he put in place as far as laws that protect corporate interests over individuals. Then, look at some of the laws he helped to pass that fuck normal people over everyday. You think he had anyone's best interest in mind except for saving face of the people who put him there? Please. Fuckin' smoke and pony show.

Can you explain what he did that was bad?

Here's what we'll deem: your beginning investigation into the improprieties of the US foreign policies.

While the beginning Bush's tenure in the White House had a promising start: a "humbled" foreign policy, lowered taxation; it didn't take long for the megalomaniac to emerge.

Below I have listed some of the heavy crimes committed by Mr. Bush and his administration.

While these are not his worst actions, they are a good start - a light read if you will. If you find that these implications indeed make sense, I then suggest shifting your gaze to his aberrations of judgement/true involvement in 9/11.

Really, both of these places are a starting point as the rabbit hole does go quite deep. But I must also note that GW's administration was laden with nefarious blood-thirsty dicks. Start looking at Cheney's record: it's enough to make a dark man blush.

http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/george-bush-and-tony-blair-found-guilty-of-war-crimes-at-malaysian-tribunal-video/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2009/02/02/bush-war-crimes-european_n_163074.html

I wrote this elsewhere, here is some copypasta. You can google each item as desired:

Let's go through Bush real quick: Surplus to deficit, war with iraq, mishanding of katrina, the DHS, the Patriot act, Gitmo, the iraq war abuse scandals, the jessica lynch scandal, yellow cake, the phone call to blair where he said it was God telling them to invade iraq, pandering to the religiously fundamental, cutting funding for condoms in africa, cutting funding for education, pushing no child left behind (designed to fail), deregulating industry, no-bid contracts to haliburton for iraq, contracts to diebold for voting machines despite obvious conflicts of interest, "mission accomplished", "now watch this drive", Defense of Marriage Act.

Fantastic bevy of examples.

Reminds me of doublethink.

Yep. Starting with Prescott and his attempt at a nazi coup or possibly earlier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

http://www.cracked.com/article_15974_7-insane-conspiracies-that-actually-happened.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86107200/The-Kennedys-Were-Pussies

Or that Prescott bush funded hitler.

Those comments are frightening. The general public really is THAT stupid to forgive a monster for a photo-op.

[deleted]

As far as propaganda goes, isn't it good that he is actually helping people?

[deleted]

My point was it's better that he is helping people to improve his image instead of starting new wars and winning them or destroying records of his presidency. I never said anything about him being a good person.

Bush and his father are war criminals. Along with Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Scooter Libby and the legion of Neo-Cons who waged immoral wars killing multi millions. They would rot in hell if there were one.

Most people outside /conspiracy are still thinking OWS is about lazy hippies.

and most of r/occupywallstreet are democrats.

that was incredible. it's like some crazy doublethink, where they need to get to a place where "bush isn't that bad" so as to justify their support for bush#3 [obama]

Dear God.

I've noticed anyone saying he's not a loving and amiable guy gets downvoted. It's working.

Don't be mad at the puppet, be mad at the master.

The solution is anarchy. Join either r/Anarchism or r/Anarcho_Capitalism and change your way of looking at the the future of society.

Anarchy! Because it works for the other social species on our planet! Oh wait.. no, it doesn't.

Anarchy works for 95% of your daily life.

Source? You know since you had a statistic prepared and everything...

It's empiric. What activities did you perform today that didn't require the government? You choose what you ate, drank, watched on TV, browsed certain websites and lots of other things. I'd be willing to guess that easily 95% of the decisions you made today were done without the aid of the government.

Since I'm talking about your life, not some generalized statistic, then you tell me if I'm right or wrong.

Having spent as much time as im assuming you have doing the things on your list, I still fully disagree with you. I would say the vast majority of my waking hours are spent under governance. I will make this point first, society does not persist in the absence of government. Hierarchy is a natural unavoidable outcome in nearly all social species on this planet. The interactions with other members of your species (or lack thereof) you consider menial are actually behaviors establishing your position in this hierarchy.

Now the luxuries and activities you insist upon being anarchist are provided to you by a governing body. For instance if your internet provider decides there is only enough energy for you to get 1 hour of reddit in each day and they have the ability to fully stop your internet access, then that's all the time you would get to spend on reddit each day. Not to mention the system which keeps any business running is a hierarchy system. You can even stack these hierchy systems side by side with examples such as: business/hierarchy A is a road building bsuiness, business/hierarchy B sells asphalt and thus the success of business/hierarchy A is dependent upon the propper governance of business/hierarchy B. Society becomes an interwoven network of small hierarchys. So now that we see that a form of government is at work in nearly every example you mentioned, how much time have you really spent in pure anarchy today?

Hierarchy is a natural unavoidable outcome in nearly all social species on this planet.

I agree, but there is a difference between voluntary (peaceful) and involuntary (coercive) hierarchy. The job I pick is voluntary, if I serve on a jury that decision is involuntary.

if your internet provider decides there is only enough energy for you to get 1 hour of reddit in each day and they have the ability to fully stop your internet access, then that's all the time you would get to spend on reddit each day.

Not true, if they did that, then I would change internet providers. This is like saying that if you had a girlfriend that didn't like to kiss you or have sex, then you're out of luck. The reality is that you can change girlfriends.

business/hierarchy A is a road building bsuiness, business/hierarchy B sells asphalt and thus the success of business/hierarchy A is dependent upon the propper governance of business/hierarchy B.

Yes, to a certain degree this is true. Thats why I made this example about you. I suspect that you don't own a road building business. So while some peoples lives might be more heavily governed, I still peg yours as less than there business people. Again I'm relying on your honesty.

Society becomes an interwoven network of small hierarchys.

These same hierarchies though can be accomplished voluntarily and produce superior results. This is the classic story of "I, pencil" which highlights all the trivial aspect of a mere pencil and how it's impossible for government to control each of these aspects. While you might claim (and I would agree) the government interjects a few rules in the thousands of decisions every day, it's impossible for the government to control everything.

Hey, if you want a government bureaucrat to decide who you marry, how many children you have, what you eat, when you sleep and what kind of car you drive, then more power to you. I on the other hand enjoy making these decisions in my own life and feel I make better ones than any bureaucrat might.

if you want a government bureaucrat to decide who you marry, how many children you have, what you eat, when you sleep and what kind of car you drive, then more power to you. I on the other hand enjoy making these decisions in my own life and feel I make better ones than any bureaucrat might.

This is hilarious.

1. You imply that currently a bureaucrat decides who I marry (ludicrous except for the gay thing), number of children I have, when I sleep and what kind of car I have. None of these things (except gay marriage) are true.

2. Anarchism requires that every member of society be anarchist. If so much as one person decides to seize power that person is either killed (wow) or takes control and the system breaks.

3. Considering 2, anarchism requires heavy ideological similarities between society members.

Conclusion: Anarchism requires everyone behave a certain way; totalitarianism. This is the antithesis of your goal, right?

I am not attempting to defend the status quo, just to argue that anarchism is not a realistic solution.

You imply that currently a bureaucrat decides who I marry

You missed the whole conversation. I wasn't imply that these things occur today, but the exact opposite. My point was that 95% of our lives are without government control (i.e. anarchy). To be afraid of taking over responsibility for that other 5% is irrational.

Anarchism requires that every member of society be anarchist.

not the case. Government is a monopoly on the use of force. Anarchy allows for everyone to defend themselves. Therefore if my next door neighbor declares himself a state and hires men in blue uniforms to arrest me, then I can easily defend myself.

Considering 2, anarchism requires heavy ideological similarities between society members.

This is a valid point. Thats why I speak to people about anarchy. Once people get over the initial fear, then they start to more easily accept that it's much better than our current system.

Again, if my neighbor hires guys in blue uniforms to arrest me, anarchy does require that you don't recognize that these blue uniformed bullies have any legitimacy. When I shoot them for bullying me, I don't want your criticism. It doesn't serve me much good to scare you away from me, because you think I'm a murderer for defending myself.

So yes, we need a society that doesn't accept things like the TSA at airports as normal.

Conclusion: Anarchism requires everyone behave a certain way; totalitarianism. This is the antithesis of your goal, right?

Again not really. If a majority of people agreed that people in blue uniforms are not some experts in justice, then we don't need 100% compliance. If 30% of the population fears me as a murderer, then that still leaves me 70% to which to associate with. I just need enough like minded individuals in order to live my life. What percentage that is I don't know, but obviously it would have to include people from all the different essential services that think like me (e.g. a farmer to supply me food).

Like I said to the previous commenter, you don't realize it, but 95% of your daily life is already anarchy.

can easily defend myself.

I suppose I disagree here. I don't want the current state, but I value the idea of a legitimate force to control the population. My desires are probably more fanciful than yours though, lol.

95% of your daily life

I will accept that 95% of my personal choices are already anarchy, but when those choices directly interact with the products of a non-anarchist state, I think the statistic is misleading.

I value the idea of a legitimate force to control the population

Control them for what? Do you want the use of force to defend yourself or compel others to serve you?

but when those choices directly interact with the products of a non-anarchist state,

I agree it is a made up statistic, in that I get to decide where I drive my car, yet the government oversees the road. In my daily life though, I rarely have a need for those roads to be government owned as opposed to private ownership. My point being that my direct interaction with government as they exert their influence over the roads is trivial. For all that it matters to me, it could be a private owner that just followed the exact same procedures.

compel others to serve you?

Calm down dude, lol. Regardless of context, there are violent people with differing ideologies who will use violence to achieve their ends.

Although anarchism may enable me to defend myself against these people, there is no defense against the mob.

I suppose I want Gort, from the Day the Earth Stood Still. I accept that this is an unrealistic desire.

private ownership of roads.

Wait wait. I thought we were talking about anarchism. Since when does private property exist in anarchism? Besides that, the private owner would not be bound in any way to follow the same procedures. It would instantly lead to ghettos as the poor could not pay the fee to even get to work or decent areas. Bad idea.

Secondly, if we institute anarchism, but retain private property, what is the point? All that does is allow capital to completely run rampant. Instant paupers of the most of us, with no support from the rich, and no state either. Sounds bad.

there is no defense against the mob.

Yes and no. Modern firearms allow for some very good odds. Also the aspect you said, where a certain proportion of people need to have common values to band together. In other words, if there is a mob that can possibly assemble to rape me, then an equal mob might assemble to defend me.

besides that, if I really have a need for a police force, then I can always hire a private police to fight off the mob for me.

Since when does private property exist in anarchism?

Anarchy means absense of government, not absence of society. The term you're thinking of is chaos. Chaos != anarchy.

Besides that, the private owner would not be bound in any way to follow the same procedures.

I agree. McDonalds is not bound to serve Big Macs, but they do so because it benefits them. In the same fashion the owner of a road (i.e. toll road) would be interested in providing a big mac road to it's customers.

All that does is allow capital to completely run rampant. Instant paupers of the most of us, with no support from the rich, and no state either.

you're assuming that the government today works for the benefit of the poor and not the rich. I think the 2008 bailouts of the rich should have dispelled any myth about that already.

besides that, like I said already, 95% of your life is anarchy. If private owners were to run rampant over your life, they would have already done so by now. McDonalds has no incentive to force you to buy their Big Macs, because it's easier for them to simply get your willing participation.

Change your way of looking at life! :D

The creepy part to me was that the Bush propaganda in that thread sounded just like the Obama propaganda in other threads, at Democratic Underground, etc.

The Democrats used DU as a test bed for their Obama propaganda... looks like reddit is being sold out as a test bed for any propaganda whore that wants to play.

I'm surprised we didn't hit 70,000 members the moment the Bush post hit the front page.

Call me crazy, but I think its just a propaganda stunt. I mean just like Obama winning the peace prize, its all just an act to get the sheeple to go along and enter the slaughter house.

If these Nazi's that are worse than Hitler weren't actors we'd defeated them so hard, but they hide behind their layer of "humanitarians", "anthropologists" and all these false covers to look non threatening.

I just suggested they look at the photo's on this page.

http://juliusblog.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_archive.html

"Fabulous aluminum headgear."

Phrase of the day.

Fork the code, modify to be resilient to bots, share equity with users/devs based on value contributed.

I don't think anyone should be on a crusade to educate others. I think that everyone should be on a crusade to educate THEMSELVES. If everyone did this, we wouldn't have to worry about the Bush's of the world.

Nothing. What you are seeing is the death of reddit. Every online community goes through stuff like this before it breaks down. Digg might be the most recent and well known example, but I have been frequenting forums and boards for over 10 years, this is usually how it ends. At least we have somewhat independent subreddits which will survive much longer than the decline of /r/all.

r/projectoverhaul has just recently been created with this very issue in mind. FAQ

Silly Bush

We are a community of skeptics, go out and be skeptical blatantly. When you see posts which scream sensationalism are working simply issue a call to arms on this subreddit and anywhere else you can find support. Sitting at our monitors in our "fabulous aliminum hedgear" we have the power to mold these threads into platforms for our cause, all we have to do is upvote/downvote/comment. /r/conspiracy must become enlightenment en masse. Post the sources you find supporting your claim or debunking other's. And for Science's sake if you see something you think is bullshit, research it and then proceed to call out afore mentioned bullshit. Its not much, its not instant change, but is what we can do to start changing our world.

OperationChangeHistory has been in full swing for decades my friend.

I really do not know what to think about those comments. Crikey the guys a satanist,,,not that there's anything wrong with that. I wonder if GW was asking the child to join him at Bohemian Grove?

You guys are a bunch of fucking weirdos? Definitely in subscribing from conspiracy. I thought it would have cool stuff for me to ponder about. Instead I find a bunch of wacko communist, anarchist, hateful, god knows what other kind of assholes. You make me sick

I can't believe he has the nerve to help Africa!

You should realize your on the internet. Free Speech has it's price, That's to endure the negatives, and opposing views. You cannot take control and get it back. Unless you want to give up free speech.

There will always be a percentage who will say the unbelievable contrary to that persons view point. The troll statement. Learn to let it go or forever be frustrated or leave.

Most of the successful politicians I've met are very like able and charismatic. That's how they get the job. I remember watching a speech Obama gave and then he worked the room signing programs and such for everyone and I remember thinking this guy is good man, he's got it. He shook everyone's hand, smiled and had relevant remarks and I think everyone who interacted with him was genuinely won over. Ive heard the same about Bill Clinton. It's just a shame they're not more successful in actually leading the country to a more positive place.

To be fair, he did increase foreign aid to Africa by a lot.

Still vastly unqualified to lead anything, but this is one of the few (very few) good things to come out of his presidency.

Remember "foreign aid" which are loans to people in poor countries are just another way to indebt their raw resources to the lender who will ultimately get control of those resources when the payments aren't kept up.

So unless that "foreign aid" was actually GIVING them something with no restrictions, then it was just another way of gaining some control over the place.

I doubt it was him. It was most likely an idea hatched by his father to aid their family image and executed by a PR firm or some other groups of people with w as the face.

Foreign aid is when the poor people of a rich country give money to the rich people of a poor country. ~ Johnny Hart, BC Comic Strip

Never surprises me just how many people there are on Reddit.

Four years lurking and I still see stuff that makes me shake my head in confusion and/or disappointment.

The saddest thing is, these are real people. I've met some pretty interesting people in the different places I've lived, and man, some of these crazy people on Reddit just mirror people I've met in real life, with the exact same beliefs.

I grew up wishing for the destruction of America because of all it's hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, GW achieved that. Now I am totally confused. He destroyed it in a different way that I was thinking,lol

Of course he is too brain dead to accomplish that but he was the shadow governments distration

Change your way of looking at life! :D

Anarchy! Because it works for the other social species on our planet! Oh wait.. no, it doesn't.

You imply that currently a bureaucrat decides who I marry

You missed the whole conversation. I wasn't imply that these things occur today, but the exact opposite. My point was that 95% of our lives are without government control (i.e. anarchy). To be afraid of taking over responsibility for that other 5% is irrational.

Anarchism requires that every member of society be anarchist.

not the case. Government is a monopoly on the use of force. Anarchy allows for everyone to defend themselves. Therefore if my next door neighbor declares himself a state and hires men in blue uniforms to arrest me, then I can easily defend myself.

Considering 2, anarchism requires heavy ideological similarities between society members.

This is a valid point. Thats why I speak to people about anarchy. Once people get over the initial fear, then they start to more easily accept that it's much better than our current system.

Again, if my neighbor hires guys in blue uniforms to arrest me, anarchy does require that you don't recognize that these blue uniformed bullies have any legitimacy. When I shoot them for bullying me, I don't want your criticism. It doesn't serve me much good to scare you away from me, because you think I'm a murderer for defending myself.

So yes, we need a society that doesn't accept things like the TSA at airports as normal.

Conclusion: Anarchism requires everyone behave a certain way; totalitarianism. This is the antithesis of your goal, right?

Again not really. If a majority of people agreed that people in blue uniforms are not some experts in justice, then we don't need 100% compliance. If 30% of the population fears me as a murderer, then that still leaves me 70% to which to associate with. I just need enough like minded individuals in order to live my life. What percentage that is I don't know, but obviously it would have to include people from all the different essential services that think like me (e.g. a farmer to supply me food).

Like I said to the previous commenter, you don't realize it, but 95% of your daily life is already anarchy.

I value the idea of a legitimate force to control the population

Control them for what? Do you want the use of force to defend yourself or compel others to serve you?

but when those choices directly interact with the products of a non-anarchist state,

I agree it is a made up statistic, in that I get to decide where I drive my car, yet the government oversees the road. In my daily life though, I rarely have a need for those roads to be government owned as opposed to private ownership. My point being that my direct interaction with government as they exert their influence over the roads is trivial. For all that it matters to me, it could be a private owner that just followed the exact same procedures.