HughJ

I think the society ended up manifesting some of the worst aspects of current developed Western society in the most realistic way possible. Outside of the worst slums in the country, you're not going to be going to bed hungry - $10 will get you enough food for the day out of McDonalds - and you don't have to fight off warlords or genocidal maniacs like in Africa. But in the Information Era, pretty much everything we say or do is recorded - on the phone via wiretaps, online via IP address, and a large amount of private corporate data is sold through the black market to other governments and (typically foreign) businesses of questionable legality. It's almost impossible to live down anything you say or do on the Internet, at least provided somebody has the power to trace computer data and location of access. We no longer suffer as much from the transience and inaccuracy of human memory as we see in oral histories and basic societies, but that came at the cost of privacy and a sort of freedom to get away from past mistakes. In many ways, a society that makes the human genome and eugenics part of mainstream knowledge and the market is just the next level of sacrificing privacy and freedom. People will always find a way to manipulate this circumstance, even outside of a capitalist rat-race that encourages the full utilization of information (for better or worse). Now you can be held culpable not even for what you did (in a compromised state of mind or otherwise) but for what you could do. In 2016, you might be denied a job at a law firm, despite all of your skills and talents, because you posted nude pics online when you were 17. In Gattaca's hypothetical future (which could be set as close as 2045), you can get denied any job above that of a janitor because the fact that you might die of a heart attack at 40 makes you a liability to any employer or insurance firm. So I'm against the introduction of human engineering to society at large, for intrinsic faith-like convictions as well as the potentially disastrous effects on human society. You can't always expect revolutionary inventions to work out as "well" as the uneasy state of Mutually Assured Destruction that the nuclear warhead put us in. Inventions push us forward, regardless of whether we want to go back. Perhaps in outstanding circumstances, I might be alright with the application of genetic manipulation - such as if we could reconfigure a person's genetic data and inject the modified sample in a form of gene therapy to help counter a form of cancer. But even then, we could be opening Pandora's box by legally sanctioning such activity, as the materials and methods could quickly go to the black market and revolutionize society from the bottom up. You might argue that we could apply genetic manipulation for the furthering of humankind - such as if the government were to engineer an elite group of physically advanced human beings to explore space - but aside from all of the ethical complications in deciding the future of a human being from birth, it would be much easier to just send robots.

A lot of it was contextual/anecdotal because it followed a (admittedly unique) person's life in the society. There were very few exposition drops, and the world was indeed just foreign enough for you to be intrigued but not so far out you felt abandoned as a viewer (at least for me). It's a great cinematic work in that respect, and chronically underrated A large factor of the movie is the heavy amount of discrimination that ends up being placed on people born naturally. Slurs include "degenerates," "God children," and if you want to show you're not all that prejudiced, "love children." People predisposed to physical limitations and short longevity, despite intelligence, talent, or even without confirmed disability (as in the case of the hero, who has a 99% predisposition for heart disease, but seems to be fine) are not allowed into the higher rungs of the corporate rat race because they are seen as a liability. Despite the fact that discrimination based on genetic data is not legal, the law is largely ignored, and people's DNA is sampled regardless in the form of drug tests. Furthermore, nearly everyone we see in the movie is white (Caucasian), and displays Anglo-Saxon features (despite the main character's Italian father), and I doubt it's by chance or because the director's racist. You come to the uncomfortable realization that if you really want to give your child every edge they can have in their life, you might as well make them appeal to existing prejudices. Have a son, not a daughter... and if you have any genes in your body for lighter skin, give them that, too, so that they can evade racist discrimination. The promotion of eugenics among the general populace allows prejudice to spiral out of control because the unfortunate fact is that it's always been easier to submit than to rise up - in Gattaca, you don't even have to submit, you can just join the discriminatory side by engineering a perfect child.

Really embracing the wasteland on this thread huh viri

Try green tea sometime. If you get a cup at the right place it's almost strong enough to taste like soup

I'd advise both of you to watch Gattaca, a 1997 film starring Ethan Hawke. It's an intriguing story about an impostor as he seeks to accomplish his childhood dreams, all within the context of a society defined by eugenics. I'm against eugenic procedures, but not firmly. The idea of changing the body drastically, even before conception as in the case of Gattaca, doesn't sit well with the Rasta in me. Though I am willing to take medicine or undergo surgery that would save my life (Bob Marley's devoutness famously killed him), in a way, selective reproduction is crossing a line for me.

I've been weighing the idea of the subforum in my head for a while and I think we just need to keep from telescoping the past few days in magnitude. A large amount of the debate threads Hunter and others have recently constructed centered on politics and the political race, which just recently "ended" - those are naturally going to be more heated and active than even later political threads centered on Trump's presidency, or more general subjects like the ethics of the death penalty. Maybe we should give the subject a week or so before beginning a petition so people don't sign up for something they have no intention of actually taking interest in. Personally, I'm still interested in a debate hall if there were to be a lot of threads like the Philosopher's Gazebo (although that's much more of a constructive, informative symposium revolving around Viri's own convictions and thoughts) because they provide a nicer backdrop to the occasional hot topic.

Reminds me of Pachelbel's canon (a personal favorite)

Yeah Some questions that come to mind about the role of the moderator: You said they wouldn't be forum authority, but would they be a subforum authority? (As in the RP section) To what extent can the moderator get involved in the debate? - Can they speak only objectively (not coming into the debate with set arguments, only working with others')? - Should they only enforce the rules, or can they provide other logical critiques of others' arguments? Would it be a constant role assigned to a group of people, or can you 'turn off' the responsibility of mediation for a debate you would like to subjectively participate in? How much say does the OP (provided they aren't a moderator) have in the rules of their specific thread? I'm not looking for anything absolute, I just want to get your inclinations on these ideas - whether they fit with your concept of a moderator, or should be polled

I voted Johnson I traditionally lean Republican despite having comparatively liberal social views (pro-choice, marriage equality, transgender rights and medical validation). Normally I can overlook the conflicting (or absent) social rhetoric of Republican candidates regarding my personal views, but this time around I felt Donald Trump was too inflammatory to get behind Essentially I'd say I was NeverHillary but also couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump, so I settled on the middle-right Libertarian Party (whose nominee, by the way, often leans left of strict libertarian principles). I did so in the hopes that he would get enough nation support in the actual election to receive millions in federal funding for future campaigns, but alas, I do not think this occurred I would have been content with the outcome of the election either way. I saw Hillary as a sort of Obama rerun, ideally taking the ideas of minimum wage bump and infrastructure rebuilding from Bernie. I saw Trump as a conservative candidate who would have been able to enact change in the form of a more isolationist policy, restoration of ties with Russia (which is happening, wooo), and promotion of socially liberal concepts (LGBTQ+ community, gentrification of inner cities) I can definitely get behind people who voted for any candidate provided they put a good amount of logical thought into their choice, and I can at least understand those who resigned themselves to a straight ticket or a non-vote. Leon, do you mind explaining the allure of the Green Party? I know their proposed improvements in terms of student debt and government revamping sound good, but Stein provided little to no explanation as to how. Few of the candidates did, really, but she's the most widely-voted candidate I know little to nothing about.

How do we go about creating a petition? Adding a poll option post, with "Yes" for a subforum being a signature?

1. Earl Grey 2. Chamomile 3. Jasmine 4. Green (Sencha) 5. Generic Black

I'm down for a subforum Maybe we can have a petition? Something about the fact that most debates end up in the Trainer's Journal (personal opinion/anecdote) section discourages objectivity...

You just spun it like the American citizen's voice matters only for the week or so that they can vote in the Presidential election. Now you're saying that you actually can use your voice to support causes outside of it? You can't crucify somebody for voting their conscience in the election, in a choice that happened to differ from yours, like it was the one chance they had to change the country; and then turn around and pump yourself up as this great SJW who "fights for the disadvantaged" whenever you can. That sort of, you know, makes absolutely no sense, at all Nope, you're still not getting it. You still don't get that there's a GIGANTIC difference between someone who runs with genocide in their ticket and someone who doesn't. How can that be so hard to understand? If you're voting for Trump, you're voting for isolationist foreign policy (if you even care about foreign policy) and for the good of your family and friends. The whole point of representative democracy is that people choose who they think is best to lead, or choose the decision they think is best for their loved ones and the American people. It's also really funny to me that you're still assuming I voted for Trump I'm glad.

Well there is a pretty big difference between constructive dialogue and death threats All I'm saying is that the anonymity of the Internet has promoted the latter more than the former

Expectations: Reality: Side note there's somebody lurking named "Pain Train McCain"

You don't have to be high and mighty to get your expectations dropped lol Ah well as a YouTube veteran this is nothing We should do a study on how the anonymity of the Internet has allowed for steadily escalating violence (in language especially) when it comes to any controversial issue. The unprecedented venom in this election cycle really was to be expected when you think about it

So do you speak out and stand up for the disadvantaged or do you just take that fatalistic approach and not do anything? You can't do both I didn't "sacrifice" anyone. Who are you even addressing? Come check my room, there's no altar or blood. You're just not getting the point that exercising the right to vote is rarely a crime legally, and should almost never be considered one socially. And that it wasn't one here. If what you said about the intention about your "Hitler" analogy is true, it really does take someone actively promoting subjugation and genocide as a fundamental part of their ticket to justify this exaggerated reaction of social expulsion from a community intended to be inclusive. Not even Hitler voters fit that bill. Whatever, all this is a waste only as far as you think it is. If you don't want to offer any valid justification for your desired expulsion of Trump supporters from the LGBTQ+ community, then we'll just disregard it and move on.

Why does everyone fall back on Hitler like it's some kind of trump card? When Hitler ran for Reichspräsident, he spoke about uniting Germany, aiding children, and restoring German power. Here, watch some of his speeches. He drew on anti-Jewish sentiment like any other demagogue, and then proved himself the exception of anti-Other campaigns when, in a state of mass militarization, he passed horrifying legislation for the extermination of the Jewish people. If he ran on the platform of literally "rounding up and killing" a bunch of Jews, he would not gotten nearly the amount of support he did. I'd say "he wouldn't have won" but he didn't even win that election. Do you see now why Hitler isn't some godlike trump card for every campaigner relying on anti-Other sentiment? In many cases, including here, he's barely relevant. Do you think it's not possible for a person to vote for Trump on his pro-reconstruction rhetoric, and then vote and speak out against any discriminatory reforms his cabinet promotes and tries to pass? Do you not think it's possible for someone to go out and campaign for LGBTQ+ rights after voting for Trump? News flash: this is a democracy, and a free country. You can do those things! It might be hard to believe in an era of duopoly, and especially hard to believe if you choose to oversimplify the world into black and white and then pride yourself on it. But it's possible. Are you talking about me?

Maybe Cyanna thought they'd be "excused" because all they did was exercise their basic right as an American citizen to vote for who they think should lead the country. Clearly, members of the SJW community - I'll call you that, because Cyanna referenced the LGBTQ+ community, which is a group of individuals united by their gender identification and sexual orientation, not their political opinion - would rather call that a drastic personal attack and stew in their own self-victimization than constructively acknowledge the other person's choice. It's almost like civil political discourse is supposed to be expected in human society. And when I mean civil, I don't mean "no F-bombs please", I mean the basic acknowledgement that valid views exist outside your own. It's something America hasn't seen in a while, and for all intents and purposes, had their eyes gouged out for this election. Criticism? You mean this? That's not criticism. That's defamation, assumption, and exclusion from a community that's meant to extend beyond pettiness and political interests. Great job keeping up the Clinton Tradition of digging your own grave.

I watched MSNBC's coverage of the entire race from beginning to end. Though they obviously had some liberal bias, they kept it very professional and neutral throughout. I was pleasantly surprised at how they managed to make intellectual commentary on the race, based heavily on statistics (it was very refreshing for me, as most of what has come out of major news outlets for the past year has seemed misleading, paid-off, or clickbaity). One of the women casters at one point raised the excellent point: "What do these polls say about us?" When she said us, she meant the liberal media. The tone of her voice when she asked the question implied the meaning, "Were we, the liberal media, responsible for Trump's rise?" I'd say yes. Hunter, you do touch on the conservatives of America that felt increasingly distant from the decision-making on the coasts, in the urban centers, and in Washington, in order of specificity. And while pundit statistics do state that Trump won a clear majority among this population, he also won 43% of the college-educated vote, the group most associated with that fast-paced liberal attitude. Now, at first glance, most people (not just Clinton supporters) would make the case that voting for Hillary was simply an educative difference - something in education makes apparent to people the instability in Donald Trump's arguments. But if that were the case, wouldn't we be seeing an even wider Clinton majority in the educated? I didn't major in political science, but from all the pundits I've been following throughout this crazy ride, I've picked up that there's never just some unanimous motive or circumstance that dictates how a population will split. I think the MSNBC newscaster's point really brought to light the unintended role media played in isolating college-educated voters. When discussing the role of the media in this election, two well-discussed points are the news' ridiculous affinity for Donald Trump, especially in the Republican primary, and their often blatant rigging for Hillary in the Democratic primary. But I'll make the case that many college-educated voters became so disillusioned with the media and its sorry excuse for journalism (pardon my subjectivity) that they came to associate it with the establishment and aligned themselves with Trump. And now that I think about it, a 9-point lead for Clinton among the college-educated population is a big lead - but now consider the role third parties had in splitting the ticket. Johnson alone received 4 million votes this year, and I'd estimate a third of them came from that same disillusioned college-educated population. Look at that pewresearch article - Clinton led Trump 52% to 43%, with 5% going to neither. In a world without third parties, I'd say 3.5 of that 5% would go to Trump, and Clinton would lead by only 7 points among the college-educated. The fact that so many college-educated people were willing to vote third party also speaks volumes about how many were willing to vote Trump, despite having lived in an almost certainly liberal environment for three or four years. The media really dug its own grave, huh?

Yeah I'm with you, the comment wasn't excusing Pence or his viewpoints, it was a small point of optimism I've disliked Pence from the beginning, so I suppose marginalizing him was my best attempt at coping with the fact he's gonna be head of Senate Realistically I don't believe he'll put across the "reforms" many are fearing, and you are correct that his rhetoric ranges from sickening to downright incorrect Many Trump supporters react to him with indifference, and if they were to look further into him they'd probably realizes he's just as establishment-flavored as Hillary

Pence was nothing more than a figurehead added to Trump's campaign for GOP approval He'll be more ineffectual than Biden

When will Clinton supporters finally move on from their obsession with gender? When will they finally get over their buzzword "historic" that they throw out literally once an interview on her campaign? She identifies as a woman, and in that respect she represented something different. But she was nothing new. She's a product of the establishment, someone married to a past president who served as Secretary of State and First Lady. She utilized Super PACs for a quarter of her campaign funding. She's a career politician who has racked up millions per speech at private events. Just because she had a vagina and identified as a woman didn't mean she was anything new. You think Tim Kaine or Joe Biden really could have done any better? If the voter base that legitimately failed to turn up for Clinton - 7 million less than voted for Obama - really didn't show up because she was female, that says more about the liberals' two-facedness than it does about the conservatives' misogyny.